Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[avemt1]

I think we should use this oportunity to state the duality of the situation. Humans were made to be omnivores, but we are also ment to empathise and rationalize. We are doing this now. We can argue about it and make logical standpoints, or we can do the right thing.
IF ANYBODY IS WORRIED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EATING A STEAK AND EAT ING A SHARK FIN THERE IS ONLY PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT. WE CAN SAY THAT ALL ANIMALS (INCLUDING HUMANS) NOW BELONG EQUALLY IN THE MEAGER AND PATHETIC EXISTENCE WE LIVE IN. THEREFORE, WE SHOULD TREAT ALL SPECIES AS IF THEY ARE KIN, FRIENDS, ETC.

I am not a vegitarian, but a philosipher with pasion.

 

[vacuum]

blah, blah

All right digiflux, I'll accept the first argument (economy of eating vegs). However, I consider myself a part of the food chain (or whatever it is in English). In the end bacteria will feast on my dead body, so I don't care. I consider dead cow (steak) to be food. I do not have a problem with a shark considering me to be food ( as long as I can avoid it catching me:). This is justifiable to me even if there isn' t smthg more to life than physical self.

I just want to be attuned to Nature's way, meaning not to take more from her than it is possible for her to bear. And ceasing to cause unnecessary pain (the reason I stopped fishing). So, to conclude, if being vegetarian would improve situation in the whole system (of life, Earth, space, choose...) I would become one.

 

[vacuum]

an afterthought

The economics argument is a bit suspicious because there are countries that completely depend on the meat industry. Shutting the meat produce off would bring famine for them. So, turning larger amount of people to vegans will have to wait a long while.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The economics argument is a bit suspicious because there are countries that completely depend on the meat industry. Shutting the meat produce off would bring famine for them. So, turning larger amount of people to vegans will have to wait a long while.

Maybe in nomadic countries, but that has no relevance to us. Animal agriculture is devastating the countryside and using resources at a highly unacceptable rate. Read up on the fecal lagoons from pig factories: http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_1_84/ai_53501840

 

[Averagesupernova]

the only animal that taunts, tortures and mutilates other animals for the sake of sadistic pleasure

You are wrong. I have seen first hand where a group of pigs literally tore to pieces another pig. I don't know why they do it but they will. Once the pig has been singled out the group will pick on them until they die. Also, a group will not accept a significantly smaller group turned in with them. If 2 groups of equal number and size are turned together they will learn to get along. If it is lopsided, the smaller and weaker side loses. Is it sadistic pleasure? I don't know and I'm betting you don't either. Some of you claim to know an awful lot about animals in general but are making some obvious (to me at least) false statements and Växan I am not singling you out, many others are doing it also.

i believe that animal inteligence excedes human intelligence
humans are just too stupid to interpret the language

That's interesting. If they were so smart I guess they'd find a way to keep us humans from confining them and murdering them. Maybe they're ok with it?

humans are the only animal that cannot thrive or even survive without artificial means

Artificial means? So we were just dropped here on this planet out of some galactic laboratory? We didn't survive in nature and evolve into what we are today?

a naked human is no match in battle against 90% of the world's species
humans are weak and vulnerable, and make up for this insecurity with an inflated ego and big guns

You are right about this one. But regardless of the means by which we survive don't we have just as much right to be here as any other animal? Some of the things you stated in the last quote are EXACTLY why humans feel superior to other animals. You have to prove why that is wrong before it holds any water with me.

 

[hitssquad]

Vegan sources of docosahexaenoic acid

the only nutrient a vegan diet has less of than a meat diet is Omega 3 (an amino acid)

Omega 3 is a class of fatty acids. It is not an amino acid.

• Main Entry: do·co·sa·hex·a·e·no·ic acid
  Pronunciation: ,dOkOsð,heksð,E¦nOik-[/b]
  Function: noun
  Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary docosa- (as in docosanoic acid) + hexa- + -ene + -oic
  
  : an omega-3 fatty acid found especially in cold-water fish — abbreviation DHA

(fish oil is the most abundant source, and fish oil is quite unhealthy)

Fish oil generally contains https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Vitamins .

 

[Dissident Dan]

Fish oil generally contains https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Vitamins .

Fish oil also contains high levels of heavy metals such as mercury and is more subject to rotting than plant oils. I can pretty much guarantee you that any plant oil has more antioxidants than any animal fat.

The richest source of Omega-3 fats is actually flax, according to Michael Greger, MD. However, flax Omega-3s are not in DHA form, so they can have to compete with Omega-6s to use an enzyme that is used to turn them into DHA. DHA can be obtained from capsules made from the oils from microorganisms.

BTW, I do not agree with the outlandish things that Vaxan has said. Please do not discount us all because of what Vaxan stated.

 

[hitssquad]

DHA sources, astaxanthin, ORAC values and BogoMips

Fish oil also contains high levels of heavy metals such as mercury

Yet, low intake of fish is a risk factor for heart disease. Supplementation with lipoic acid protects against mercury toxicity, by the way.

and is more subject to rotting than plant oils.

What do you mean by "subject to rotting"? DHA is more subject to oxidation than alpha linolenic acid, but DHA is a more desirable fatty acid, also, from a health standpoint. Do you mean fish oils are more subject to "rotting" due to their having fatty acids with more points of unsaturation? Algae-derived DHA should be just as subject to "rotting" as fish-derived DHA, if you are talking about proneness to oxidation.

Since DHA is delicate, I keep mine in my freezer and purchase it from a mail-order company that promises it is kept http://www.iherb.com/benefits1.html in its warehouse.

I can pretty much guarantee you that any plant oil has more antioxidants than any animal fat.

Do you mean a higher ORAC value? Since flax does not have astaxanthin, and astaxanthin is one of the most powerful plant-derived lipophilic antioxidants known, it is doubtful that flax oil has a higher ORAC value than fish oil. (Not that ORAC value is wholly indicative of health effect on humans -- ORAC value is roughly to human nutrition what BogoMips and gigaflops are to computing performance)

The richest source of Omega-3 fats is actually flax.

Concentrated fish oil capsules and algae oil capsules are fairly rich sources.

DHA, a long-chain Omega 3 fatty acid found in fish oil, is available http://www.iherb.com/neuromins1.html:

• consider getting ... DHA the same place that the fish get it from--DHA rich algae. There are now vegan algae-derived DHA supplements available at http://www.VeganEssentials.com.

 

[dave19903652]

"More animals to conduct researches on."

From the first post. Wouldn't this be defeating the object? Personally I would prefer to see better conditions for all captive animals first. Also, research is actually more cruel than the food industry. That is vivisection not anything else.

 

[theriddler876]

if you stop thinking about vitamins and protein and all that shtuff and get back to basics and nature, we are built for eating meat, it is natural, such as a lion eats meat, hence the term herbivore we eat both, we have the teeth for both, you know the sharp pointy ones for tearing I mean when have you seen a lion debate weather it should kill an animal for food or not, hmnn anyways we should definitely eat meat, and vegetables, not doing so would be messing with gods creation and such, and for those who don't believe in god, the Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years, who are you to mess with millions of years of evolution, plus the animals that are grown in farms have that purpose in life, and chickens eggs are not fertilized, most of them anyways, so there is no chicken, hmnnn


plants have feelings too

 

[digiflux]

Thousands of humans may already be infected with mad cow disease as the incubation period for the disease can be very long. Finding one infected cow means that there are many.

If you need iron drink well water or take a simple pill.

Most people would be vegetarians if THEY had to do the slaughtering.

Living in the TexAss country I have seen many instances of severe animal abuse on local farms. Ranchers are an evil bunch. I know, they are my neighbors.

I keep hearing over and over the benefits of soy. Eat tofu and live longer.

Treat other animals like they are your relatives, because THEY ARE.

 

[digiflux]

averagesupernova:

"You are right about this one. But regardless of the means by which we survive don't we have just as much right to be here as any other animal?"

It's not about survival anymore. Most people eat animals because they like the way that they taste. We do have a right to be here but our non-human cousins have rights too. Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet. If I were an alien and landed on Earth I would seriously consider thinning out the human population for the good of the planet.

 

[russ_watters]

Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet.

Oh, the arrogance. As said in Jurassic Park, we really only have the power to destroy ourselves. The Earth will do just fine either way.

 

[loseyourname]

While it is doubtful that we have the capability to irreversibly end all life on the planet, and we certainly cannot destroy the entire planet, we have caused the extinction of countless species. They will not do just fine.

 

[Averagesupernova]

Humans are over populated and are threatening to destroy the entire planet. If I were an alien and landed on Earth I would seriously consider thinning out the human population for the good of the planet.

That is the most arrogant thing I have ever heard. You are obviously quite disassociated with animals based on previous comments yet you have the balls to tell those of us who live and work around them what is best for them. And then you go on to say that you'd kill off half the people on the planet for the good of the planet. In other words, you'd kill us off if it wouldn't affect you. Being alien and leaving right away would guarantee your own safety. Would you do the same thing now living on earth? Would you do something like this with a guarantee you wouldn't get caught and your own well being would not be threatened? Who is the moral one here? You sound like a dangerous person. Some of the comments you have made would be enough evidence in court to cause serious questions to your mental stability. While you are contemplating and thinking of ways to reduce the human numbers, someone else may very well be looking your way and thinking the same thing about folks with your own views.

 

[Dissident Dan]

if you stop thinking about vitamins and protein and all that shtuff and get back to basics and nature, we are built for eating meat,

Not really. We have some adaptations for eating meat, such as the appendix, but we are better suited to eating plants than to eating meat. This statement is supported by the fact that eating meat is strongly, positively correlated with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Our digestive tracts are much longer than those of carnivores (although also shorter than some herbivores, such as ruminants, but I'm not claiming that we're ruminants). If you look at our closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, they eat much less meat than we do.

Canines have nothing to do with it. Our canines are so small as to be pretty useless for tearing flesh. We do not have several-inch-faings like lions. Also, gorillas have rather large, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation, as they are herbivorous, with very sparse exceptions, such as consuming the insects on plant matter they are eating.

Anyway, our we do not need to follow our old ways. We do not need to be locked into the way of the past. Modern diets are already very little like they were before agriculture. We must progress. Evolution isn't about stagnation. It's about change.

We know the health benefits of vegetarian diets, so the "we shouldn't mess with evolution" argument, even if it was factual, wouldn't apply because scienctific evidence supports the claim that vegetarian diets are healthier.

plants have feelings too

No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

 

[Overdose]

I haven't read any of this thread but I am guessing the argument for eating meat didnt stretch beyond 'because we're designed to'. The implication being that nature in its infinite wisdom knows better than us mear humans and who are we to question it?
Ok fine if that's what you believe i don't have a problem with that, and I am sure when you catch a hideous desease your be more than willing to accept it as just part of nature.
right?

 

[mee]

Not really. We have some adaptations for eating meat, such as the appendix, but we are better suited to eating plants than to eating meat. This statement is supported by the fact that eating meat is strongly, positively correlated with high blood pressure, heart disease, cancer, and obesity. Our digestive tracts are much longer than those of carnivores (although also shorter than some herbivores, such as ruminants, but I'm not claiming that we're ruminants). If you look at our closest relatives, bonobos and chimps, they eat much less meat than we do.

Canines have nothing to do with it. Our canines are so small as to be pretty useless for tearing flesh. We do not have several-inch-faings like lions. Also, gorillas have rather large, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation, as they are herbivorous, with very sparse exceptions, such as consuming the insects on plant matter they are eating.

Anyway, our we do not need to follow our old ways. We do not need to be locked into the way of the past. Modern diets are already very little like they were before agriculture. We must progress. Evolution isn't about stagnation. It's about change.

We know the health benefits of vegetarian diets, so the "we shouldn't mess with evolution" argument, even if it was factual, wouldn't apply because scienctific evidence supports the claim that vegetarian diets are healthier.



No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

Go Dan!

 

[Crumbles]

The Anti-Veg Humorous Argument

I think we should definitely eat meat. I mean look at this world, global warming is on the doorstep and what are people doing? Everybody is turning vegetarian and eating all the green that helps us turn carbon dioxide in the atmosphere into oxygen. This is insane! We should eat meat. This way, not only the green plants can contribute more to reducing the carbon dioxide level but we will also decrease the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the cows and other animals will not steal so much oxygen and puff out as much carbon dioxide!

 

[JD]

Meat is absolutely delicious if the animal has been reared properly, with due respect and attention. I fail to see how it is in any way unethical or improper. I wouldn't personally eat primates, cats, dogs etc, however.
Would the Green movement (political activity rather than bowel(?)) be happy if humans became extinct so that cows could fart in peace?

 

[JD]

No, they don't. They lack nervous systems.

A work colleague of mine is a vegetarian and often jokes about her inability to concentrate because of the lack of substance in her diet.
We need the extra nutrients provided by our balanced diets to check her output.
Why do vegetarians feel the need to announce the tedious fact at every possible juncture? Just do it - no-one is interested in hearing about it.

 

[JD]

If you need iron drink well water or take a simple pill.

Yes, because its so much better to fill your system with pills than eat a balanced diet.

Living in the TexAss country I have seen many instances of severe animal abuse on local farms. Ranchers are an evil bunch. I know, they are my neighbors.

There may be specific instances where this is true but many animal rearers care deeply about their livestock.

I keep hearing over and over the benefits of soy. Eat tofu and live longer.

Soy sauce is particularly nice in a chicken stir-fry.
There are, however, health risks associated with soy (a Google search will inform)
If you run out of Tofu you could always eat cardboard. It's about as interesting.

Treat other animals like they are your relatives, because THEY ARE.

Well I suppose that would depend on how you treat your relatives.
But animals should have a good life, there is no argument about that.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A work colleague of mine is a vegetarian and often jokes about her inability to concentrate because of the lack of substance in her diet.
We need the extra nutrients provided by our balanced diets to check her output.
Why do vegetarians feel the need to announce the tedious fact at every possible juncture? Just do it - no-one is interested in hearing about it.

Well, no offense, but I can understand why someone wouldn't be able to follow things like what you just posted. I don't see any continuity. What is "her output" that you are talking about?

Anyway, the idea that vegetarians have problems thinking, are frail, etc. are all bunk. They're myths. I have not had any problems being vegan. I'm sure if you do not eat a sufficiently-varied diet, vegetarian or omnivorous, you will have problems, but it NOT hard at all to eat a well-balanced vegan diet.

There may be specific instances where this is true but many animal rearers care deeply about their livestock.

I'm sorry, but you may not be aware of the current situation. Even before modern, industrialized animal factories, there was cruelty--branding, herding, etc. But, today, over 90% of birds and pigs, as well as a a lot of dairy and beef cows, are kept in concentration camp-like conditions. Go to www.factoryfarming.org for more information on that.

 

[JD]

Well, no offense, but I can understand why someone wouldn't be able to follow things like what you just posted. I don't see any continuity. What is "her output" that you are talking about?

No offence taken but no-one else has any difficulty.
Output as in work output, the results of energy input.

Anyway, the idea that vegetarians have problems thinking, are frail, etc. are all bunk. They're myths. I have not had any problems being vegan. I'm sure if you do not eat a sufficiently-varied diet, vegetarian or omnivorous, you will have problems, but it NOT hard at all to eat a well-balanced vegan diet.

I can accept that Dan - you're probably right.
In my colleague's instance however it isn't bunk - her concentration is not great and she puts it down to her vegetarian diet. I suppose the reason could be something else though.
I do think that people should eat what they want and stop trying to convert each other, however. It is up to each individual to inform themselves (if they wish - here's another choice) of the origin of their food.

I'm sorry, but you may not be aware of the current situation. Even before modern, industrialized animal factories, there was cruelty--branding, herding, etc. But, today, over 90% of birds and pigs, as well as a a lot of dairy and beef cows, are kept in concentration camp-like conditions. Go to www.factoryfarming.org for more information on that.

I'm sorry, but patronising me won't strengthen your argument.

I think you will find that most animal rearers care deeply about their livestock Dan. You are talking about the USA and I'm talking about the UK. Battery farming goes on, and I don't like it one bit. But then I wouldn't buy eggs laid by hens kept in that way.

I knew exactly how the Factory Farming website would appear before I looked at it - a cow on its knees and an emotional tagline 'The truth hurts' was so predictable. How about just presenting the facts without all this? It is an attempt to sway its viewers before they have even read the content. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? It bears a certain resemblance to terrorist websites.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I do think that people should eat what they want and stop trying to convert each other, however. It is up to each individual to inform themselves (if they wish - here's another choice) of the origin of their food.

I disagree. I want people to know where their food comes from, and I want to reduce the suffering of these animals. I don't think that it is too great an intrusion into people's lives to try to persuade them given what's going on at the other end (in the animal factories and slaughterhouses).

I think you will find that most animal rearers care deeply about their livestock Dan. You are talking about the USA and I'm talking about the UK. Battery farming goes on, and I don't like it one bit. But then I wouldn't buy eggs laid by hens kept in that way.

The UK (and the rest of Europe) are generally better than the USA in this regard, but that does not mean that they are anywhere near acceptable. If the egg carton does not have explicit notification that the eggs are not from battery cages, then you can be assured that they are. Even when the eggs have labels like "free range", that is no guarantee of humane treatment or even adequate access to the outdoors. In the USA, our most highly-regulated term, "Organic", provides birds with the necessary humane safeguards. Some places have been certified by the government as "Organic" even when they obviously did not meet standards.

I know that in the EU, there was a proposed banning of battery cages, but that keeps being pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. Given the opposition to the ban on battery cages, it is easy to infer that most hens are kept in these deplorable contraptions.

I knew exactly how the Factory Farming website would appear before I looked at it - a cow on its knees and an emotional tagline 'The truth hurts' was so predictable. How about just presenting the facts without all this? It is an attempt to sway its viewers before they have even read the content. Why not let the facts speak for themselves? It bears a certain resemblance to terrorist websites.

Perhaps this site might be more to your approval: http://www.factoryfarm.org/

You can also do your own research on government websites and wherever else you deem to contain valuable information.

Of course the site is appealing to the viewer's sense of compassion. The site does contain facts, in addition to the rhetoric. I do not see why you use the existence of language that will cause the reader to think about whether or not current practices are acceptable as a reason to dismiss the facts contained in the site.

 

[mee]

Vegetarianism and fats

I think one reason some vegetarians are frail is that they don't get enough fats and oil in their diet. They are trying to eat food which does not sustain them out of some fat phobia developed for meat eaters, not vegetarians.

 

[balkan]

I think one reason some vegetarians are frail is that they don't get enough fats and oil in their diet. They are trying to eat food which does not sustain them out of some fat phobia developed for meat eaters, not vegetarians.

... it would be more like a lack of important proteins and healthy fatty acids (from e.g. fish) they lack... and often calcium... fat doesn't really do much other than being an energy supply... a not very easily accessible energy supply, that is...

 

[balkan]

Oh, the arrogance. As said in Jurassic Park, we really only have the power to destroy ourselves. The Earth will do just fine either way.

oh, the naivety...
nuclear weapons can definitely destroy the planet... that's not even a question... you're in a physics forum for christs sake... no organism yet, have shown to be capable of surviving high radiation...

... and as long as we're only hurting ourselves, it's all right or what?

 

[JD]

I disagree. I want people to know where their food comes from, and I want to reduce the suffering of these animals. I don't think that it is too great an intrusion into people's lives to try to persuade them given what's going on at the other end (in the animal factories and slaughterhouses).

Fair play Dan. So if a given individual is aware of this, but still refuses to change, what then? Are you going to somehow force people to adopt different habits? Bear in mind that many individuals are careful about how they source their meat. To the best of their knowledge, these people will be obtaining meat from properly reared animals. These, I should hope, you have no qualms with.

The UK (and the rest of Europe) are generally better than the USA in this regard, but that does not mean that they are anywhere near acceptable. If the egg carton does not have explicit notification that the eggs are not from battery cages, then you can be assured that they are. Even when the eggs have labels like "free range", that is no guarantee of humane treatment or even adequate access to the outdoors. In the USA, our most highly-regulated term, "Organic", provides birds with the necessary humane safeguards. Some places have been certified by the government as "Organic" even when they obviously did not meet standards.

I know that in the EU, there was a proposed banning of battery cages, but that keeps being pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. Given the opposition to the ban on battery cages, it is easy to infer that most hens are kept in these deplorable contraptions.

Can you identify the reasons given by those who oppose the ban?

Of course the site is appealing to the viewer's sense of compassion. The site does contain facts, in addition to the rhetoric. I do not see why you use the existence of language that will cause the reader to think about whether or not current practices are acceptable as a reason to dismiss the facts contained in the site.

No - as I said quite clearly 'Why not let the facts speak for themselves?'
I haven't mentioned dismissing any facts - you have missed the point I was making.

If kinder methods were adopted across the board, with their corresponding hike in costs - and hence prices - would you be concerned about poorer individuals - perhaps those living on the breadline - being priced out?

You would need to become the government to stand any real chance of attaining this - do you think tax payers would be happy to have their burden increased to subsidise/convert animal rearers? Or would you take money away from another area?

 

[JD]

oh, the naivety...
nuclear weapons can definitely destroy the planet... that's not even a question... you're in a physics forum for christs sake... no organism yet, have shown to be capable of surviving high radiation...

... and as long as we're only hurting ourselves, it's all right or what?

I believe that the Green movement would be delighted if humans were wiped off the surface of the earth. Then they could stand up and say "I told you so...excuse me, I said I told you so...hello...anyone there?...".
Oh no, hang on, they wouldn't be able to.

 

[balkan]

now, if every human except the green movement...

 

[JD]

now, if every human except the green movement...

Well of course but that would take quite some cunning. Keep an eye on Ronald McDonald for signs.

 

[Overdose]

I can't believe people have the cheek to make ethical lifestyle choices, i mean seriously
when will people just grow up?

 

[nevagil]

I quit eating animals 14 years ago to lower cholesterol levels at age 40. IT helped and didn't hurt my fighting ability, I still box and jujitsu for fitness. I quit dairy 2 years ago and starting eating fish about twice a week. Its a hassle getting protein without driving thru a easy fast food place though. Most my friends eat meat and it doesn't matter to me and my diet doesn't bother them. I'm a old marine with PTSD so the killing of animals or people is not a big deal to me but I don't like abuse to em.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think one reason some vegetarians are frail is that they don't get enough fats and oil in their diet. They are trying to eat food which does not sustain them out of some fat phobia developed for meat eaters, not vegetarians.

Once again, vegetarians are not generally frail. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.