Some people within the raw food movement say that veganism is not a natural diet for man.
I would like to explore this concept further - what are your opinions, what have you read etc to agree or disagree with this?

What is your opinion flipperjan?

Opinions:

I think it is far more natural, and less energy consuming...and friendlier...and healthier. This is just my opinion. I think that if a person had to take responsibility for raising the animal....and killing it with their own hands/implements (vs. growing their own lettuce)...then there would certainly be many more vegans.....if nothing else...out of logical laziness! I don't think one has to even be particularly conscious or ethical to understand that eating fresh fruits and vegetables is probably a more appealing lifestyle than having to chase...or even raise and kill your own animals for food. The only thing that even makes a non-vegan lifestyle possible is an absence of consciousness and responsibility....and allowing others to kill for you. Just my take.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

i was thinking that a natural diet would be one that could be followed without the need for any supplementing or venturing away from the consumption of plain natural food groups without any special treatment. needing extra EFA's, b12, algae, etc seemed to indicate that the diet didn't fulfil all the nutritional needs and was therefore not the optimum diet for humans.
this seems an ideal measure of the diets appropriateness for us but...

i think that john rose made an excellent point about even the most natural diet possibly needing suplementation of some kind to address certain defiencies (such as b12) that may arise Not due to deficiency in the diet but due to unnatural environmental factors. pollution, non-organic food, the exclusion of wild foods, unclean water, excess stress etc have all put an added burden on the body. add to that many years of consuming sad foods that may have had a negative impact on the body's ability to process foods and absorb nutrients and the need for supplementing becomes reasonable.

i do think that people can thrive on a raw vegan diet so long as they ensure that their nutritional needs are being met and that can take quite a bit of research and trial and error at the start. perhaps supplementation is advisable for some and perhaps small amounts of animal products is advisable for others (not that i am promoting either, just venturing an opinion). each individual is different after all.

I am a fresh raw vegan and it feels pretty natural to me.

Eating animals is gross once you step back from the cultural acceptance that you are used to and look at it objectively.

raw veganism keeps me alive, healthy and vibrant...that seems pretty natural to me. being the opposite is also "natural". so what does natural really mean anyway? i always put it up there on the same shelf as the word "normal" if you get my drift.

To put aside all moral/ethical grounds and look to what we may have naturally eaten ... probably wouldn't be vegan. There would probably have been some bugs, worms, etc. included. Even if said organisms were accidently eaten along with the vegetation. There is the interesting fact that most creatures, even one's that are normally more vegetarian than omnivorous usually don't turn down eggs if they come across them.

I would say that "natural" for humans is whatever we would/could eat without the use of any sort of tools and/or fire. If I had to rely on my animal catching skills and then had to strangle the poor thing to death, rip it apart, and devour it, skin, flesh, innards, still warm and dripping blood, I think I'd be starved to death in no time. Now on the other hand, I can see myself picking sweet, ripe fruit, warmed by the sun, smelling delicious, from the nearest tree. I would not quit eating until full to bursting and enjoy every bit of it.
Cheers
Ilse

if it were about what we could easily find to eat it would include bugs and eggs for sure. they are abundant year round, fruit and veg is not.

Loretta - I think that veganism probably is a natural diet for man. But how, for example would someone living very far north (or south) who live on seal etc. manage this?

David - certainly now people would be turned off if they had the remotest idea what went on in factory farms and abbatoirs but what about hundreds of years ago when such things didn't exist and people weren't squeamish because the reality of living was survival. Would they turn down meat if it was an easy supper that night? I know some people that eat road kill but would never buy meat or support the farming industry.

Coco - I wonder if people were successfully vegan before supplements were ever thought of or 'levels' could be measured even. I heard someone say that there are no vegan tribes people - I don't know if this is true or not. I have to say that I am very concerned about the state of the soil that most food is grown in. I am convinced that this has a massive effect on the nutrient value of our foods.

EZrider - I don't want to doubt you at all but I have read in your posts that you cannot stray from the 100% raw path or you begin to crave all sorts of foods that you don't really want - so how natural is it for you really, at this point in time? I'm not trying to be mean or clever just posing a thought - I hope you don't mind.

Yeah Rawangel - I do know what you mean - I probably didn't phrase my question very well.

Interesting point Gorillawar - how do you feel about eggs?

thanks everybody for your intersting answers - I hope some more come in.

flipperjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yeah Rawangel - I do know what you mean - I
> probably didn't phrase my question very well.
>
> flipperjan, you phrased your question just fine...just sharing my personal opinion on the subject. i'm probably not the best person to ask (or in this case respond) because i don't really take much stock in what someone tells me works or is best with most things. i try to lean more towards personal experience. glad you're getting some interesting points to consider however. cheers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2008 07:06PM by rawangel.

Flipperjan: Your original question was whether such a diet was more 'natural. When you get down to it......SOMEONE has to raise, care for, slaughter, and cook animals. This was true even 100's of years ago. If you go back 1000's of years.....to more hunter/gatherer type phases....hunting birds/large mammals/seafood all have their own labor-intensive elements.

-In any event, which process is more appealing, healthy and less labor-intensive and sustainable (not to mention friendlier & less bloody....eww)? I would submit that veganism certainly fills this bill. Heh..heh.

-Veganism (in my opinion) is less about whether you eat a slaughtered animal or roadkill or whatever....but less about an 'attitude' of what is better for all concerned....healthier....and of avoiding killing if at all possible/practical.

Note: None of this touches on the idea: "Would/should I eat meat if it was survival situation and this was all I had?" This is a strictly hypothetical question....and really doesn't occur in modern western society. There are very few circumstances where you are trapped.....and are going to starve unless you eat a hamburger or kill a chicken. Heh..heh.

-And let's face it (or not...lol)...that what might have been more 'natural' foods in the wild to come across......perhaps eggs...or small animals....or carrion/roadkill.....does NOT make these ideal foods for the modern man. Genetically, man was pre-programmed to seek out high-fat foods....and interpret their eating as pleasurable. Given the high-fat, processed diet of most westerners today, this pre-programming is NOT helpful. Is it 'natural'? Yes. It is helpful? No.

-Just some further speculations.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

It seems to me that the idea that people would find eating animals repugnant if they had to raise them themselves or kill them themselves is simply the result of our being more or less middle class Americans, who haven't travelled much, and possibly living in a more or less small urban area.

All over the world people eat live bugs. With gusto! Still wiggling!
[www.amazon.com]
And the markets of many countries are full of live animals, that are meant to be used as fresh meat. These animal include many we might find unacceptable as food: monkeys, lizards, dogs ( [www.chinasucks.org] ), and etc.
People in other countries and poorer people are also not squeamish about organ meats. Walk thru any China town and you will see over crowded fish, crabs, etc. in tanks. Apparently many people are also quite indifferent to both the filthy conditions animals are kept in prior to slaughter from a health standpoint as well as indifferent to the cruelty. In China Town in Philadelphia there is a restaurant with a large tank of extremely overcrowded frogs in the front window. And rural folks routinely raise some of their own meat worldwide.

Even middle class and rich people buy live lobsters to boil at home.
The world is full of cruelty, insensitivity, sadism, and ordinary self centeredness. To attempt to figure out "The Natural Diet of Man" based on our personal or our current cultural sensibilities and morality would seem scientifically unsound. "Nature" herself is certainly totally indifferent to pain and to our ideas of morality, and we are part of nature. ( See for example [www.neatorama.com] )

Perhaps we can manifest compassion in the world, and have it extend to encompass our dietary habits, but this ethical & esthetic possibility cannot logically be used to scientifically explain the evolution of Homo Sapiens diet, or anything about Homo Sapiens digestive organs.

only for those with strong stomachs and real curiosity:
[maxent.org]
[www.bioko.org]
[www.google.com]
[www.amazon.com]

also of interest:
[www.amazon.com]

Right Happyway. I hear you. In my mind, the question should be clarified in 2 ways: #1 - what might have been natural and sustaining historically.....vs. what is basically a more natural / sustaining and healthy diet for the average westerner (I certainly don't speak for other cultures and areas). In addition to what is more helpful for the environment (not to mention less painful for all creatures involved! Ha! ha!).

-Even in those cases you mention, the animals are usually raised or captured FOR the person who is eventually consuming them. If you had to go out and capture bugs, monkeys, lizards, dogs, fish, crabs, etc.,...enough to feed yourself (and/or a family)....this CAN be very labor intensive, and messy. Lord knows a human being is not naturally built like many of the more carnivorous species - but that's just my opinion. On the other hand, if you had to raise your own lettuce or radishes....not quite such a big deal. Fish may migrate and monkeys may leave the area....but native plants usually stay put (unless one of those darn monkeys eats them first!)

-It's just my personal opinion that diet high in fresh fruits & vegetables (and I don't think modern science disagrees) is generally healthier (than say the cooked, omnivorous diet which is more standard in western culture)....and easier to maintain by the individual. I believe it encourages more personal responsibility - you know?

-That is NOT to say it is right for everyone / every instance. And I certainly support the goals and dreams of the individual...100%.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

flipperjan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Loretta - I think that veganism probably is a
> natural diet for man. But how, for example would
> someone living very far north (or south) who live
> on seal etc. manage this?

Humans are tropical animals that have learned to create little tropical (i.e. indoor) climates wherever they go. I think tropical fruit would be our natural food and if we were living in the tropics, the fruit would be abundant. If we go outside our natural habitat, then it's harder to live.

David-I think we agree on what to us are the essentials. I like to grow an organic vegetable garden and would like to have an orchard some day. We, and probably everybody participating at this forum, find cruelty repellent.

I simply wish to point out what we already know, but tend to forget, which is that in this world compassion is an achievement and not a norm and therefore as much as we might wish it to be so - what we consider to be "natural" in the sense of what we encounter in our day to day lives is in actuality not "natural" at all, but is the result of the protected environment in which we live.

Organized religions specialize in mythologies that attempt to legitimize their version of morality. I t is a very human thing to do, but it is not scientific.
"Man" does not by nature seem particularly compassionate. People who are so, are exceptions and called Saints. Wars, prisons, police, boxers, pro football, professional wrestling, violent movies and video games, secret police, dictatorships, lawsuits, divorces, prostitution, mafia, street gangs, etc. ... all these things are the norm...at least among so called "civilized" cultures.

From what I have seen of tribal cultures on television and read about, many seem much more psychologically healthy than our present American culture. However many do hunt and fish and consume flesh regularly. And they would seem to be a more relieable indicator of natural diet than my morality.

Of course science also makes use of anatomy, but the fossil record is really very minimal, and so called conclusions are largely guess work. The consumption of eggs, bugs, and a few small critters would not change human anatomy enough for us to be able to tell from anatomy alone if and when such things were or were not a certain percentage of our diet in my opinion.

Again those who rely on chimps and gorillas for "evidence" tend to slant it. Gorillas eat food so bitter we would instantly spit it out, and chimps hunt other monkeys, tear them apart and eat them raw. People who argue about diet percentages are clearly purposely overlooking part of the picture.

So I would say vegan and raw diets may not be entirely natural--but are an achievement that is worth the effort, because as you say it is healthier. In that sense one could say it is natural for people who enjoy it and feel better on it.
However there may be no such thing as "Natural", in the sense of a final fixed ideal applicable to everyone.
Reminds me of the teaching joke:
What is normal?
A setting on the dryer.

If you read this, as Im sure some of you already have, I believe that humans are not naturaly vegan. [theworkoutman.blogspot.com]

Let me start by saying that Im glad we have all been able to discuss this thread like adults. Without attacking each other!

"Humans are tropical animals that have learned to create little tropical (i.e. indoor) climates wherever they go. I think tropical fruit would be our natural food and if we were living in the tropics, the fruit would be abundant. If we go outside our natural habitat, then it's harder to live."

Lillianswan- I agree that fruit should form the staple of our diet and we are indeed tropical creatures. Living in the tropics with abundant fruit would be obtimal.

"Eating animals is gross once you step back from the cultural acceptance that you are used to and look at it objectively."

Oddly enough I feel it is actually opposite. Technically we should be able to eat the animal foods raw. Therefore I acually think that society feels that animal foods are actually gross, and that is why they cook them. Its all just a matter of conditioning, we've been conditioned to recognize them as gross inn the raw state.

It is such a paradox, I really don't undersand...A vegan diet is certainly healthier, but humans have been eating meat for ever...

Why are we the only animal tempted to eat foods that are bad for us? Are we fighting against ourselves, or against false nutritionnal dogmas?

i don`t think we were strictly vegan. i think we were more of the type of being that ate what it could when it could depending on climate, season and stuff like that. i don`t think compassion fit into the picture because back then it wasn`t abuse it was survival of the fittest. i think we were opportunistic hunters.
patty

I have no doubts that humans are frugivorous apes. Whether 'strictly' vegan, not sure. I think originally we would be more likely to look for sweet juicy foods growing on trees, rather than chasing after meat. Nevertheless, when eating those juicy sweet foods I think we would NOT wash them, and so we would surely eat anything small, very likely "attached" to those foods.

Being really strict about the definition of strict, we do swallow bacteria, or other little creatures that exist even on those foods that we washed, so could we ever be really strictly vegan???

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Edit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2008 05:31AM by Lillianswan.

Does society recognize it as gross? I thought they were pro meat?

I think it's natural for people to evolve, to grow, to change, to become something better.

Since we discovered that we can make veganism work, it's natural to go vegan.

We are not slaves to our primitive and bloody pasts.

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We are not slaves to our primitive and bloody
> pasts.

i love this arugula
patty

i agree!

It depends on what you mean by vegan....are you just talking about eating meat and killing animals/mammals and not wearing certain clothes/shoes or are you talking about everything as well as unknowingly killing insects while hiking/walking with every step you take, driving, laying down on grass, etc.

I personaly think that veganism is a manmade concept and I don't believe there's any such thing as vegan in nature.

Juss my opinion

F1





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2008 04:34PM by fruitarianfitness.

Human's can eat whatever they choose to eat. veganism is a choice as any other, I it is not a modern fad as some believe.

The fact that human beings are natural frugivores by design because humans do not synthetise vitamin c but they do synthetise vitamin d and I feel this is a clue to our original origins.

Also one of the arguments often used is that we originally were hunter gatherers and natural tribes hunt meat etc. although most do not live beyond 40 But I feel there is more to it than that and the hunter gatherer theory is just part of the story.

Recently I discovered by accident that there was a 5000 year vegan tribe living in the himalayas all long lived. [www.thehindubusinessline.com] I believe it is the altitude the highly mineralaized soil that is the more likely reason for longevity than vegan. Still it does show it is possible. People can choose to believe what they wish, whatever it is, it is probably right for them



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/13/2008 05:55PM by Ariel55.

by vegan i mean never knowingly taking life and making an effort to ensure that one's actions don't result in harm to other beings.

"Man" is a lot of different kinds of people. This is the right way to eat... for ME.

My work colleague who I have mentioned several previous times... who has been shoveling garbage into her gut for her entire life, just put in for a change from full time to half time due to her continuing congestive heart failure. She is convinced that eating more raw, unprocessed fruits and vegetables is not for her.

It is difficult to accept. She thinks death by junk food and a sedentary lifestyle are for her.

Is this for everyone? Well, I guess if you are into quality and quantity of life (overall). But some people love their junk food more than they love life.

<sigh>


Lee


[www.dhamma.org]

"May all beings be happy."