Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

Dissident Dan

It seemed to me that you implying that their not being very intelligent was a reason to disregard them. Perhaps I was wrong. I don't think that I stated that their thoughts are almost just like human thoughts. I've stated that, like humans, they can think and feel emotions.

Please, let's keep personal attacks out of this. Those get us nowhere. I didn't state that I find a natural rape urge. I was speaking historically. After all, what is considered natural is history; natural usually just means "the way that things have been for a long time".

I would prefer to die a painful death than live an entire life in agony.

Firstly, there are no farmed animals throwing grenades at anyone,. There are no real reasons to consume meat other than preference and societal influences.
Also, just as I cannot pretend to know exactly how your particular farm operates, you would be assuming too much to think that most farms operate however yours is. I've seen stuff from many different farms and slaughterhouses, and I've seen statistics. Checking valid statistics in combination with a wide enough personal sampling of "farms" and slaughterhouses is a very good, if not the only, way to determine this.

I'm glad that we agree in some areas. Please don't take anything I say to necessarily refer to the conditions of your animals. I can only make general statements on what is common in the industry or comments on specific things that I have seen and/or heard. The things that I have seen and read about are quite appalling. There are many websites, books, and videos detailing the situations.

loseyourname

Well, to begin with, I'm not really sure that animal suffering, or anybody's suffering, is more important than conserving the biosphere that supports all life. But that isn't really my point anyway.

What I'm saying is that your argument from animal suffering can be disputed, and will be disputed, no matter how obvious it is that livestock experience suffering, simply because people will always point out that we can't talk to them and ask them. The argument from ecosystem conservation can't be disputed. No one can argue with the fact that filtering the energy from the sun through several layers, or even just one layer, of livestock, greatly reduces the amount that makes it to us, and so greatly increases the volume of the crops we must grow and the land we must use. It is just an extremely inefficient way to utilize photosynthesis when we can simply get the calories straight from the plants. Doing so would go a very great distance toward lessening the strain we place on ecosystems, do away with a great deal of deforestation, and decrease air pollution and increase the productivity of agriculture. A small lifestyle change could very nearly cut in half the impact we have on the planet, if only everyone would make the switch. One step up the trophic change entails a tenfold increase in the amount of total calories consumed, by both livestock and humans. That means ten times as much grain is needed to feed livestock that will then feed us than would be needed simply to feed us. Imagine the difference that could be made.

Let us not forget how much of an impact agriculture has. As a case in point, take the Salton Sea. As of right now, the Salton Sea stands as the only refuge for about 300 species of birds that migrate south through California every winter. The coastal wetlands are all but gone due to development. Eutrophication through agricultural runoff causes immense algal blooms that suck all of the oxygen out of the water, killing all the fish, and periodically leaving the migrating birds with nothing to eat. If this continues at the rate it is currently moving in, within ten years there will be no more fish, and the last refuge for these birds will be gone. This is the only place on the entire west coast that they can go to, and destroying it will effectively end the existence of 300 species west of the Rockies. This is only one example. If the land used was cut by a factor of ten, the problem would all but disappear. Another large problem is the need of agriculture for water. The Colorado river right now stands as the only source of water for three huge metropolitan areas: Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles, none of which have their own water. The strain put on natural resources by the size of the populations, and by the amount of farm land that exists out in Riverside County, is devastating. Removal of livestock in favor of exclusively vegetable and grain crops would not do away with the this problem entirely, as overpopulation of a basically desert environment is a large part of it as well, but it would be a great start.

cragwolf

I'm too lazy to read this long thread, so I'm sorry if I raise issues that have already been raised. I'll just state my opinion here.

I'm a hypocrite. I eat meat, but I recognise that there really is no valid reason for my doing so. Why should animals die just to satisfy my taste for their BBQ'd flesh? A proper vegetarian diet would provide all the necessary nutrients I need. There certainly are some people who live in some places in the world where a meat diet is justified. Meat for these people might be the only way they can obtain their required nutrients. But in my first-world society of plenty, that is not an applicable argument.

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

Galatea

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior. I fear anyone who will end a living creatures life for any reason besides minimizing its suffering.

Even devout meat eaters feel a twinge in their conscience when they think about factory farming. I've yet to meet anyone who says, "Yeah, factory farming is great. I think they treat these animals just fine." I think that more humane ways of killing them are certainly a step in the right direction - at the very least, it might at least indicate an evolution of thought about these issues.

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

Dayle Record

I saw this study regarding empathy, and animals.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994901

cragwolf

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

loseyourname

At least the hunter does not hurt the environment. If he is skilled, he will also inflict no suffering on the animal he kills.

TheBestOfMe

Wow, First off, I'd like to commend all these agruments and points you all place. You really think outside the box.

But, as it goes, I take a postion, I stand on the side of Dan(whom is doing a very good job on his own).

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

KingNothing

I think vegetarianism as a form of protest has a great heart and goal in mind but is a horrible attempt at making progress. It's not the facts like "the animals are being so mistreated" that really relate, so much, its more the issue of "how much does this accomplish?"

For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Humans are quite obviously the top of the 'chain' when it comes to planet earth...by that I mean, we have basic control over the populations of all other animals...we are the king animals of the earth. Why not let us be the top of the food chain, too? I'm sure animals don't like being killing...buut, animals are killed no matter what.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.

russ_watters

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane." Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

Yossarian

earth worked perfectly fine with out humans eating meat. earth will alwasy adjust its self to the population fluctuations whether it is a few hundred amamals one way or the other or, millions of anamals. the foodchain will always readjust itself.

Yossarian

[QUOTE=For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.[/QUOTE]

I have been a vegitarian my entire life and am the prosses of going vegan. I am an athlete as well and workout. i have never encountered any physical problems with my being a vegitarian. it is quite easy to get all that is required for a healthy diet.

I am also quite curious to see what you so aptly called other things that one must take into consideration. i agree that you must be more carful but it is quite easy to do.

I would also like to know what other things you would suggest to do. and in respose to what.

Les Sleeth

Be careful there . . . I don't think you can make your case when you say it is less healthy to be vegetarian. I know nutrition quite well, and I also can compare the first 25 years of my life as a meat eater, and the last 32 years as a vegetarian. I can report there is no comparison, not even close! I feel much better, digest food easier, have more energy (e.g., I play racquetball for 3 hours without a break, not bad for a 57 yo), get over the few colds I ever get faster, and more.

Healthwise, I am convinced the vegetarian diet wins hands down (obviously it has to be eating good food and a well-rounded diet . . . an all Twinkie diet is vegetarian). But I still can't see how it is anybody's business whether others eat meat or not, and so cannot be considered a "should" socially. If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

TheBestOfMe

Well, many doctors and scientists have done numerous experements on whether it is unhealthy or not. I'm assuming you've read or gotten information that its unhealthier? maybe by personal experience?
But It has been PROVEN that vegetarians are much more healtheir. Did you know that heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and other diseases have all been linked to meat and dairy consumption. In fact, the risk of developing heart disease among meat-eaters is 50% higher than that of vegetarians. One more thing, Vegetarians and vegans live, on avegerage, 6-10 years longer than meat-eaters.

Les Sleeth

When a friend introduces me to someone and teasingly says "he's a vegetarian," I always deny it and say instead, "there is simply no meat [nor fish or eggs] any of the dishes I eat."

If they ask me why I say, "because I don't like flesh [or eggs]."

They might continue by saying how "good" meat tastes, etc. To that I say, "maybe, but I feel better when I don't eat it."

There you have it. Fully justified with evidence, logic, and reason . . . no glossing over. Of course, I am not a vegetarian either.

Alliance

I definately agree with Dan's side of the argument here (and well done to him by the way for all the great points he's making) as I'm a vegetarian myself. Firstly I don't know how people can say a vegetarian diet is less healthy than a meat eaters diet. I agree with KingNothing in that you can't just see protein on a food label and think that is enough, but I don't agree that eating meat is the only way to gain all the essential amino acids you need. And as for the rest of your argument, you are basically saying let's do it because we can. Hitler was the dictator in Germany and killed millions of Jews. Because he was top of the Chain, does that make it right?

motai

It isnt. Soy contains the essential eight amino acids and higher amount of high-quality proteins.

http://vegweb.com/articles/monique-1003688934.shtml