there wasn’t sufficient selection pressure to remove those vestigial traits
I guess it’s vestigial for carnivores. In plant eating populations the gene has more copies. Like European-americans and japanese have 6 copies of AMY1 gene. Some primitive hunter gather societies have only 2.
We have some adaptations to eat plants too don’t you think?
Like salivary amylase to start digesting carbs in the mouth, teeth similarities to herbivores and frugivores (like monkeys), and livers and kidneys that process plant compounds like chocolate, coffee, and grapes etc. But these are very toxic to carnivores for example cats.
Good question. Like we measure or prove anything in science or math?
If it’s a scientific theory like a law of nature, you can create novel testable predictions on how it’ll affect the minds of moral agents like humans.
If it’s based on math we can derive moral truths from axioms. E.g using game theory.
Whatever you use for most things we can derive the same conclusions. That’s why most professional philosophers believe in objective morality.
You should read the link I shared. It contains explanations, many more arguments and counter arguments put forth across thousands of years.
I mean It’s fine to disagree. What do you believe makes anything objective like physical constants or math? Or do you believe everything is subjective (based on opinion)?
I believe in objective morality so do the majority of professional philosophers according to surveys but that’s irrelevant.
I didn’t want to bring up my personal beliefs into the discussion.
ought’s are separate from morality. The Euthyphro dilemma illustrates this:
“Is something good because you ought to do it or you ought to do it because it’s good?”
If you agree with the latter then what makes something good (morality) is separate and can be used to derive oughts.
There are many models of objective morality. Famous ones are based on God or karma which is a law of nature in Buddhism. It’s like a weak law like you can go against like how you can pull two magnets apart using a greater force.
I suggest you read the link I shared.
Some think that earth is flat, some think it is round. That doesn’t mean there’s no objective truth. One of those two possibilities is a fact.
Calling slaughter of an animal “murder” doesn’t follow
Yeah murder technically means an unlawful killing of another human being. You can replace “murder” with the word “slaughter” in the argument.
you can’t make logical argument on moral ideas
I was writing from a perspective of moral realism which says objective moral facts exist just like in math or science. (Not everyone agrees with it)
So in this framework, you can treat “torturing innocent is wrong” as any other objective claim like “magnets attract iron” or 1+1=2.
If you believe that moral facts are self evident or intuitive—I think it’s called intuitionism—we can solve this dilemma.
The hidden weakness is the premise “murder is wrong,” because it may not be true
It’s intuitive that murder is wrong so under intuitionism it becomes a fact.
talking animal bred to want its own consumption
I think ethical vegans avoid meat because the animal didn’t consent to being killed. If some animal wants to be eaten, it’ll be morally good to fulfil its desire like assisted suicide or euthanasia in case of humans.
I am finding some papers that say natto, tempeh, seaweed, sauerkraut etc may contain B12 though it’s not shown on nutrient charts like on wikipedia. And one review even says natto is rich in B12 ?!
Most importantly it works for you. So that’s good.
Vegans can ferment things if you feel you aren’t getting B12.
What fermented food do you eat to maintain normal B12 levels? I have read quite a few food charts. Fermentation seems to increase other B vitamins but B12 is usually not present.
fair enough. I did tell it the poem existed. I first described a made up poem vaguely and asked who wrote it. It gave a name.
Then I asked chatgpt to recite the poem as written by the poet. It refused and said it was copyrighted. 😆
That’s a great journey thanks for sharing.
Plant based is so broad that even a diet of fried food, coke, and donuts would fall under it. I’m shocked that your doctor didn’t ask you to cut refined carbs.
I have a really nice physique now so all that running and swimming must’ve helped.
🥳
Ask it to paraphrase a poem about <some made up shit> by <some poet>.
Edit: to be more precise I first described a made up poem vaguely and asked who wrote it and what was the name of the poem. It hallucinated those things. It even gave me a paraphrasing of it.
Then I asked chatgpt to recite the poem as written by the poet. It refused and said the poem was copyrighted. 😆
You barely downvote but you have spent 55% of your lifetime downvotes downvoting me when I talk about keto.
I’m sorry. I did downvote some of your comments subconsciously. I was a keto hater like you deduced but over the last few days I am trying to discover the truth and be as open minded as possible.
we’ve arrived on this diet after trying everything else. I was personally plant-based for half a decade
If you don’t mind sharing, what health issues did you face on an omnivore and a plant based diet?
But isn’t this only your experience with meat?
Many do crave some chicken wings, steak etc. They really enjoy it just like people do with a jar of cookies or ice cream.
Maybe because you eat meat everyday your brain is used to it and doesn’t feel it’s special. But to someone who has meat once a week or a month it feels like a hedonistic jackpot.
This guy is not a neuroscientist. He’s a VC trying to cope from all the money he flushed down the ai toilet.
What a clown.
Woah. So is the vitamin C level in carnivores normal?
and none of the toxins🤞