Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Vance]

I like Sushi, sasimi, all sea food, I eat them daily and BEEF I eat about twice a week.
We should eat meat...:)

 

[Vance]

I also like pork

 

[Dissident Dan]

"our evolution" i said that because our evolution as humans have the teeth needed to chew meat. but of course our main diet is of plants, grains and fruits. Not all our teeth are sharp and big like other meat eating animals.

I did not state that to defend eating meat but to state my opinion. I myself eat little or no meat through out my day and totally avoid red meats.

I hope that you did not feel as though I was attacking you. My point was NOT regarding whether it is "natural" for humans to eat meat. My point was just to say that evolution is a blind process with no intent or purpose.

 

[mooberrymarz]

yes. its yummy. nothing beats the taset of good meat.

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I will assume that the following quotes were in response to my post.

If you are going to use the argument that we can't know the if and what of the internal psychology of nonhumans animals, you should also realize that we can't directly know the same for humans.

Did I say somewhere in my post that I knew what you were (or anyone else was) thinking? If I did, or if I said something that seemed like I did, then that was an accident.

However, there is a relevant epistemic distinction between human and non-human. Though I do agree with you that I have no direct knowledge of the internal psychology of humans, I personally feel a much more intimate connection to other humans, especially when it comes to the issue of communication. From where or why I feel this connection, I have no idea. Could I be talking to a bunch of robots, zombies, split personalities in my own mind, etc.? Of course. I have no way of ruling that out. That was not my point, though. And, if you will refer to my first post in this thread, you will see that, being in favor of eating meat, I am also in favor of eating human meat. Call me disgusting, immoral, satanic, or even inhuman, if you will, and you shall hear no disagreement from me. But PLEASE don't call me inconsistent!

We use the same main criterion of behavior, as well as structure and history (evolution) to ascribe consciousness to other humans.

Speak for yourself. I'm actually quite paranoid (on a deep level) of the other possibilities that I mentioned above (I'm probably clinically insane ). I don't see how I could logically conclude that consciousness exists outside of myself.

There is no valid, relevant difference between humans and many species of nonhuman animals to suggest that other humans have consciousness and other animals don't.

Yes, I agree. I hope that you don't think I was trying to argue against that.

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

There is a distinction.

As a fellow human, I now that the feeling of hate exists for myself. When someone says the word "hate," I believe I know what they mean. This meaning is further supported by auxiliary context which leaves me with little doubt that other humans are also capable of the same feeling that I call "hate." Every other language that I have studied has a word for this meaning, that I have understood at first by direct translation, and in some cases later by context. This diminishes my doubt that other humans experience hate.

I have never been able to decode a complicated enough vocabulary for cats to conduct a similar analysis. While this does not prove anything, it certainly distinguishes. There is a piece of evidence with which I can make determinations regarding (most) other human psychologies that I cannot apply to the cat.

But again, this was not my point. The only point I was trying to make was that we can only assume the cat hates going to the vet, and then to extend the point further, that we can only assume that the cat is capable of hate.

 

[russ_watters]

So, if you are going to say that you can't know that the cat hates going to the vet, in order to be consider, you must say that you can't know that other humans hate anything.

You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

 

[Dissident Dan]

You don't think the fact that you can ask other humans and get an answer is important there?

If I accept that a) other humans are sentient and b) other humans are often honest, then I would conclude that I can determine more specifically what other humans are experiencing than I could what a cat does (If a cat is sentient, and I hold that it is) due to the more-developed human language. Our more complex languages allow me to understand more precisely the range of human experiences, if I accept that they are sentient. However, the more complex language itself is not a difference that logically is used for distinction between sentient and nonsentient in the first place.

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.

Even setting that aside, if you could ask the cat, what do you think it would say about killing a mouse for example?

It doesn't matter. The cat doesn't have to conform to ethical standards to be treated ethically. Ethics is not reciprocal. If the cat has the ability to experience, then the cat is rightfully deserving of ethical behavior. It is irrelevant whether or not the cat is acting in a way such that if a human acted that way, I would consider the human acting unethically, especially since the cat does not have the intelligence to understand the idea of ethicality on the level that a human does. Given that I see widespread unethicality in humans (and I still try to act ethically towards them), how could I ever expect a creature that is as comparatively simple-minded as a cat to conform?

 

[turin]

Of course, there are times when people do not use words when I can determine pretty precisely what a person is feeling: for example, after hammering one's thumb and letting out a scream, even though the person did not use any words, I can determine that that person hurt his thumb. This is a more direct indicator than any premeditated words that came out of someone's mouth.

I would agree only if you had hit your own thumb with a hammer once in your life (or had a similar inflicted injury) and you yourself had responded in a similar manner. Otherwise, you would either just think that people who hit themselves with hammers and scream are lunatics that should be locked up in pink padded rooms, or you would have to rely on your father's words of wisdom, "Don't hit your thumb with the hammer; it hurts like hell." But the latter would be relying on the "c" word.

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

 

[0TheSwerve0]

You should eat meat because you want to. My moral code has nothing against meat. In fact, I have nothing against cannibalism either. So let's just have a big meat orgy.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Besides, this is not the same kind of issue, IMO. The pain from the hammer is immediate and superficial. I have very little doubt that my cat would experience a very similar (if not identical) pain if I whacked it's paw with a hammer. Thoughts, emotions, and other manner of meditated motivation are more gradual, permanent and often unrevealed.

Emotion is more permanent? I don't think so.

Can you tell me what the difference is between these "emotions" and mere "pain" is and how it is important?

 

[turin]

Dissident Dan,
I cannot tell you what your own opinion is. If you do not agree that hate is more permanent than the pain from a hammer, then I do not think that there is any way to convince you otherwise. My arguments are based fundamentally on introspection and subordinately on induction. If you tell me that the pain of whacking your thumb with a hammer is no different than the feeling of hate, then I must accept either that this is your truth or that you are lying. The latter is not productive to the analysis. The former is incontrovertible to me.

In short, I consider this issue intransigent.

I feel I should also add that it is not my intention to disparage your own introspection or contribution to the discussion. I am merely conceding your prerogative thereto.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, usually the hate feeling subsides once the object of the hate is no longer present. Also, I wasn't referring just to hate or anger, but the range of feelings that we don't call "physical" feelings--for example, the feeling of humor that makes you laugh, which is pretty short-lived.

Obvisously, each experience has its own character, and so hitting your thumb is different from hate is different from humor is different from melancholy is different from a massage. But I have yet to see some great dividing characteristic between the two types that you laid out. From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, as feelings of all characters reside in the brain (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

 

[ShawnD]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

 

[turin]

From what I can tell, it's merely that we perceive one type as existing in "the body" while one is existing in "the mind". Of course, this is all an illusion, ... (have you ever heard of the "phantom pains" of people who have lost limbs?). All are subjective experiences that require a conscious entity to experience them if they are to exist.

I totally agree. Thus the impass. Perhaps we have different serotonin mechanisms. I am OCD. But I can't help feel a bit skeptical about the neurophysiological issue.

... feelings of all characters reside in the brain ...

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

 

[motai]

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

It may, it may not. Its like slavery. Slavery was used for thousands of years and even now it is occurring in odd portions of the world even though it is widely condemned by Western society.

Then again, since most animals that are sent to slaughter are penned up, wouldn't they be considered slaves held against their own will?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you equating the mind with the brain? What are "characters?"

Yes, I am equating mind with brain. (I personally do not believe in any metaphysical mind.) By character, I meant "distinguising feature" (dictionary.com). You can replace "characters" with "types". I was not using a possessive "of", but an "of" that means "composed or made from".

What this all boils down to is that I do not see any significant or relevant difference to the different types of pains and pleasures. They are all subjective experiences that have (positive and/or negative) values, and there is no apparent use in dividing among "physical"/"psychological", complex/simple, or anything of the nature, except to note that it is harder to decipher some experiences than it is to decipher others through observation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Last friday there was a rerun of Last Call with Carson Daily and Julia Styles was the guest (April 7, 2004). She said she was a vegan but gave that up because she wasn't feeling healthy and would just faint from time to time .

My guess is that she wasn't eating very much at all, vegan or not. It is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet, but they are not necessarily so, and cases like her are not the norm, judging from my own experience with myself and others whom I know. I have been vegan for 2 years, and I have not had a single problem with it. I eat a varied diet with legumes, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains. I also take a mutlivitamin.

Instead of asking whether killing animals for food is wrong, ask yourself if the situation will change for the better. If vegetarianism is better, we'll eventually become vegetarians; correct? Although humans are very stubborn, we do change over time.

1) That question is very hard to answer. None of us know the future.
2) I am concerned with making that hypothetical a reality. As such, I want to address the question of "Should we eat meat?" in the negative in order to help make the answer to the question "Will we stop eating meat?" be positive. Rather than just wondering and waiting, I want to be active in making that future happen.
3) This is a forum for intellectual curiosity, and people will ask what questions interest them.

 

[maximus]

I don't you think you can assume evolution intended us to eat meat. If we trace evolution backward for most primates, both on the Prosimian and Anthropoid sides, you find very little meat eating even among the hominoids. Chimps, who share 98% of our protein and DNA identity, only eat flesh occasionally.

this is true, though misleading. we followed in the footsteps of this typical primate behavious until at a given point of time not known exactly to this day, we strayed from the path of a true primate in the sense of a territorial, gathering herbavour (with the occasional taste of meat) to a carnivorous primate. it was the blending of these two lifestyles (the primates giving intelligence and territorialism and the carnivour line giving social cooperation and hierarchy) that made us who we are. NOTE: this version of the fossil record tale is a highly simplified interpretation.

 

[hitssquad]

Reification of g

Yes, I am equating mind with brain.

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A fresh corpse may have a brain, but no mind. You may wish to familiarize yourself with the literature and discussion on reification of g.

I don't know what you are mentioning genetic correlations to intelligence for. By brain, of course I meant functioning brain. Just as a computer does not compute without electricity, neither does a brain (and there are other things, ,of course, besides electricity needed).

Anyway, I think that we are getting off track. This tangent got started when I was referring to the fact that all experiences (feelings) are psychological in nature, and there is no categorization presented that is relevant to valueing different experiences.

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc. All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

 

[hitssquad]

Iffy

One cannot use another's actions to justify one's own actions.

After all, if is the middle of life.

 

[Vance]

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created and why has it lasted so long ?

I am honestly not trying spoil your fun or waning your enthusiasm for more inputs on this interesting topic, I just would like to find out a reasonable way of explaining how things are going on and to understand more about what things will get moving on later...

thank you!

 

[hitssquad]

Interspecies hedonics

I am so sorry, may i ask a question as to why this thread was created

It was created because of an observation of inconsistency between stated values and values put into action.

how things are going on

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."


...And he continued stating this contingency, with:

"Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals."


So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"), where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

what things will get moving on later...

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

 

[hitssquad]

Are plants really nonsentient

The moral issue rests on the ability to experience (feel). A creature with the ability to experience deserves consideration, regardless or race, species, etc.

Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted to humans and for the reason of sentience in humans.

[rewording:][/color]Before (here and here), you said that this was conditional upon rights also being granted, for the reason of their respective sentience, to humans.

All known methods of determining sentience (not level of cognition, but just plain existence of sentience--ability to experience) do not show a difference between humans and many other animals, including mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds, fish, and more.

There may not be a discrete difference between the sentience of animals and that of plants, regardless of any such being detectable by current instruments combined with current statistical technologies.

 

[Vance]

Thanks hitssquad,
I think comparison between human and animal only comes into being when there are real technical, scientific problems that need to consider or only when we, human go mad about each other...Thinking so far and hard about this and that actually won't get you any farther than just waste your time and your mind...I love small lovely animals, I have 2 white rabbits...They are my "best friends"...lol but I never say that they are not animals. My grandfather used to raise lots of pigs, I love the black dotted one but oneday, she got sick and were to get killed. I cried the whole night... Sounds crazie ?? Yes, it might sound crazie to some, but to others it mightnot. Eating meat or not is not a problem really, thefact out there is that Muslim people don't quite eat meat right? But they still live their lives day after day. The only real, pratical problem now is that "Can you put food on your table ? If you can, how and what way ?"
Animals can have rights if you, humans want to give them some rights. You could[/color] say animals have rights like humans do, this also means i think you already realize rights that they should have, but since we, human, are upper and highest leveled creatures, we can still get those rights back. That means animals actually have no rights, it is only because you think so, you want to make it fair and good for all animals and such a way of thinking about animal nowadays is really important and really respectable anyway. But Human is human, Animal is Animal...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dan summed it up in the contingency, "If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience."

I wasn't saying that other animals having rights depends on human animals having rights. I was saying that if rights exist, both humans and animals have rights for the same reasons.
It's not humans rights->animal rights, but sentience->human rights and sentience->animal rights.
The "if" was to refer to address the fact that some people don't believe in the idea of rights at all. My whole point is that it is arbitrary discrimination to provide consideration (whether in the form of "rights" or not) to consider the interests of human animals and not of other animals.

So, as Dan says (even though he seems to have confused the word "relevant" with the word "discrete"),

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

where we are in this thread is we have all agreed that there is no intrinsic reason not to eat meat.

I would be careful before putting words in others' mouths...
While there may be no intrinsic reason (because the only intrinsic values are those of experience), there are consequential reasons (ethics, health, environment--actually the health one might be considered intrinsic) not to. But that is the case with nearly everything that we don't do.

Later on, Dan will be enlightened as to the differences between adequate and optimal nutrition, and why a society and its most socially responsible members might choose the latter over the spreading of a hedonistic pact as far and as widely as possible.

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

 

[hitssquad]

The meat-eating question in terms of cost-effective optimal health, anti-senescence

It appears to me that an animal-inclusive diet cannot reach as healthy a level as a non-animal (mainly plants) diet. Adopting a vegetarian diet will generally cause a person to eat more plant sources that provide a variety of nutrients that are generally lacking in a typical western diet. Vegetarian is more optimal than meat-inclusive.

There are several non-essential amino acids -- generally present in greater amounts in meat than than in vegetarian foods -- that consistently show a health-positive response in experimental animals fed these amino acids in generous quantities.

This life extensionist says he consumes a largely vegetarian diet in addition to a massive supplement regimen, but that some meat added to the veggies is the best bet he can figure out presently for maximum aging-curve squaring. As you can see, he consumes small amounts of chicken, turkey, sardines, cheese, salmon, "canned meat," eggs, and it looks like probably various meats when he dines out. In addition, he daily consumes 26 grams of (probably 80% or above WPC) whey protein. (Whey protein is a byproduct of the cheese-making industry.)


Most life extensionists seem to consume diets similar to that referenced above.


One potential problem with meat may be caloric density vs. non-amino-acid/non-peptide antioxidant density (there are physiologically important antioxidants in meat, such as the peptide carnosine, and the amino acids taurine and glycine). Because of this caloric density, perhaps less veggies, herbs, and spices may be consumable by a heavy meat eater during a typical day.

But, as far as general healthiness of largely meat vs. largely or completely veggie, one factor that may make a veggie diet typically healthier may be that meat is often cooked a lot longer, and hence it has a chance to oxidize and glycate (glycation is protein crosslinking; crosslinked protein is extremely biologically reactive in vivo and a contributor to biological aging, both when that protein that crosslinks is already part of the body and when it is protein consumed). Cooking meat as carefully and gently as possible, and especially in the presence of antioxidants and antiglycation agents such as the typical array of Italian and Indian spices (as well as specialty chemicals such as aminoguanidine, available from chemical supply houses).

Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).


So, it is not necessarily the meat itself that makes an animal products inclusive diet less healthy, and including some meat may be a cost-effective way (a pure vegetarian could https://www2.acadia.net/cgi-bin/BAC/web_store.cgi?product=Amino_Acids separately {though perhaps at greater cost} any chemical-factory-produced amino acids {or any of several other typical meat constituents} he might want want) to get close to an optimum anti-senescence diet/regimen.

 

[Vance]

See the farmers from different parts of the world ?
>>>>http://www.ifap.org/develop.html
I don't like people eating any small lovely animals but if you like rabbits
>>>>http://www.pan-am.uniserve.com/pg000031.htm

Originally posted by hitssquad
Also, part of why meat may be less healthy may be the inexpensive way it is raised. There are specialty farms that try to raise healthier meat. Eating this meat is an option for people who may choose to spend a little more to increase the quality (and/or reduce the cruelty) of the meat they eat (or the eggs or the milk, as there are farms that specialize in healthier, less-cruel eggs and milk).

An example for the above quote is the following file about Chicken
>>>>www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL]

 

[hitssquad]

Free-range farming

An example for the above quote is the following file about www.investmongolia.com/p52.pdf[/URL] family farm is more like what I had in mind:


[list]We presently raise 350 free range chickens in moveable coops and are hoping to increase the number next year.

We are constantly selling out and turning customers away so if you are interested in fine tasting chicken you need to contact us early to reserve your birds.

Chickens on grass, in coops built with no floor.

Once a day the coop are moved ahead far enough to allow the chickens access to fresh grass and insects. A furniture cart is used to pull the coop ahead and the birds quickly learn to pick up their feet and move along with it.

A second cart at the rear allows the coop to roll easily. You can see the grass is well eaten each day and the birds are healthy.

The birds are put into the coops at 3 weeks and spend the next 7 weeks there. The coops are removed daily. They receive fresh water twice daily as well as non-medicated chicken feed. They average 7 lbs per bird when dressed.[/list]


However, it might be noted that "free-range" can mean a variety of different things. The above example looks like a pretty healthy chicken farm, but there reportedly have been examples of farms abusing the term "free-range". http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0820/n228/18523873/p1/article.jhtml is a well-known expose on free-range farming that was published by Vegetarian Times in 1996.

 

[russ_watters]

No, I said relevant and I meant relevant. There are no differences between human animals and many other species that are relevant to whether or not a particular animal deserves consideration and protection.

Are there any relevant differences that affect the kind of or extent of those rights?