Janic wrote:
Remundo: So the man who is omnivorous is entitled to eat meat, it seems according to your last message.
Ahmed responded perfectly
By a dialectical pirouette, yes,
Animals mainly follow their instincts and men their crops ...
It is a pirouette that expresses the reality of our world.
The consumption of meat is indeed of the cultural type because to be able to eat it, it must use artifices whose nature nature did not provide unlike the rest of the living world. So it is possible for him obviously, but at the expense of other ecological aspects as well as health of the populations.
Man can eat meat, not by artifice, but by cognitive abilities and technical achievements far superior to other animals.
Use weapons, knives. It's technical but also artifices. Try, like real carnivores, to kill prey with your only natural tools and you risk starving yourself before you get there, which was the case with our distant ancestors ... supposedly.
But it's taking the problem under the wrong angle. Man invented the atomic bomb thanks to his cognitive abilities and technical achievements too. Does this justify it? He invented slavery, concentration camps and all the rest because of his cognitive abilities as well. He even fed his cows with animal flour and we saw the result!
In biology and comparative anatomy, these cognitive and technical criteria
do not come into play. Physiology determines the criteria adapted to one mode of food and not to another. After that for reasons, understandable, circumstances such as the lack of adequate food, the human has turned to other sources, it can be understood, but we are no longer in these situations in our time in the situations of food abundance we know in our regions.
On the other hand cultural habits of meat consumption remain to the detriment of the health of the humans.
Eating meat without excess is good for your health,
still a common place that continues! The notion of excess is vague according to each and scientifically impossible to define. All addictologists are unanimous in asserting that it is not the dose that makes the poison, but its only presence whatever the product in question. If the bidoche is not a suitable product whether in small or large quantities it is not suitable for ...! You think like a picrate producer who defends his business and relies on the same reasoning "
a good day, three good morning the damage ""
a little drink never hurt anyone", etc ... and the rulers (who drink themselves ... or who hunt) will not go against themselves and a profession which represents an important economic sector ... such as breeding. Same cause, same effects!
and it is besides the supply of proteins which allowed the increase of the cerebral mass, and thus the faculties of adaptation increased, in a virtuous circle
This is the kind of stupid thing invented by the lobbies of the bidoche. If that were so, all the carnivores who consume exclusively of the bogey would have seen a huge increase in their cerebral mass, much more than at home, when the virtuous this term is rather poorly adapted. When it comes to protein intake (or more precisely amino acids) these are found in abundance in plant products and if it were otherwise the largest and largest animals on this planet such as elephants, rhinos, hippopotamuses, giraffes, cattle, etc. would have disappeared from this earth, for where do they find their proteins? These are the lobbies of the hawk that come out of such nonsense and everyone believes them.
animal husbandry is not necessarily anti-ecological. Industrial farms stuffed with food are.
You tend to see the farm as that of the little farmer who makes a few cows and a few hens. This mode could not meet the demand for chickens, eggs, for example, any more than in a bidoche. No, the problem is global with a growing demand from the so-called developing countries, as shown by China's rising standard of living, and all countries with a better standard of living want to do the same. it becomes an ecological emergency as much concerning the deforestations to increase the agricultural surfaces for the end of animal food, watering of the cultures, transport of these products towards the rich countries, etc .. and of course of the GAS. Even if France decreased production and consumption (we can dream) the machine is launched on the world plan and without possibility of curbing this momentum.
that it is necessary to watch over the welfare of the animals, during their life and at the slaughterhouse, I completely agree.
Re-argument widely used. Some settlers also ensured the welfare of their slaves,
only, that was not justified at all from the ethical point of view. When death waits at the end of the hall, good being spent does not count much.
NB: the human spirit is bizarre, it navigates between reason and feeling. You know how, with skill, you use your neurons to analyze the technique in mechanics, but more with regard to another sector like the one that touches you emotionally.
I am also a technician and it is this form of reasoning which allowed me to dissect all this false argumentation of the lobbies of all kinds, but if I had been breeder ... who knows?
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Seriously, what did he do with these new intellectual abilities? Do you know a species that has reached such a degree of self-destruction? 
Only a voluntary decision, as you mentioned it, would be likely to counter the determinisms at stake: we can not with impunity do the economy of the little freedom which is allotted to us.
