romansh

I think we are nearing the end. Eating a healthy diet will minimize the health costs on society. I can buy into that. Meat can be part of that healthy diet. How much is up for some debate, but there seems to be no difference between say a vegetarian and a more typical diet; at least based on longevity. There are other costs on society as well which we have not touched on as of yet.

This is how I might have worded your post. Perhaps we can all agree that humans have evolved and adapted to be omnivores and that they can choose many diets and can thrive on a variety of these diets?

I question that logic - just because we can survive as omnivores (perhaps as carnivore like a dog can on high protein, vegetable dog biscuits) does that mean that is the diet we are best off following? Is it the penultimate diet our stomachs evolved for? Firstly … dogs by definition are not carnivores, they are omnivores. Over time their close coevolution has turned them into omnivores, at least by definition. Of course we would have to either get rid of our pet dogs and cats to minimize if we want minimize meat eating. A classic omnivore is a pig, their digestive system is used as a proxy for that of humans. When you say 'best' … what do you mean by 'best'? Meat is easier to digest and richer in protein than most of common foodstuffs. If you mean how little it can probably be then I would agree with you. In evolution there is no should. I quoted the wiki article contrasting vegetarians with comparable practicing meat eaters. There is little 'benefit' one way or the other in terms of longevity. Also from an evolutionary point of view to be 'successful' we don't care if we see our grand children, only that we have them. So I don't buy the argument that evolution has done something therefore we should comply with that something. Fair enough. I am not arguing that we should eat meat. I am arguing that humans are classic omnivores and the argument that humans are not omnivores is at best specious. Also I am not enamoured by argument by herbivores came before omnivores, therefore [insert any 'should type' argument here]. Also be careful of the term adaption when talking about evolution. As an example if we move to a higher altitude our bodies will acclimatize to the higher altitude. The acclimatization is not an adaption; but the ability acclimatize is. Similarly our bodies can get used a high meat diet, this is not an adaptation, but the ability is an adaptation. And if we were Inuit, we moved to herbivorous culture, we too would get used to the little meat diet. An acclimatization.

That's the plan in this part of Canada too.

It's funny, I always thought of dogs as carnivores … but the omnivore wiki page identifies them as omnivores. Having said that there are dissenting arguments on this. This link gives an interesting point of view on the subject. Now if dogs have changed that much over the tens of thousand of years from being wolves that the prevailing view is that they are omnivores rather than carnivores then what could primates adapt/evolve into over a million or so years? Just doing a quick review on the contents of dog food (dry) while mostly meat in some form … the second ingredient seems to be starch in the form of potato, rice or corn. (this was a quick skim). Interesting.

I think humans are omnivores. If they were not they could not have crossed the Bering Straits. Do you think bats' echo location is evolved or an adaptation? Evolution and adaptation are not somehow separate. I agree and I am not sure of your point here? Is it humans are more omnivorous than our simian cousins? So when we say humans "should" have X% of their diet as meat, there are generally two meanings of the word "should". Moral (as I think you had suggested was your veggie stint) and health objectives. Here is Wikipedia on the longevity of vegetarians: We need to deal with the elephant in the room. Nietzsche's dragon with "Thou Shall" inscribed on the underside of its scales.

For those interested on carnivorous behaviour of the great apes … in a bit more detail

I think the table compares a predatory carnivore with a predated herbivore and to me the human digestive tract is somewhere in between. I agree our guts are similar to our close primates. Here is an example of apes (Bonobos) being omnivores and also it references them being predatory. Sure at one point in our ancient lineage we might have been more "vegetarian". From Wiki If humans were not omnivores they would have had much greater difficulty populating northern America after the last ice age. Even today the Inuit have a diet rich in meat. Lucian Science does not deal in proof … it deals in evidence, definitions and models. While I understand your desire to be vegan or vegetarian and even to proselytize on their behalf, but if you are going quote "science" please do it accurately.

This might help dispel some misunderstanding My favourite vegetable … potato accompanied by my wife's vinegar garlic sauce. Roasted leek is not bad. My wife wants me to live longer so she force feeds me salad.

Welcome Lucian I must admit I don't agree with you as well. A better indicator of whether humans are omnivores or not would be the digestive tracts. https://www.quora.com/If-humans-aren’t-herbivores-then-why-are-our-teeth-so-dull and Wiki of course

What surprises me Joseph … is that we need books, Jesus, Buddha etc to be nice to one or another. Did we miss that lesson in kinder garden? While the kinder here comes from kinter (child), it does sort of fit. Why do we need to make up mythological models or convoluted Onenesses or God is Loves? Can't we open our eyes and see how the universe ticks and move on from there? I read Tolle's A New Earth again quite a while ago. Don't remember much of it (if any) other than sort of agreed with the first two thirds and thought he was off the rails for the last bit. But on Tolle's The Power of Now … it did fit my perception of what reality is. Now I would agree with there is no point beating ourselves up or others for that matter, the mechanism I get to that point is quite different and at least for me defensible.

Really Burl … how are you not rambling on about you private ideations in your subsequent comments here. I too found your participation in the TNH book disappointing. It was very half-hearted I thought. Perhaps you could give an example of these ramblings you object too. (on the appropriate thread.) Regarding The Power of Now … I read it just after it came out (most of it). In short not for me. I look forward to reading the ramblings of private ideations of people here.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/why-we-engage-in-tribalism-nationalism-and-scapegoating Robert Sapolski on the mechanisms of some of our political behaviours.

What is religion? Well it appears to be a belief, but a belief in what? In the West it seems to involve a belief in in God and historically gods. But this is not a necessary belief, as the third great religion Buddhism, by and large, does not accept gods. It is true Buddhism like Christianity has some quirky beliefs from a secular point of view, on the other hand being secular does not make us immune from these quirks. The piece in Quillete, is accurate in some ways but it is speculative in others. Take the Blank Slate argument. While it is almost certainly wrong that our beliefs are totally a result of environment. It could be argued we have an intuitive affinity for cause and effect and as a result we are looking for causes all the time. Some ascribe God as a cause for existence; others might simply say it was the big bang and don’t speculate any further. Now of course just because we might have this tendency collectively to believe in God or gods does not mean they exist or that the belief in them are somehow beneficial form an evolutionary point of view. The benefit might simply be from a social cohesion leading to improved reproductive outcome. So, this might be where secularly inclined people are at a disadvantage, by and large they don’t have the routine collective societal interaction. We quite often hear this from lapsed traditional Christians … they miss the congregation and friends. To get that interaction secularists can participate in services groups like Rotary. At a service for a pastor friend of mine who passed away, I noted that among some of the congregation there was an endorphin like rush among some people who were close-by. I can’t help wondering if this is part of “the religious experience”? And finally, what is religion for me? Taking a semantic tack, the commonly accepted etymology of the word religion is from the Latin to reconnect. Reconnect to what? For some it is to one another, to society, to one’s God, even to Love. For me it is to understand we are connected to the universe. It took the whole universe to make us and we shape our environment and in turn the universe albeit infinitesimally. post script - the author Clay Routledge gets at least some of his funding from the Templeton Foundation, so his point of view is hardly surprising.

Merry Christmas … and let us bless one another.

Circularity abounds again. If one wants to care for them, love them. Exactly how does one turn on this love? I find I either love someone or I don't. My child. It was love at first sight. Some person I don't know very well … I find I might like them I might not. I have been playing this game with you as long as you have been espousing Love is God. You steadfastly have not explained how to turn on this Love/love. So in places you seem to suggest that people do not become Truly Human and yet this person Jesus who is as human as the rest of us became Truly Human? Regarding the myth of Jesus. I would agree the myth is likely based on a person (or persons) at least one of whom was likely called Jesus. I think this was the gist of Ehrman's book, if I recall correctly. Its a while since I read it. I think we can agree, an angel did not fore tell of an immaculate conception. The three kings story is likely false? All the miracles are mythological fancy. Jesus did not rise from the dead. Not every word ascribed to Jesus was actually spoken by Jesus, in that there is much added (made up) later. Not every action ascribed to Jesus was done by Jesus. We are left trying determine what was said by Jesus and how it might be interpreted in the context of the times. From all this you deduce that he was Truly Human©?

I don't think I have the biochemical activity to be able to love and care for the whole world. Also there are individuals in this world, while not hating them, I do have severe dislikes for. Now this mythical Jesus that thormas has put on a pedestal might be worthy of emulation, ignoring the bits that thormas is parable-izing. But thormas refuses to tell us the mechanism by which we can love all or become all caring. It seems to be all arm waving to me. Here is the point thormas thinks people should be at, but he does not how to get there.

OK how did this mythical Jesus become Truly Human©?

Perhaps we should be taking the Gospels as a parable rather than cherry picking. Plainly the miracles are likely parables too. Perhaps the bits where Jesus is nice to people in a very ordinary way are parables as well. Perhaps Jesus being truly human is a parable … that would make far more sense. Weird is right thormas.

OK here we go again. In your mind is there a difference between to care for and being caring (for)? If so what is that difference? I might care for someone ie look after their needs. And I might feel caring and yet actually do nothing (for a variety of reasons). There is a school of thought that if you are unhappy, put a smile on your face. The act adopting the behaviour of smiling is postulated that it changes your feelings. I suspect adopting the behaviour of care (the mechanics), might actually change your feeling of care. But how do you, yourself, become more caring?

As usual you don't actually answer the question thormas. Its like me asking how do I become more caring of others? You seem to say well just become more caring of others. I suggest adopt behaviours that resemble caring for others and you say oh no not that.

OK; how does one move from one's current state to being as God is?

I am failing to see the distinction here. How does one move from being fallen to being as god is?

Okay, I am glad you are not expecting or hoping that mankind will adopt loving tendencies that you have ascribed to your God.