News Stories

What Meat Eating Does

There's a theory that vegetarians are more peaceful, but new research shows it's actually meat eaters who are LESS aggressive. What about our images of a grunting or growling animal snarling at anyone who dares take their meat away from them--Wouldn’t that go for humans, too? Football coaches feed their players big hunks of red meat before a game in hopes of pumping them up. The idea that meat would illicit aggressive behavior makes sense, as it would have helped our primate ancestors with hunting, co-opting and protecting their meat resources. That's why psychologist Frank Kachanoff always assumed that the sight of meat would make people more aggressive, not less, as they get ready to vie for their part of it, but he discovered it's just the opposite: According to resent research, seeing meat appears to make human beings significantly LESS aggressive. Maybe we should feed our football players broccoli instead?

With so many UFO sightings being reported and astronauts, pilots and politicians admitting that they've seen UFOs, things aren't going to stay peaceful for long! You can count on this website to be at the forefront of this kind of news--can we count on you too? We need your help to stay healthy, so please subscribe today (a two year subscription gets you a FREE 2011 crop circle calendar and a 2010 calendar too, while supplies last).

  • Image Credit:

Perhaps this is because the hunting aggression is not needed when there is meat on the table? You can imagine our early ancestors feeling a little relieved at seeing the results of a successful hunt over the fire!

Interesting article. Definitely worth more research.

Maybe the sight of meat is enough to trigger the same stupefying fog as eating it--thus short-circuiting any potential aggression. Honestly, do they really expect modern homo sapiens to launch into a salivating, chest pounding rampage at the sight of shrink-wrapped sirloin?

Who funded this research and what was their agenda? Being a vegetarian I could also argue that seeing meat creates no excess agression because we aren't natural carnivores. And just how hungry were the people and were they going to get fed only if they won the meat from another person. Honestly, this was a dumb study and another waste of grant money no doubt.

Yes, remember friends: Always take a good tough look at the basic premise(s), methods and motivation/funding of any research. Not certain if it's the case here, but also be wary of any one-offs or conclusions made by just a few studies.

Please consider that our distant ancestors lived in small cooperative social groups of mostly kinfolk. Meat is not the only essential product of their mutual interdependence.

When hunters brought home meat, it meant that everyone would eat - but only if squabbling over food did not break up the emotional/social cohesion of the group.

Perhaps then, we have a gene to suppress aggression around meat, so as to allow it to be distributed even while maintaining the social cohesion that allowed meat to be hunted and distributed - while other essential functions such as child-rearing and cooperative foraging continue that might be disrupted by aggression over meat.

Ethnological studies show that the conflict concerning distribution of meat in small foraging bands is generally organized along kinship lines. There is plenty of jealousy and rivalry and plain old selfishness that intrudes into the process, but I know of no reports of outright aggression during food distribution.

It makes sense to me that once the meat is on the table folks are ready to relax and perhaps socialize with family or friends, whatever clan they are gathered around the fire with. Raw meat in its modern context is also pretty "sanitized", and people might associate it with what they think the finished result will look like or how enjoyable it will be to sit down and eat it later.

The more pertinent question, to me, is: What effect, if any, does the eating of meat have overall, and over time, on the peacefulness or aggressiveness of individuals?

Answering that would take more than studying the mere sight of meat.

I'd be angry too if all I ate were vegetables. Just look at Patrick Nottingham's little rant above. "And just how hungry were the people and were they going to get fed only if they won the meat from another person. Honestly, this was a dumb study and another waste of grant money no doubt."

Easy big fellow. Relax. Have a burger. You'll feel better, I promise.

Ah, the trolls have arrived. I should have known even Unknown Country would have those that love to get personal in their comments instead of rationally discussing something. Enjoy your alone time on this site Mr McLaughlin.

Call me all me all the names you like sir. But ignoring the facts does not do a body or a mind any good. Facts can change belief. Belief can not change facts. Hey I love a great salad, had one the other day. Just had in it lettuce, black olives, cherry tomatoes, croutons, and feta cheese, topped with a lovely dressing. Yummy. But I have 3 ribeye steaks in the fridge and it is only me and my wife. I'd be pleased to offer you the third. It will be cooked with onions and sauteed baby bella mushrooms. Steak sauce of your choice, if you so desire. As for being alone I often participate in Chat with the Striebers and friends, and we had a great thread talking about pizza. You should have been there.Whitley's all time fave had only cheese on it while dining in Rome.

On a side note listen to the Betty and Becky Andreasson and Bob Luca interview. At one point they talk about how the "aliens" say harming animals will cause us great grief, more than we might think. That is not to be confused with eating animals or hunting them, as long as you use them for food. But one should not kill an animal just for the sport.
Animals keep us grounded to the Earth.

Subscribe to Unknowncountry sign up now