Vegetarianism linked with high IQ

Whew! I’m all caught up now.

Any speculations on why people with higher IQs tend to choose vegetariansim?

I’d say that denying the design of 1 million years of evolution making us omnivores, is not a sign of intelligence at all - but that’s a matter of opinion.

I would hazard a guess that smart people are able to rationalize easier why to take steps in contradiction to the design of nature, or are simply more likely to dwell on the moral questions involved in killing animals for food and therefor build up a desire to take steps to mitigate. Hence, the trend in question here.

Aside from a handful of Petards, the consensus of anthropologists is that predation is what drove our evolutionary course to develop the intellect that we have now, enabling us to delude ourselves into thinking that we are naturally herbivores. As Larry Niven points out, “It doesn’t take any brains to sneak up on leaf.”

Other traits confirm the predatory nature of man. Our eyes are set forward, to provide binocular vision to help judge distance to prey. We have prominent canine teeth for tearing meat, which have in our evolutionary path shrunk a bit as we substituted tools for teeth in cutting flesh. Our digestive tracts are not long enough to fully utilize plant material, but have the traits found in omnivores and carnivores, geared around digesting meat. Meat is very easy to digest compared to any plant material and it packs a lot of energy into a very small package - which in turn provides the building material allowing such a large brain to evolutionarily develop and function.

The most telling organ showing our natural omnivorous state, is the appendix. This vestigial organ is most likely the remnants of a cecum, which is a where modern herbivores house bacteria that is used to digest cellulose, that cannot be digested otherwise. That we no longer have a cecum, nor the proper bacteria found in the cecum of herbivores, shows that we have been omnivores for a very long time and that even if we once were, we are not naturally obligate herbivores anymore.

Another very telling mark is the requirement of vitamin B12 in human nerve and and blood development. B12 is not produced by any animal or plant alone, it is produced by various bacteria - bacteria which thrive in living animals, but not in living plants. (There are B12 microorganisms which can be found in plants, but when they are present, the plants are rotting and inedible.) Since B12 is absolutely required for proper brain development in infants, it is essential that the child gets B12 through their mother’s milk. Before modern day vitamin supplements, the only way that B12 would be present in human milk, is if the mother is eating meat. A Vegan mother, back in the day before vitamin supplements, would have a child that would end up mentally retarded and most likely die from the resulting anemia.

Last, but certainly not least, is the telling evidence of the violent capabilities of humans. Such violent behavior, to the extremes that we see in humans and other primates, are not found in obligate herbivores. Herbivores will fight to protect themselves (depending on the herbivore; rabbits for example fight like the Monty Python Vorpal Bunny when cornered) but they do not kill for apparent pleasure, as many carnivores - including man - do.

Ultimately it is an undeniable fact: humans are not naturally obligate herbivores - at least not anymore. Without a cecum, and with a requirement of B12 in normal nerve and blood development - we cannot be obligate herbivores by design of nature.

Any adult deciding to take the route of a Vegan diet, should do so carefully and should be very, very careful to make sure that any child raised on a Vegan diet gets the proper B12 supplement to prevent nerve malformation and anemia. (Thankfully, this is easy to do with yeast based supplements, and the requirements of B12 are not high dose.)

A Vegan diet can be healthy, but one must be a little careful in its implementation for it to be so.

Irony holds that the only thing allowing us to choose a Vegan lifestyle, is the omnivore propagated brain which allows us to find ways around our natural design.

Insane, eh? Well, this went from science to nonsense quickly. Care to address the data?

The largest obstacle I’ve found in arguing over the biological traits of human diet, is that those who have taken an elitist, moralistic high road in choosing not to eat meat, cannot discuss biology without hinging their entire argument on the morality of it. Nature doesn’t care about morality - morality is a human mind game. Our digestive tract doesn’t care about morality, it simply adapted with time over our diet. Eating carrion, insects, grubs and the like started the process of an omnivorous diet, which evolved into active hunting as we got better at tool making. Without the human brain to provide for hunting strategy, tools to use for taking down large and dangerous prey, we’d still be shifting through the forest litter, eating plants, fruits, grubs, insects and carrion. Tool making is as much an evolutionary provided hunting mechanism as claws and fangs - far superior to claws and fangs, actually. I’d put my .308 Model 700 Remington up against a lion’s claws and fangs any day. My brain will work on a plan to sneak up within range and the lion will die near instantaneously, without my having to get closer than 1,000 yards. Name another predatory that efficient or merciful in it’s slaying. Most animals taken by predators have to deal with being eaten alive, before they finally expire from the intense trauma of the experience.

In the animal kingdom, our tool making has made us gods. Last I checked, chimpanzees aren’t able to split the atom.

If you want to take the moralistic preachy route with Vegan-ism (frankly, I’ve rarely seen the Vegan argument made without the moralistic, preachy aspects - which is real turn off, I might add) the argument can be made that eating meat is responsible for all of our ills. If it wasn’t for our meat eating, pushing us to become active hunters, we never would have reached the point where we would be able to produce all of the harm we have to the Earth and each other. We’d still be swinging in trees, throwing our own feces at each other, rather than bullets and bombs.

Gods we may be compared to the other creatures around us, but we’re very dark gods all in all.

Since we’re on the subject of morality, if the whole human population went hyper Vegan tomorrow, not using animals for anything, what would you do with the various domesticated species we’ve developed, which cannot survive any longer without us? (There’s that gods among animals things again - we’ve molded species to evolve in the way we wanted them to.) Dogs and cats can make it on their own (especially cats, which are not so much domesticated as they are taking advantage of a good thing by using us) but cattle (especially), domestic pigs, sheep and others probably aren’t going to make it - dying en mass - if we just let them loose. What is the moralistic high road to take here? By setting them free, you’ve effectively produced genocide. Do we provide for them while forcing them not to breed, until we have manageable numbers for zoos? What about all the medicines we’ll have to give up when we don’t use animals for producing such anymore? Will humans still be allowed to defend themselves against animal attacks (which are going to increase dramatically with the wild dog packs we’ve made) or do we take the ultimate moral high road and allow ourselves to become food for a species which doesn’t pester itself with these questions?

What about plants, anyway? We’re still killing living things when we eat plant material, or are we going to become fruitarians - plant abortionists - in our diet? How are we going to produce enough fruit for our current population levels? If we can’t sustain our current levels, how do we convince everyone to reduce their population levels to a point that we can sustain ourselves?

Are we taking a moral stance against destroying other life, or are we simply chordata bigots?

Now, since according to this study, you vegetarians and Vegans are supposed to be smarter, lets hear your plan for dealing with these problems - as it’s obvious from my writing, that this omnivore is not smart enough to understand the issues at hand.

Last, but not least, I don’t recall saying at any point that there is anything wrong with a vegetarian or Vegan diet - as long as you’re careful to get B12 from yeast supplements, especially for children, you’re going to be just fine. This is based on science, not morality. It can be done in health and general well being.

On the contrary, the Vegan viewpoint is one of moral superiority by design. Until it changes to a dietary model based entirely on science instead of morality, I have a hard time justifying its arguments. It is no different than any other religion.

These arguments can be made palatable, however, such as the Vegan Society, who’s stance is certainly easy to understand and quite forward. They use science to show how their moral stance can be made into their healthy dietary plan. I find their somewhat non-preachy tact refreshing. They never hide the fact that their decision is entirely based on moral principals, not some mistaken, unsubstantiated belief that we’re naturally obligate herbivores.

PETA on the other hand, are chock full of such repulsive assholes, that I can’t take anything they say seriously and pretty much assume at face value that they are lying until it is proved otherwise, by multiple outside sources. These freaks even want our pets to be Vegan, which is certifiably insane. (Cats are obligate carnivores, morons!) Not only do they preach their conceited morality like Born Again Christians, but they lie, obfuscate and generally weasel their message out through arrogant and inflammatory publications and actions, along with verbal if not physical support of terrorism. Their hypocrisy knows no bounds, nor does their lack of general tact. Even in the cases that they do help out in stopping animal abuse, they counter by making sweeping assertions about farm animals based on nothing more than delusion. It’s sadly obvious that no one in PETA ever grew up on a farm, or they wouldn’t make half of the stupid statements they do on the subject. I find nothing truly moral or amicable in PETA. This fringe lunatic asylum, masquerading as a political cause, does more to harm the Vegan stance than any other function or group - hands down. As soon as someone tells me that they support PETA, my natural instinct is to discount every point they try to make concerning diet and animal care - because I have to assume that they’re getting their information from this very, very unreliable source.

Politics aside, I’ve seen studies showing the supposed benefits of the vegetarian diet and just as many others saying that the real cause of problems with the meats we’re eating, is what we’re feeding and injecting into the animals we get it from. This debate is likely to rage for some time.

With such a tiny proportion of the population taking the Vegan lifestyle, with only a slightly larger group calling themselves vegetarians (4% consider themselves vegetarians according to polls) there is one gigantic uphill battle for minds, trying to change the remaining 96%. Denying the evolutionary history of man’s digestive system, lying in essence, is not going to help foster that argument. In fact, it makes those arguing this viewpoint to look stupid, in spite of what their IQ’s may be. And for the love of sanity, get rid of PETA already…

Just an opinion from an insane man, who is likely to remain on omnivore given the overall scientific weakness of the current arguments to the contrary.

I don’t hate vegetarians. I hate vegetarians preaching to me about how unhealthy my diet is because I eat meat, or making claims which science doesn’t back up, such as red meat in and of itself being toxic, or that we’re naturally herbivores. We are omnivores by current design and any path off of that is a choice to do otherwise, nothing more. It is not healthier, nor is it morally superior. Many vegetarians would love to claim both, but the facts don’t weigh in support.

A vegetarian diet certainly can be healthy, but you have to be a bit more careful about what you eat. That in itself, is a habit everyone could take onto themselves and be more healthy. If there is any benefit to the vegetarian diet over the “typical” diet, it is that some care is actually being taken, rather than just grabbing the brightest looking package or trusting processed foods without reading the ingredients. Personally, I don’t trust processed foods at all. I’d rather gather, pick, hunt and kill my own food, thank you - but I don’t have the time. Maybe after I retire.

I have a “biased” viewpoint on vegetarian preaching, because aside from a couple of exceptions, I’ve met nothing but. From my brother, a militant Vegan, to several PETArds giving me crap for wearing leather - the experience has been generally irritating.

As for “being lectured” about B12, it was more a point as to why we are not herbivores, not advice aimed at your dietary habits. I honestly don’t give a damn what you do - until it directly affects me. Otherwise, it’s your business. Cram tossed salad up your arse if you think that’s going to improve your health. Do the same for your son, for all I care. Cram tossed salad up your arse, or your son’s arse, while you’re driving your car and weaving all over the road - now I care…

PETA may be the fringe, but it’s very visible. Think “animal rights” and PETA is the first thing which pops up. I believe that I said that they’re not the only source for such a philosophy, nor the correct source. I instead suggested to drop them from the picture in order to improve the look of the philosophy to the outside world.

As for your criticism of Niven’s quote, you’re missing the point. Even though you “can think of a zillion ways in which advanced cognition could help an herbivore”, no matter how much a prey animal develops in intelligence, the predator remains smarter, or the predator dies off. It’s as simple as that. Intelligence develops in prey animals as those who outwit their predators and live, pass on the change; just as the smarter predators live over the dumb ones, because they get to eat. Without the pressure of predation, neither advance. I would hazard a guess that our intelligence is a combination of both pressure to survive other predators and to hunt other animals. Predation is the pressure cooker which creates intelligence: one way or the other.

Now, imagine a world with no predation. How much brains are required to sneak up on that proverbial leaf?

“Which brings me back to my original claim, which you really have yet to really comment on- that empathy is a non-trivial component of overall intelligence.”

Is empathy a component of overall intelligence, or a side effect thereof?

We like to think that it is a component of intelligence, but I tend to think that it is merely a side-effect of having a mind which in general is trying to view problems from multiple angles. Viewing something “through the eyes of another” is simply an extension of this process. Furthermore, empathy would be impossible without an imagination capable of fictionalizing the resulting viewpoint. So, I would argue that problem solving from multiple viewpoints, coupled with imagination, results in empathy. Empathy is not, therefor, a component of intelligence, but a result of it. It is further tempered by emotional reaction. Those who react the strongest to empathic situations also tend to be the ones who allow their emotional responses to have a strong play in decision making. Since emotions are very old code, it takes quite a bit of mental exercise to achieve an empathic view without the emotional response. I’d say that it’s nearly impossible to do so. Hence, when we empathize over the animal’s plight, our emotional response takes hold.

Those intelligent individuals who choose to become vegetarian over this response, justify their position by bringing up the imagined empathic viewpoint and weighing it on a moral scale. Those intelligent individuals who remain omnivores, do so by either discounting animals in a poor rationalization, or by accepting that they are part of a larger system and assuage their emotional response to their empathy for the creature, by killing quickly and as painlessly as they can. The friction comes between the two viewpoints, because the first group can’t get past the idea of killing animals for any reason. It becomes an issue of morality.

It is a human debate, with human desires and anthropomorphic musings driving the arguments. In the meantime, a gazelle just got nabbed by a crocodile in Africa and is being eaten alive.

Nature doesn’t care about our moral quandaries.

Ah, the famous, “Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah!” defense. I was wondering when that would show up.