Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[siliconhype]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

 

[Alkatran]

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly until very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

This research also shows that wildlife professionals foresee that without their ability to hunt or trap, the current population of some species will increase phenomenally. When asked by how much their budgets would have to increase to maintain the same level of service if they could neither hunt nor trap, most wildlife professionals stated that no increase in funding would make up for the loss of those two methods.

 

[Alkatran]

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

I didn't say to do nothing. I said an ultimatum on meat wouldn't work.

 

[Alkatran]

It wouldn't be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

 

[siliconhype]

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

 

[siliconhype]

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

- V

P.S.

To bring focus back to the original topic, i will say this: by this method you have presented in your original post - we have not done anything exept relocate a naturally occurring very large number of chickens and cows and other species from their environment, into enclosed ones we have made. Why? Why do you think this theory doesn't sound right?

 

[siliconhype]

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

 

[siliconhype]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

Wow, sometimes i surprize myself, i appologize for not paying more attention to your words, i think i basically repeated what you meant.

 

[siliconhype]

I say skip the part where they test one pinky, brain and monkeys and just go straight to human testing. There's plenty of us we can spare a few people. Maybe clones but that just wouldn't be the same as real experinced humans.

"There's plenty of us we can spare a few people."

That's what Hitler thought too...

- V

 

[Dissident Dan]

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

-------------------

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

 

[siliconhype]

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

-------------------

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

"Obviously, this is absurd."

Absurd only in the mind of the victim or potential victim. It has always been so even among humans.

Otherwise i agree with most of your opinions, The majority of Earth's population does, in fact, not eat meat in the majority of their diet; the majority (around 90%) eat grains.

- V

 

[lightbeing]

caloric restriction

America is poised to gain from "learning" how to eat. Exemplified by this thread and all of your local nursing and convalescent homes in your areas. Just go visit them once to see what the benefits are a life of eating the typical FDA and Rx. influenced American diet can do.

Then, observe the aged yogi or buddhist monk located in the Eastern rural part of the Asian continent. I am not saying exploit their disposition. Simply, learn. Learn what the state of the matter that enters the body has the ability to do. Learn, what the last phase of matter( of the three, but not taught here!), the "dead" phase which includes previously killed meat, and or vegetables that have been cooked at high temp and smothered in chemicals and reactants as well as inert ingredients, has as far as nutrients and lifeforce function inhibiting tendencies.

Feeding the mind of arrogant, egotistical based scripts of educational accomplishment has not improved the understanding of the world around us. Believe what you want about adkins and advertisement. But, there is always possibilities of what can be done, can NOT be undone.

Contrary to the underdeveloped conscious awareness of the population.
You don't know! Nor I...

So, stop saying you do. And...
Learn.

johnny

 

[Alkatran]

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

If wolves started trying to attack people because they couldn't find enough food, that would be 'worse' (but unlikely). Where's the 'evil'?

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

Survival of the strongest. If aliens come and wipe us out, well they were more evolved for the task. But this also means that since WE are the strongest (acquired strength through weapons counts!) we are a higher form of life. Just as the tiger is higher than a human stupid or unfortunate enough to walk in its path.

But it's all a very vague and arguable line, on who is more important.

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

I explicitly said centuries. I don't know the history of hunting, but I'm sure as long as we've been here in North America, we've hunted the local wildlife.

 

[russ_watters]

America is poised to gain from "learning" how to eat. Exemplified by this thread and all of your local nursing and convalescent homes in your areas. Just go visit them once to see what the benefits are a life of eating the typical FDA and Rx. influenced American diet can do.

Then, observe the aged yogi or buddhist monk located in the Eastern rural part of the Asian continent.

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

 

[digiflux]

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person.

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse...

 

[Alkatran]

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse...

That was a reply. If the post was idiotic you should have shot it down.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

 

[Alkatran]

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

 

[YourLooks]

I have never eaten meat for a year or so, reasons ? only one, because I have no money to buy meat. I am only able to afford rice, bread, and cheese.
Oh well, I know bread and in cheese I eat daily, there are also fats and eggs but they are not meat anymore, right ?
I eat a lot, and do exercises every morning, I am healthy and in a very good condition, 45kgs.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

I don't know. I assumed he simply meant meat vs. non-meat diet. Environmental stress can't be discounted when comparing health in different cultures. Diet isn't all there is to health.

I think most informed people today would say that a balanced, nutritional meatless diet is most likely to be better for one's health, than a balanced, nutritional meat diet; yet, a balanced, nutritional meat diet is most likely to be better for one's health than a bad meatless diet. In terms of living on just veggies (i.e., no dairy), I did it for 8 years about 20 years ago and was never healthier, but I also knew a lot about nutrition, combining incomplete proteins, etc. (the relatively small amount of dairy I eat now is purely for sensual enjoyment of my food). I had some friends who did it and they always looked ragged because they ate poorly. So the comparison between diets has to be correct to make any sense.

However, none of that has nothing to do with the morality of eating meat, which I still cannot see. More efficient, healthier, better for the planet . . . yes. But moral or immoral I don't get.

 

[pace]

Survival of the strongest. If aliens come and wipe us out, well they were more evolved for the task. But this also means that since WE are the strongest (acquired strength through weapons counts!) we are a higher form of life. Just as the tiger is higher than a human stupid or unfortunate enough to walk in its path.

Oh yes. Let's See. If I'm smarter than you, then I just kill you if let's say you're doing something stupid and is in my way and I've done nothing wrong. Do you really believe this? This is how the Hitler Agenda was. It was all about lower races, and that we could kill them just because they was of 'lower' form. It didn't matter that they wanted to live, or that they obviously felt pain. Oh no.

But it's all a very vague and arguable line, on who is more important.

Exactly. Many of us humans are really stupid, spending our lifes in a little box. In many ways a lot of the other animals are much more lifely and smart than us.

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

The change of vegetarianism will never go that fast anyway, so it's not a valid argument.

 

[Alkatran]

Oh yes. Let's See. If I'm smarter than you, then I just kill you if let's say you're doing something stupid and is in my way and I've done nothing wrong. Do you really believe this? This is how the Hitler Agenda was. It was all about lower races, and that we could kill them just because they was of 'lower' form. It didn't matter that they wanted to live, or that they obviously felt pain. Oh no.

Good point. I was thinking of a situation where the aliens HAD to whipe us out to survive. You have two species competing against each other, the victor is worthy.

Just a senseless massacre is wrong, I agree. I'm not entirely heartless, you see. That would go against the 'beneficial' theory of right I like. (destruction of one species for the unnessecary expansion of another)

Exactly. Many of us humans are really stupid, spending our lifes in a little box. In many ways a lot of the other animals are much more lifely and smart than us.

Smarter than us? I can't think of any other animals which have the same pure processing power we do. Of course I'm not counting serverely mentally disabled people here.

The change of vegetarianism will never go that fast anyway, so it's not a valid argument.

Good point. We make the change gradual, slowly lowering hunting and killing, breeding less animals etc.

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

True - it was a straw-man, but I felt like shooting it down anyway.

 

[pace]

Good point. I was thinking of a situation where the aliens HAD to whipe us out to survive. You have two species competing against each other, the victor is worthy.

Just a senseless massacre is wrong, I agree. I'm not entirely heartless, you see. That would go against the 'beneficial' theory of right I like. (destruction of one species for the unnessecary expansion of another)

Oh.. Ok

Smarter than us? I can't think of any other animals which have the same pure processing power we do. Of course I'm not counting serverely mentally disabled people here.

Yeah, smart is maybe not the right word. Wise and lifely is better. When we spend our days in blocks and sement I think we miss out on life. Animals live a very variated and lifely life out there I think.

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

It's hard for me to imagine that we are doing animals a favor by bringing them into that type of existence and then confining them, tormenting them, and slaughtering them. Besides, I don't want to say we are 'taking life away' when we don't raise them in the first place.
We are already helping other animals in some degree. When we have more time, peace and comfortability(I think people in general have a more wish for being in comfort(fun&healthcare) than actually stribe for things like Genioushood or Love), then I think we will put much more force on helping our different animals too. Then we will have time to raise proper animals to their right habitat, and help them too in understanding and healthcare. Bringing general good. Simply because we have to prioritate that they also want to live, and feel pain. We will help where we can.


Thanks for all the good comments!

 

[lightbeing]

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

I do not know.

The observation is to understand the difference in the state of the body!
More variables than diet affect life expectancy...

Who cares if I said that "monks" eat right or yogis It could be any living creature. Even you. But there is a few interesting observations of the contrast to "average american". There have been a few monks. That, eat right and who have acheived a special feat that exemplifies the main differential.
That is, while the elderly and increasingly more people throughout the world have the organs in there bodies attempt to rip there life away from them by breaking down, they have died with all of their body left so intact and clean that they do not even decompose but attain their stature.
As a "mummy"

 

[Alkatran]

I do not know.

The observation is to understand the difference in the state of the body!
More variables than diet affect life expectancy...

Who cares if I said that "monks" eat right or yogis It could be any living creature. Even you. But there is a few interesting observations of the contrast to "average american". There have been a few monks. That, eat right and who have acheived a special feat that exemplifies the main differential.
That is, while the elderly and increasingly more people throughout the world have the organs in there bodies attempt to rip there life away from them by breaking down, they have died with all of their body left so intact and clean that they do not even decompose but attain their stature.
As a "mummy"

I need more proof than the word "monk"

 

[Dissident Dan]

Question: Would you say it's better to have lived and been killed than never to have been born? If we stop raising domestic animals (and we would have to, we need more room for crops. I'll admit not as much room as the animals take, but THEY NEED THAT ROOM) isn't that taking away life in one respect?

Well, you have to consider quality of life. For an animal being born into modern agriculture, life is hell. Any such creature would be better off dead.

Now, I don't think that you can make a moral issue of not allowing a creature to be created, because, if the creature is not created, then there is no creature to be denied of life. There is no individual to be affected by the decision.

 

[digiflux]

For thousands of years Native Americans killed animals for food and shelter, but they lived with nature not against it. Science not withstanding, modern Americans have embraced a religion which separates humans from our non-human cousins. This has led to widespread abuse of sentient beings. They justify their cruelty with scientific jargon and deny their humanity like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews.

I encourage all here to read Carl Sagan's book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

 

[physicsisphirst]

This has led to widespread abuse of sentient beings. They justify their cruelty with scientific jargon and deny their humanity like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews.

it is fascinating the extent to which people can rationalize their actions.
for instance, descartes decided one day that animals were mere automatons incapable of suffering. vivisectors therefore used to nail conscious animals to dissecting boards and proceed to cut them up.

denying basic characteristics that living beings share, allows one to treat others anyway one pleases.

in friendship,
prad

 

[pace]

.. and when the animals screamed, it was just their 'mechanics' that told them to do so...

 

[cogito]

it is fascinating the extent to which people can rationalize their actions.
for instance, descartes decided one day that animals were mere automatons incapable of suffering. vivisectors therefore used to nail conscious animals to dissecting boards and proceed to cut them up.

denying basic characteristics that living beings share, allows one to treat others anyway one pleases.

in friendship,
prad

To be fair to Descartes, this wasn't an arbitrary decision on his part, and it wasn't motivated by a desire to cut animals open. His views on animals were bizarre and inhumane, but not unprincipled. If anything, this makes his views on animals even more disturbing to those of us who recognize the mental complexity of many animals, especially mammals.

 

[brandon.irwin]

I think most people in America eat too much meat compared to fruits and vegetables (especially now with the popularity of the Atkins diet). From a nutritional standpoint, I think this is a bad idea.

From a moral standpoint, I see no problem in eating other lower lifeforms. By lower, I mean like fish, most poultry, etc. I see no reason to eat beef since it's possible to eat too much with bad effects (heard disease, etc). Plus, the cattle these days are feed to themselves, which is never a good idea. Although, isn't this true for pork and chicken too?

I see no problem with putting chickens in small cages. They are comfortable there. Maybe not as healthy, but if they really didn't like it, don't you think they would get too stressed out and not lay eggs (like chasing them all day)? I don't think they can comprehend the situation enough to care. Look at the size of their brains...it's ridiculously small. I believe there are enough chickens out there in the wild to naturally evolve.

I don't think it's right for us to keep a species from evolving. I don't see any circumstance where we make this happen (besides wiping out an entire species).

And, the soy, from what I've read about it, it's the processing that makes it toxic.

 

[proneax]

OK, first of all, the poor treatment of animals on farms etc isn't an argument for vegitarianism or veganism. It may be an argument for reform and new laws regulating the treatment of animals in these circumstances, but to make the connection between vegitarianism and animal treatment is skipping a few steps.

So let's say we've fixed this problem, and chickens, cattle, etc are all free range and happy as clams. Now the argument becomes 'any killing of an animal for consumtion is morally wrong' ?? Sorry but I dont' see the justification for that. Is your cat morally wrong when it kills a mouse or bird? It doesn't even eat it. What about the cat or dog food you feed your pet? Does it contain meat? Is that 'wrong'? Is any animal 'morally wrong' for eating another animal? If not, then how are we different? Because we have higher cognitive abilities? What about dolphins? They have a pretty high cognitive ability and they eat other fish. If you look at the evolution of the human race, at what point in its history did it suddenly become 'wrong' to eat meat? When was our reasoning capacity high enough that we should have said 'lets stop eating meat'.

So if you can't say that 'any killing of an animal for consumption is morally wrong' then what is the argument for vegitarianism? I've heard people say that they're healthier when eating vegetarian but it also seems to take a good dietary knowledge to pull this off. If you're vegetarian for health reasons that really has nothing to do with animal rights. Some people are vegetarian because the find meat 'gross' or don't like the blood or whatever. Again, this isn't really related to animal rights.

And being vegetarian to 'boycott' the poor treatment of animals really doesn't fly either. In theory, not buying meat reduces the size of the market so in theory fewer animals are killed, however it also means that less meat is sold. Now, in a market that has a mix of industrially raised and 'free-range' cattle/chickens/whatever, reducing the size of the market reduces the slice of the pie that the 'free range' can take up and lessens the chance that it will continue to be viable without legislation, unless those that purchase 'free-range' are devoted consumers and as the market shrinks the consumer base stays the same. I'm no economist so I guess there isn't a good conclusion to this conjecture but none the less you can't say with certainty that not buying meat decreases the improper treatment of animals.

thoughts?

 

[Alkatran]

For thousands of years Native Americans killed animals for food and shelter, but they lived with nature not against it. Science not withstanding, modern Americans have embraced a religion which separates humans from our non-human cousins. This has led to widespread abuse of sentient beings. They justify their cruelty with scientific jargon and deny their humanity like a Nazi scientist experimenting on Jews.

I encourage all here to read Carl Sagan's book, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

Scientists are the ones arguing that animals are the same stuff as us! (Theory of evolution...)

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Anti-Vegetarianism

Personally, I've found myself at the conclusion that vegetarianism is not just "not right", but in fact wrong. I'd like to start an intelligent debate though, so please bear with me. I'd like people to look at my logic below:

Eating meat is efficient and more efficient than eating substitutes. Not only is meat more efficient, but it is also more enjoyable in many instances.

Animals cannot contribute postively to society in an amount that justifies not eating them. If something doesn't help us, why shouldn't we take advantage of it? Maybe it's cruel, maybe we wouldn't like it if people did that to us, but what justification for being vegan does that create. The whole premise of treating animals how you would like to be treated is based on fear. But with humans that logic applies and can benefit you directly rather than through some unlikely possibility. If animals can't help us the only reason I can see to let them live, is a reason based on fear. They wouldn't like to be in an animals situation, so instead of taking advantage of an opportunity - vegans refuse to do so based on fear.

Even though vegetarians aren't overtly harming people. Vegetarianism is insufficient and works against idealism, making it wrong in my mind.

I have to go at the moment so I apologize if my logic wasn't clear. This is/isn't meant as an attack on vegans. I wanted to express my current opinion to try and get other perspectives.