In the last installment of this series, I outlined the long and storied history of dietarily-indicated mental illness, which manifests as vegetarianism. The history of vegetarianism in the US is one predicated entirely upon religious fervor, asexuality (or in the case of Kellogg, klismaphilia that left him grossed out by sex but satisfied by enemas), and anger, rather than a desire to necessarily be healthy. Alternatively, it was predicated upon a love for all living creatures, which although misplaced, was at least the more rational of the two bases for this dietary regime. Now we'll examine the modern vegetarians' vociferous claims about the superiority of their health with this dietary regime, in the face of reality, common sense, and essentially every fact since the dawn of the recorded human word. Though this is the rhetorical equivalent of kicking a quadrapalegic baby, this, like kicking the baby, is simply too much fun up with which to pass.
I refuse to end a sentence with a preposition, no matter how ridiculous it makes the sentence.
- Similarity to other primates, who eat less than 5% of their calories in the form of meat. I'm sure that it goes without saying that this list makes you angry enough to headbutt a dog. As dogs are cool, I'd not advise it, because headbutting dogs generally leads to a massive loss of testosterone points. Unless, of course, it's a chihuahua or other purse dog, in which case it's a massive gain of testosterone points if you cook and eat the animal after headbutting it to death. Purse dogs are not dogs, because dogs, by their very nature, capture and kill squirrels. Therefore, if a dog could lose a one-on-one battle with a tree-dwelling rodent, it is not a dog, and may be killed and eaten at will. Similarity to other primates is immaterial, because we diverged from our closest primate relatives millions of years ago. The main feature lacking in the chart above, which is bandied about wholesale by idiot vegetarians the world around, as they're too fucking weak and lazy to do any research off the internet, and too stupid to engage in any critical thinking, is GUT SIZE. Ever see a gorilla at the zoo? They're frugivores, which is what we're allegedly supposed to be, according to the tree-hugging, estrogenic lunatics running every vegetarian website on the planet. Gorillas have gigantic guts, which are necessary for them, due to the fact that all of the vegetation they eat needs to ferment as part of the digestive process. Stomach size is markedly different between us and other great apes- humans' stomach small intestine, and colon are 10-24%, 56-67%, and 17-23% of total gut volume in humans, while for orangs and chimps it is 17-20%, 23-28%, 52-54% in orangs and chimps, respectively. In other words, they have massive colons to support fermentation of vegetation, whereas we have comparatively large stomachs, to digest more meat.(Milton, pp 100-102) Humans and chimps split from the same ancestral tree 2.5 million years ago, and spurred on the path to a belly 40% smaller than the mostly vegetarian chimpanzee, and a brain 3 times larger. (Paleo Diet, p 38) Thus, even though early hominids had teeth very similar to the modern gorilla, (EHD 43), modern humans have changed drastically.
Australopithecus afarensis. Doesn't look much like modern human, either
- "There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr. Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores)." (Huffington Post). - This argument is one of the more fucking absurd arguments floating around, and it's a sad state of affairs that Richard Leakey somehow got caught up in this. Neanderthals unequivocally ate a diet that consisted of virtually nothing but meat- 10000-12000 calories of it a day. They also lacked sharp teeth and claws, but guess what? They didn't need them, because THEY HAD STONE TOOLS. In fact, hominids have been using tools for over 2 million years- plenty of time for them to develop the requisite biology for the digestion of meat. (Science Daily) Neanderthals had even bigger brains than modern humans, which is important due to the fact that their diet was so heavily meat-based, and the metabolic requirements of larger brains would necessitate calorically-dense food consumption, which means they had to eat meat, or they'd fucking die. This is why gorillas are lazy motherfuckers, and exhibit very little social interaction, whereas humans have shit like Facebook, because they honestly believe they need a level of social interaction and personal involvement with near-perfect strangers that would make the world's greatest narcissists of bygone eras seem comparatively humble. (Milton p. 104) The adoption of carnivory by Oldowan hominins can be linked directly to the evolution of the hominin brain and social systems, according to Robert Blumenschine, and the very fact that this was facilitated by the use of stone tools distinguishes us from non-human primates, as their lack of tool use limits the usefulness of their predation. (EHD, p. 167-168)
- Plant eating creatures have the longest lifespans. Really? Not according to scientists who study humans. According to scientists at USC, "t"The “meat-adaptive gene”, known as ApoE3, is unique to humans and is a variant of the cholesterol transporting gene, apolipoprotein E, which regulates inflammation and many aspects of aging in the brain and arteries." (Futurity) Additionally, the average lifespan of a crocodile is between 50 and 100 years, and whales live up to 200 years... which pretty much just takes an elephant-sized shit on the vegetarian animal lifespan theory.
People who read books know a fact that vegetarians do not- that at one point in history, the Earth's total population of humans dropped to between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals, due to the eruption of Mt. Toba in Sumatra, which killed off most of the available plant and animal life on Earth in 71,000 BC. During this period of time, humans were confined to an extraordinarily small area of Africa that escaped glaciation, where they subsisted on a diet that was "approximately 50-70% meat and 50-30% plants, respectively." This diet was necessitated by the die-off of plants and animals, and the lack of a varied diet that could have been otherwise obtained though plant gathering. It was at this time that the Neanderthal diet came to consist of naught but meat, due to the complete lack of availability of edible vegetation, which likely lasted for at least 1000 years.(Plants/climate)
If the fact that humanity was forced to subsist on a diet of primarily meat for over 1000 years is compelling, perhaps the size of our brains is. I've already covered the fact that our encephalization necessitates the consumption of calorically dense foods, especially given the fact that our bodies are comparatively small (so we have less room for the digestion of low-energy foods). Many anthropologists attribute the massive increase in hominid brain size over the last 4 million years with the introduction of far more meat into their diets, which began with homo erectus and continued with modern humans. Others believe that it was the consumption of seafood, rife with Omega-3 fatty acids, that spawned this explosion in cranial capacity. Either way, it was the consumption of meat that led to human encephalization. A new theory has recently arisen, grabbed hold of like a life jacket on the Titanic as the veggies watch their inane theory sink like that ill-fated shitheap of a boat, that tuber played a role in human encephalization. Comically, none of them have actually read the study on which they're now basing an argument shakier than a Jenga tower in an earthquake, as one of the proponents of this theory, Harvard anthropologist Richard Wrangham, believes that his evidence for this theory is scanty.
Wherever you find a vegetarian website, you'll find the same dumbass list of vegetarians and vegans trotted out for you. The list, as you can imagine, is just as wrong as feeding soy formula to a male baby is- horribly, horribly wrong. Bill Pearl and Andreas Cahling are held aloft as two bodybuilders who ate no animal protein and yet succeeded at their sport. These two men, however, ate a fucking boatload of animal protein at every meal. They might not have been sitting down to a steak that'd choke John Candy's fat ass to death, but Pearl ate a couple of dozen eggs a day and drank fucking GALLONS of milk a day, while Cahling ate nothing but open faced goat cheese sandwiches.(peep it) Mind you, Cahling was a shitty bodybuilder, but that's beside the point. Tony Gonzalez abandoned veganism after a month of sucking, and Prince Fielder became a vegan after reading SB promptly (only to be blasted in the press as his batting average dropped lower than his daily protein consumption) In addition to these guys, you'll find a comprehensive list of about ten other people, of whom you've likely heard of none, and for good reason- they've not done anything worth knowing about. Thus, the argument that people flourish on this diet is invalid, as they'd have much more than a list of ten people, and far more accomplished people, at that, to proffer as proof of the legitimacy of this diet. Oh, and to the ten people who are going to shout : "Mac Danzig could kick your ass!" SUCK IT. If a 140 lb vegan would kick my ass in the octagon, I suppose I'd deserve the beating I received.
Vegetarianism is clearly only embraced by people with severe mental illnesses who are also attention whores. They wish to foist their idiocy upon others due to the fact that they feel tremendously insecure about the poor life decisions they've made, and are incapable of defending themselves from the predations of others due to their poor dietary decisions. As such, they'll attempt to convince anyone softheaded enough to be snowed by their half-baked arguments that they're correct, in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. As such, my friends, I believe it's high time we send them to the camps, where they belong.
"Why meat-eating humans outlive apes." Futurity. The article posts preliminary findings scheduled for publication in a special PNAScollection on “Evolution in Health and Medicine” on Jan. 26. http://www.futurity.org/science-technology/why-meat-eating-humans-outlive-apes/
"Stone Tool and Bone Find Earliest Ever Excavated." Science Daily. Nov. 5, 2003. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031105065322.htm
Milton, K. Primate diets and gut morphology: Implications for human evolution. IN: Food and Evolution: Toward a Theory of Human Food Habits, M. Harris and E.B. Ross, (eds.). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. pp. 93-116. http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/kmilton_foodevolution.pdf
Bluejay, Michael. "Humans are natural plant-eaters, according to our best evidence." June 2002. http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html
Sutherlan, William. "Plants/climate may be the key to Neanderthal Extinction." http://ezinearticles.com/?Plants/Climate-May-Be-Key-to-Neanderthal-Extinction&id=4279873
Palmer, Jack. "The Prime Movers in Hominid Encephalization" http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/The%20Prime%20Movers%20in%20Hominid%20Encephalization.pdf
Costandi, Moheb. "Diet and brain evolution: another item on the menu." http://scitizen.com/evolution/diet-brain-evolution-another-item-on-the-menu_a-27-1088.html
Ungar, Peter. Evolution of the Human Diet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Cordain, Loren. Paleo Diet. New York: Wiley, 2002.