Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Really, it's a very simple issue; it just takes overcoming your prejudices (everyone has prejudices) and desires. It's really very obvious, when you think about it from a "blank slate" perspective that other species of animals have feelings just like we humans do. If there is any basis at all for ethics, it is the existence of feelings.

Then, it just comes down to taking the old cop-out or not. Many people say, "But I like my steak!", or, "I don't know how you do it." The truth is that most of it is just in how you approach it mentally. If you are contantly anticipating and thinking that it will be hard, then you will probably falter in your will-power and give up. However, if you don't have such a "half empty" perspective, it is much easier. Anyway, if you try it, it's not that important whether you falter momentarily, as long as you keep trying.

Considering the gravity of the situation, saying that it's yummy is no excuse. Some self-restraint is required. What I find incredibly ironic about this all is that conservatives or right-wingers are the ones that tend to act like they have the moral high-ground and emphasive personal responsibility, yet most of them don't have the gumption to exercise any restraint when it comes to this highly serious situation. Anyone who takes "personal responsibility" as a political mantra is shown to be a hypocrite of the gravest sort if not even attempting to become vegetarian.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Sure, the cheetah eats animals, and a raper rapes women. If you can use what a cheetah does to justify your actions, then by the same mechanism, I can use a raper's actions to justify mine. Obviously, this is absurd. One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

I am not making any startling or arrogant claim. It is rather obvious that we have the mental ability to consider others' feelings. I say that we should use it and use it consistently.

Contrary to popular belief, Darwin did not propose a prescription for how to live, he merely gave a description for what has happened. I didn't realize when he became a god, either. Just because something has been happening a certain way doesn't mean that it's o.k. to continue it. If you're going to use survival of the fittest as a justification, then you can never claim that anything is wrong. Slavery is not wrong. Eugenics is not wrong. Genocide is not wrong. Nothing is wrong. Is that really what you believe?

are you saying it's instinctual to rape someone as much as it is instinctual for the cheetah to feast on a rabbit? yes, darwin gave a REALISTIC description of what has happened because of our biology, that doesn't make him a god, quite the opposite really...as for the examples-slavery, eugenics, genocide...these don't have to do with human survival, but more human enhancement...i could never cut my own growing children down to just vegetables as they need meat (mostly chicken and fish is what i feed them) to grow healthy and strong...do you have kids that you are concerned for their proper nutrition?

how many third world country citizens are vegetarians by choice? do you think if they had the opportunity of eating what most americans have taken for granted, would they deny it because of sensitivity to animals? what about all the roadkill on the road? is it cruel to keep animals in the zoo? i am not trying to make this a joke, but i feel these are realistic questions that should be addressed just as equally as the one in this thread...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Yes, I would say that rape is pretty darn instinctual. We've just had thousands of years of society to meme it out of us. (Even though "instinctual" or not is irrelevant)

Meat is not necessary for proper health. In fact, being vegetarian is healthier, unless you limit yourself to french fries or something silly like that. There is a lot of literature available regarding this. I invite you to check it out. Meat is definitely not necessary for survival...even uttering so is incredibly preposterous (stating such a thing is only possible by being blinded by prejudice), as everyone knows that vegetarians exist and live to old ages. So, it is no better eugenics, slavery, etc. Hell, eugenics could possibly be necessary for longtime survival of the species (which would mean that the "survival of the fittest" argument would justify, although I must once again mention that s.o.t.f. is mearly a description of what has happened, and should not be taken as a prescription for what should happen.)

Propositions:
1) It is possible to live a long, healthy life as a vegetarian.
2) Not being a vegetarian causes beings to suffer
3) Beings suffering is not good
4) One should not do a thing that causes a bad (not good) thing

Therefore:
One should not be not a vegetarian
One should be a vegetarian

 

[pace]

The Oppertunities.

'Poor' people in africa don't have much choice not eating meat, but we have. We can always choose something else. Actually a lot of vegan food is cheaper. Pancakes and porrige are both cheap and tasty meals, always liked them since a child, as so many others. (Galatea, it almost seems as usa has better vegan oppertunities than here in norway, I think there are a lot of raw material here, but I see scarcely little of the vegan-meat, and especially quick-food-vegan-packages(do you have well of this too in usa?) here :/. But maybe I'm looking in the wrong shops, got to check more into that, I've mostly just been looking in the two biggest foodchains)
I think the child issue have a lot to say. You learn in psychology how much the first years have to say powering your persona. When you learn how much that taaasty good ol hamburger taste from day one, you have a much harder time as a grownup trying not to eat meat. So if you're having a child, and agree in me in these issue, you should try not giving meat to your kid imo.

DDan, isn't that chemically produced meat(at least I'm not talking about that traditional funny tasting vegan(fake)-meat, but pure organical made meat in laboratories) still in question? I mean, isn't it well known that we're still not sure if it's healthy or not? That we don't know the chance of getting cancer or other biological diseases from it ?
I mean isn't it still in it's testing period? Or perhaps gene-infused food -liberal country as USA, some states already permit these things?

The Evolution.

Just because we see cheetahs eat meat, doesn't make it a natural right: The Evolution says animals are like us, 'We see all of one species eat meat, therefore us humans have no choice but do the same' doesn't have any credibility to it, in fact it's a logical absurd proposition since Cheetas are like us(prooved by evolution), they might as well be as much into this system as us: necessarily eating food to survive, and also be socially inflicted as young by eating meat. Many of us know how much power the social can have.
There is no line in experience, and how far does it have to go before we see it? Do we have to see ONE cheetah hesitating eating some meat before we understand it's not about race? No.
We also have this wonderful thing called science that has made us much more organized, giving us more oppertunities, making it all easier.

Just do it.

I think we all do some contribution in this. Almost all of us eat a little less meat from one day day or another, maybe some of us even if we don't think about it. Even if we don't eat meat one day, we choose to 'not eat so much of it'. I personally find girls better at this issue, than boys. Us boys have the bad habbit of thinking it's a 'Either this, or that' question, 'Either you're good, or you got no choice anyway and can go all the bad way' 'Vegan, or no vegan' etc. So I'm not saying we meat-eaters are simply evil for eating meat: I think most of us do something now and then, a step here and there. And that it's cool! The issue is that just some of us are much better at it than some others. And some blessed ones have managed stop eating it.

The Psychology.

Another thing I came by the other day was that, I was thinking one day I'd decided maybe becoming a vegan; then I thought the traditional thought 'But I'll NEVER eat meat again :('. But then I'm thinking: The feeling 'Never' really isn't an argument. It would be an argument if I lived forever, but I aint. So when I'm saying 'Never' it's also 'I never ate any meat from 9 to 11 today'. Shall I say: 'OH NO! Gotto not eat meat never'. What I'm saying is that you can use the macro argument in micro-time. That the 'never' argument isn't an argument. So that next time that this thought pops up in our head, we can try thinking 'well, you aint eating any meat right now either[if you aint;)], so stop thinking these ridiculous thoughts'. hehe, don't know how much it could help, but it's a psyschology issue. This also plays a part when you try not eating meat. Finding a counter-argument is in the long run always helpful.

So let's STOP FOOLING OURSELF, let us always try, we know we can try, start by doing a little here and there. And let's make ourself conscience too, and others, as most of us how much power the social can have. And let's see where it's going. If we didn't make becoming a vegan, hey, at least we ate a little less of our brethern. Congrats, we still made the world a little better place to live in! Trying is also the death of boredom, The bored are the moralless and non-trying, in my experience :)

 

[Dissident Dan]

Pace's post brought an interesting contrast to mind.

Some people like to justify eating meat by invoking the memory of natural selection. They use a Darwinian justification. The funny thing is that if the knowledge that we have gained from Darwin should shed any light pertaining to the matter, it should be how similar each of us really is to members of other species. The similarities are so great (the differences so small) that they really are of no importance in this issue, so if we should extend compassion to other humans through self-restraint (exercising responsibility), we should do the same to our non-human co-inhabitants, as well.

Yet, the greatest difference is in our intelligence. Let us use it in order to make ourselves more humane than they.

 

[Kerrie]

Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them? What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested? How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't? I think your claim of humans are more intelligent then humans is slightly arrogant, because we are defining intelligence in the human perspective...

How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too? I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...at the same time, I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie

What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

I'm not sure where you're going with that.
Fish I count as animals, in the stricly analytical way.
About grain: We don't know, but we have scarcely little evidence suggesting so. If we get somewhere, maybe even making our own grain in a somehow grain-merciful way. But in essence, we are biological living creatures, and need to eat biological living things. But saying that because we eat biological living things, there is no hope but eating and killing whatever; is no argument.
It's like saying that because we kill, it doesn't matter in what amount we kill. Because it does, we can always try our best, and we know that. But we aint perfect beings. We can't tell ourself that because we aint perfect, there is no hope at doing better, that the world can just go to hell because we ain perfect already. Even tho we sometimes fool ourself with that. It's an hopeless and stupid argument, it'll get us right down the drain.
But being aware for all life is a good thing nevertheless imo(and if that's what you meant). I think we should be good towards all life, and strictly sense I dislike when we mess too much with mother nature. But we can only take one step at a time. So let's prioritate the animals.

Originally posted by Kerrie

How do we know that we are more intelligent then animals when they can survive in the wild on their own, but a majority of humans can't?

The tradition that we speak, and animals don't, is an old argument used to proove we are intelligent creates, dating at least back to Descartes. Now in recent studies, and that we see monkeys speaking, it's kinda dated. Humans obviously have more IQ and language skills than other animals, but there are lots of more intelligent factors as you well put out.

Originally posted by Kerrie

I think all people who choose to buy meat should be severely educated of what they are putting into their bodies as far as how the livestock they are eating is raised...perhaps that might change their ways of thinking to a degree I see this question as a personal choice though, not something mandated by law (within our lifetime), and I don't see it too much different then controversey of abortion-another personal choice that affects another...

I think the animal case is more important than the abortion case, since the abortion case is more obvious. The debate that only is left in the abortion case, is when it's humanly to abort the baby.

I completely agree with you on the human-distant-to-animals argument.
We've always been close to the ones we've been hunting, and payed tribute. Now we're living in a society like never before, where we've grown distant. We need to get knowledged again. We've become alienated, it's maybe the major question in this issue.

Again, think it's a political choice. I can eat less meat, and I can pay tribute, an extra point to the politicians that take the animal case the right direction.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
Native Africans don't get the choice to eat meat, realistically, but do you think they would take the opportunity if it was extended to them?
[...]
How about the Native Americans who have hunted buffalo, wild turkeys, and even whales off the coast of Washington? Do we change their protected way of life too?

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

What about fish? What about the plants? How do we know that they don't experience pain in being harvested?

Fish are animals, too, and should have their feelings respected.
Plants do not have nervous systems, and, as such, do not have feelings.
Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

I think that anyone who poses this argument has not really thought this through, or would have come to the same conclusion. It is an argument that one comes to when one wants to defend one's position at any cost, so searches for any argument that seems viable. However, the effort extended at criticizing the opposition's argument is not existent in checking the validity of one's own argument.

I think to stop eating meat should be a personal choice...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

 

[Kerrie]

I believe that I, as well as others, have already stated that all this is irrelevant. You cannot justify your own actions, in your own conditions, based upon someone else's actions in their conditions.

you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

Also, even if plants did have feelings, it would cause the killing of fewer plants to eat them directly, than to feed them to animals and eat the animals, as well as not killing animals.

so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road? i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

You're right. It should also be a personal choice of whether I want to raise humans for consumption. We should not get in the way of others getting in others' ways.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

there are many laws that protect wild animals...animals that are raised for food are just that...i will comment on how disgusting a meat packing plant is, and perhap we can move to a more humane way of raising meat for a limited food consumption instead of the mass meat market...

the catalyst to the whole mass meat market by the way is human overpopulation...my recommondation is to not reproduce so you don't have to worry about proper nutrition for a growing child or to add to the overpopulation problem, encourage those who do eat meat to investigate on their own the treatment of animals raised for food, and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

I was not trying to slip out of anything. What I was doing was not falling into the trap of acting like the question was relevant. Like I said, it doesn't matter what anyone else does (especially when they're in a completely different situation!).

[/quote]
so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road?
[/quote]

Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick...disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

Firstly, you assume things about me which you do not know. Secondly, this is a red herring. We are not talking about abortion. We are not talking about me. We are talking about meat and how it gets on one's plate.

[quote[
the catalyst to the whole mass meat market by the way is human overpopulation...my recommondation is to not reproduce so you don't have to worry about proper nutrition for a growing child
[/quote]

As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.

and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...

I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic.

 

[the_truth]

Morality and abstract philosophy go together like bread and butter, the answer to this question is, whatever is good for you is good and hopefully, if like me, you agree with liberty, all you must do is merely not buy animal food products, otherwise it is not immoral.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick...disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.


As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.


I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic. [/B]

i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

nutrition wise, a little bit of meat is quite beneficial as I mentioned before for those with low iron...if I have a doctor recommending to me to increase my meat consumption because that is the fastest and best way to increase and absorb my iron levels, then I am going to listen to him, which by the way is what I have actually been advised in a doctor visit several years ago...

taken from this link:

Meat: a healthy option

Eating meat also aids the absorption of iron from vegetables and cereals. 'One of the benefits of eating meat is that when you eat a proper balanced diet it can help iron absorb into the body. A lot of things have iron in them but you need to get it out and into the body.

i think the basic rule of thumb is, everything in moderation...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if you have dangerously low iron levels, that does put you in an atypical category, but it's still one that can be overcome. For example, taking iron supplements with meals will easily give you what you need (although you don't want to overdose). Very little iron is actually needed in the body. Also, just because meat enhances iron intake doesn't mean that meat is necessary to get enough iron.

http://vegsoc.wellington.net.nz/veg_iron.htm

It's a common misconception that vegetarians will have problems with iron deficiency and anaemia. However, while iron stores may be lower, there is no evidence that vegetarians are any more likely to develop anaemia than the rest of the population.

http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/janfeb97/iron.html

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

Following a 'fad' or not, they've decided to stop eating animals, and stop supporting a side of society that's killing.

Originally posted by Kerrie
I see this question as a personal choice though,

In some manner yes, in some manner no. Killing is our buisness.

Originally posted by Kerrie
i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth... [/B]

Sorta, yeah. And since we're part of the animals, no reason trying to put ourself on the top of some food-chain, except over plants and so on.
Hopefully the evolution principle, in the end, does more good towards animals, than as a misuse for bad morals.

[ Oi, saw this link on your homepage Galatea http://www.amys.com/, and that's easy -premade vegan food for us lazy boys too! ]

 

[Dissident Dan]

What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

as the link i provided states, meat helps the nutrients from vegetables absorb easier into the body...multi-vitamins are well known to not have this ability and just pass on though without being used by the body...

the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat), lots of steamed and raw vegetables, and too many processed carbs...the fish i do buy mostly is farm raised do to the price (you would think fish would be inexpensive in oregon, but it's not really, but then again i am not contributing to upsetting the natural balance of the wild salmon that is highly prized here in oregon, the vegetables i try to buy are mostly from the united states...

gluttony is big here in america, unfortunately it has given eating a little meat a bad name...

 

[Dissident Dan]

OK, it helps some nutrients be absorbed better. But if you would absorb adequate amounts anyway, that's not really an issue. There are also plant foods that increase the absorbtion of nutrients from other plants. If you were to find yourself lacking nutrients in any way, it would only be a matter of dietary planning to fix the problem. And if you are significantly concerned with nutrition, you will probably plan, anyway.

I am aware that most of the conten of multivitamins is not usually absorbed, but taking them will meals enhances absorbtion, and that's why I said, "with meals." However, I was not meaning for multivitamins to be a main source of nutrients, only a back-up.

I think that any dietary benefit that most people will see in meat (although people with certain problems [iron deficiency, for example] may be more affected) is not too great. There are negative effects of meat, too, that really counter-balance this fact. While meat may provide the quickest solution, it comes with its own detriments that I've mentioned before.

So, one might say that a benefit to meat is that "it makes it easier". But I do not find that a convincing argument, especially in light of the fact meat has its own problems and the seriousness of the way in which meat is obtained.

I must say that it caught my eye that you said, "the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat)". I am glad to hear that your meat intake is relatively small compared to the typical American diet.

Most people like to say, "I only eat chicken and/or fish," as if that makes the situation better. This does not improve the situation in the eyes of a vegetarian. In fact, I would rather a person eat beef instead of poultry or fish, as there is more meat to the cow, meaning that fewer animals must suffer to produce the same amount of meat.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A lot of people like to defend omnivorism by claiming health concerns or that it's "natural" or part of the "food chain".

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them? If someone was to prove to you that eating (certain) animal products is not natural (or that the natural/unnatural distinction doesn't matter), would you still eat them?

Even if all such qualms were satisfied, would you still eat these things just because you find them tasty? If so, did you really even care about these other things in the first place?

 

[Kerrie]

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them?

this issue is already a reality with the mad cow disease that was discovered-but this is due to the attrocious environment cows are subjected to that finally caught up to us...it has definitely deterred me from buying beef, and i was never much into pork...if it was proven unhealthy to eat any kind of meat, i would mostly likely stop...and now i pose a question to you dan, which i have not heard an answer to:

if it was proven that plants could "feel" pain in being harvested, would it deter you as well? i feel this is just as much a valid question as the one you posed...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

So – what’s the answer? Well, recent research indicates that plants do have a stress response, which is used when a leaf is cut, for example. They release a chemical called ethylene (also known as ethene, a simple hydrocarbon: C2H4). Ethylene is released as a gas, all over the surface of the plant, and indeed its release is not only triggered by damage, but also decay. So a rotting plant releases lots of ethylene too.

taken from:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

taken from:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html

Merely being alive does not indicate ability to feel pain. As that very article mentions, bacteria do the same thing that plants do. Do you content that bacteria feel pain? Merely repairing does not mean that an organism feels. All that article does is describe a particular repair mechanism, and we all already knew that any organism has repair mechanisms.

The fact is that plants do not have nerves. As nerves are necessary for pain, plants do not feel pain. Also, you can think about it evolutionarily. Animals have feelings because they can act on them, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. However, a plant is stationary, so the existence of feelings provides no evolutionary advantage for them.

And, even if plants did feel pain, not eating meat would still reduce the total amount of entities suffering. So, independent of plants' capability for feeling, it is better to not eat meat. I've already made this argument before, on physicsforums, but it seems to be unheeded.

 

[Kerrie]

perhaps plants cannot feel pain through nerves such as the animal world, but the article did mention a stress response when a leaf is cut from the plant, thus leading me to believe there is an amount of negative reaction to being injured...i don't understand why you cannot take the devil advocate's perspective in this in answering my question-if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

this conversation reminds me of track 69 on Tool's Undertow:

"And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.



Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...



This is necessary"

 

[Dissident Dan]

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

Life may feed on life, but we don't have to feed on sentient creatures. Maynard was just having a knee-jerk reaction.

Stress is not pain. If that article indicates experiencing pain, then by the same reasoning, a self-repairing robot would experience pain.

 

[Kerrie]

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

you still didn't answer my question dan:

if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

pain is a personal interpretation as well, as different beings experience it differently...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you still didn't answer my question dan:

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

The question was, "how would it affect your vegetarian views?"

And, I answered, saying that I would still find it wrong to eat meat. As far as it would affect my views on eating plants, it would cause me to think that some plants my be just as important as some animals, for their own sake. It would probably lead me to look for someway of scientists creating pain-less, unconscious plants. It would make me sad to know that what I am eating was once a living, feeling being.

But I will say no more about this question. I do not want the conversation to become side-tracked. The fact is that plants don't feel pain, and animals do. There is no nutritional need for meat (or even other animal products). Any material contained within animals that is necessary for human consumption is available from non-animal organisms or inanimate objects. It may be easier to gain some things from animals, but I hardly consider that an excuse.

 

[Be Happy!]

Should We Eat Meat

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.

Knowing this, how we treat animals- who are like us- defines the morality of our species. Will we "evolve in consciousness" and as Albert Schweister says, "expand our circle of compassion"? or will we forever make excuses to eat the flesh of another who values his/her life as much as we ours.

This one question will lead us to the very heart of our humanity.

 

[FZ+]

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.

Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Robert Zaleski
I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

i think this concept is even written into some constitution or other:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created edible ..."

actually, i have always maintained that humans can never be at the apex of the food chain without resorting to cannabilism.

only a small step for man ... and a giant plunge for mankind ...