Perusing it now, seems to be in line with my general understanding of dairy consumption and lactose intolerance. Was there something specific you wanted to point out, or just that it was a good article?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humans Aren't Supposed to Eat Dairy
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
You wrote: "Just because something was a clear advantage at one time does not mean it is an advantage or healthy for us today in our situation." This is both true and irrelevant. At issue is:
- Whether there are advantages to milk product consumption for those adapted to it. If I understand the article, there may well be.
- Whether the absence of advantage in and of itself is establishes a moral obligation to avoid. I do not believe so.
You could, of course, argue that other moral imperatives (e.g., avoiding animal abuse) outweigh any possible advantage, but I did not get that sense from your post.
Whether or not it is relevant depends on whether or not someone is trying to make the argument that it is advantageous for us today based only on the fact that it seems have been advantageous for others in the past. I admit I am not even sure anyone was trying to make that argument, but terrywoodenpic and even own my earlier post could be read in a way that seems to imply it, so I wanted to deal with it.
If I understand the article there may be both advantages and disadvantages even to those who have the ability to produce the lactase enzyme.
Personally I have not been arguing for or against the consumption of dairy. Only saying that the evolutionary argument is not as clear cut as some people might think. Our situation is different than those in the past, and we continue to evolve.
I object to the use of the term "supposed to" when applied to an evolutionary argument (or any scientific argument). We are not "suppose" to do anything. I am not addressing the moral argument at all. Perhaps I should, but right now I just don't want to get into that.
For the record if it matters, I am a strict vegetarian and go vegan from time to time but with no intention of being a permanent vegan. I loves my cheese!
And many of us can indeed digest milk. So by using your own reasoning, milk is an okay drink for many people.
-No other animal eats vegetables and fruit that have been selectively bred specifically for their use either. Does that mean we're not "supposed" to eat corn?
-No other animal uses electricity. Does that mean we're not "supposed" to use electricity?
-No other animal writes books. Does that mean we're not "supposed" to write books?
Which says nothing to those 30% who can. You might as well argue that since some people are allergic to peanuts, no one is supposed to eat peanuts either...
Milk contains nutrients that our bodies can use just fine. If you're going to bash milk because consuming too much of it has negative side-effects, then you'll have to bash just about all foods. Even fruit has a lot of sugar that can be harmful if you eat too much for too long.
And yet milk can be digested by a lot of people.
So? Your "gross" and another person's "gross" are not going to be the same. I think broccoli is gross but I don't use that as evidence that broccoli should not be eaten by anyone. "Abnormal" is also relative: by definition it does not apply in a society where drinking milk is the norm.
I'm having Chilean Sea Bass with broccoli for dinner -- please keep your opinions to yourself.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
We don't suppose to eat cake, chocolate, and many more things but we do, and I suppose we suffer for doing so.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Also, we're not "supposed" to sit (shortening leg and core muscles), and especially not in front of a computer (expelling toxic gases, electric/ionized fields), typing on a keyboard that is most of the time non-ergonomic (and causing carpal tunnel syndrome).
Unless, of course, you're a kid who's well adapted to such things.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Yes that's true, but thank heaven we do, I suppose that's why we have a big brain, so we can move onward from our animal ways, we are the only animal who can do that.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Whether we're "supposed to" consume dairy or not, I can't live without cheese in my life. I don't know what anybody else is supposed to do, but I'm supposed to eat cheese.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Except our body isn't. I started as a kid and now have back and eye problems, most likely from strain and over use. Our kids today will see medical problems in the future.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
And we can modify the technology to be more human friendly. There are ergonomic keyboards, but no one buys them though.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
I was kidding ...
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Oh. Sorry. My brain is only half speed today. Considering that it's usually slow, it's even worse today. My wife was sick the whole night, so I didn't get much sleep.
That's the entirety of my reason for it.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Supposed to......
We're humans ever supposed to gestate their newborns for nine months?
We're human societies in different geographical areas ever supposed to rely upon animal byproducts in those areas to survive?
So a percentage of the human population can successfully consume milk from another species.
So.....
What is that supposed to mean?
They "devolved" from a divine plan.
We've already heard enough crap about pork.
And there is a large contingent of those talking about humans are not supposed to consume meat.
But where does that supposed to come from?
Not from evolutionary science that's for sure.
Only wishful thinking.
You want to make a more generalized argument about the pros and cons about consuming a certain product.......fine.
But......"supposed to"........throw evolution out the window.
You are getting into divine mandates.
And those, quite honestly after thousands of years of pretty much failing, have become boring in regards to dietary mandates.
Because.....evolution does not follow those mandates.
More seriously I think you are trying to dwell upon serious anthropological and moral grounds which your OP and follow up fails to address. And, just because I like saying it in this thread, the "supposed to" argument among any species is ...... ridiculous.
We're humans ever supposed to gestate their newborns for nine months?
We're human societies in different geographical areas ever supposed to rely upon animal byproducts in those areas to survive?
So a percentage of the human population can successfully consume milk from another species.
So.....
What is that supposed to mean?
They "devolved" from a divine plan.
We've already heard enough crap about pork.
And there is a large contingent of those talking about humans are not supposed to consume meat.
But where does that supposed to come from?
Not from evolutionary science that's for sure.
Only wishful thinking.
You want to make a more generalized argument about the pros and cons about consuming a certain product.......fine.
But......"supposed to"........throw evolution out the window.
You are getting into divine mandates.
And those, quite honestly after thousands of years of pretty much failing, have become boring in regards to dietary mandates.
Because.....evolution does not follow those mandates.
More seriously I think you are trying to dwell upon serious anthropological and moral grounds which your OP and follow up fails to address. And, just because I like saying it in this thread, the "supposed to" argument among any species is ...... ridiculous.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I made this same argument in another post, so now I am going to argue against it.
Just because something was a clear advantage at one time does not mean it is an advantage or healthy for us today in our situation. It was a great advantage for those people who developed this adaptation in that they now had access to an additional source of protein and nutrition. But that does not mean that it is still necessary or even advantageous for us today with the wide variety of foods we are capable of producing.
While we now have alternatives the chances that our food contains milk derived lactose is very high, so it is still a major advantage to be able to tolerate it. The advantage to day is that,tolerant people do not become sick from ingesting it, not so much that that it is necessary.
You are quite right in that Goat and sheep milk contains about the same amount of lactose as dairy milk ( somewhere between 4% and 5%), never the less a good proportion of people who can not tolerate Cows milk can tolerate Goats milk. And is often recommended for children with a problem with Cows milk. We had a friend who owned a sucessful goat and sheep dairy in Kent just for this purpose. Their milk is also different in that the Cream (Fat) is homogeneous and does not separate.
However even cheese and Yoghurt from cows milk loose a vast majority of their lactose in the discarded whey, and are normally tolerated by all but the most sensitive individuals.
Plain Goats milk is an acquired taste, and is very easily tainted if not kept scrupulously clean.
Kent is a beautiful area. Thanks for sharing. But, again, ...
You claimed that "humans had always been able to consume sheep goat, and camel and many other non bovine milks." I asked for evidence supporting this claim and I've yet to see it. Do you know of any such evidence?