PETA activist group or whacko brainwashing cult?

[Jelfish]

There is no conflict unless you believe it is cruel to kill an animal for food.

Do you feel factory farming of pigs is similarly not-cruel as killing a wild boar? If so, then this argument is irrelavant to you. There's a difference between believing that your standpoint is moral and that the notion of morality is not involved. That is the argument at hand, isn't it?

 

[Pengwuino]

If you want to know my personal belief - it is that I don't think it is moral for me to eat meat unless I am willing to kill it myself. I personally don't think I could kill a cow/pig/chicken if given the option (perhaps because of respect for the animal or maybe dislike of blood and guts) , so I consider it immoral to eat it knowing that such a process had to have occured. Now, realizing this, there is a complete desensitization when buying meat from a grocery store because you don't really get to see all the blood and gore of the actual animal being killed and cut up. Yet, I can take that package of meat and cook it and not feel any remorse even though I know that it came from the animal. I place the blame completely on my own negligence. It's like knowing that lying is wrong and yet doing it anyway. It's not honorable at all, but it's the truth.

Well although the last 2 sentences don't make sense with waht you say before that, i understand what your saying. Its wrong to you to kill an animal but since your not actually doing the killing, you don't think its wrong because your not being exposed to the misdeed. I think that's what a lot o fpeople feel.

 

[Jelfish]

Do humans, when they eat these fruit, spread about the seeds? In a number of cases we do not. Though you could say that they spread about some of the seeds when humans farm and plant more and that not all of these seeds need to be planted. You could make the same argument for eggs could you not?

Ok this point is being taken way beyond its original intension. The point I was trying to make in my original post was that plants generally benefit from their fruits being taken; furthermore taking the fruit from the plant usually does not kill the plant and therefore evades the argument that the plants are killed similarly to animals. Although I know that very few people are fruitarians (usually because of health issues), I use them to point to a group of people that can uphold such a moral standpoint to a great extent of their ability. Most of my posts refer to vegetarianism (perhaps veganism would be more appropriate) because I personally believe that the point of including the killing of plants as a gray area in a vegetarian's moral standpoint against killing animals doesn't really take into account the reason for the vegetarian's standpoint. For me, (and I've given my reason earlier), it's a non-issue. I have no qualms about ripping leaves off a stalk.

 

[Jelfish]

Well although the last 2 sentences don't make sense with waht you say before that, i understand what your saying. Its wrong to you to kill an animal but since your not actually doing the killing, you don't think its wrong because your not being exposed to the misdeed. I think that's what a lot o fpeople feel.

That's not quite what I mean. I don't think it's ok to eat meat just because I don't do the killing. The fact is, I feel it's wrong but I don't care. It's a conscious disregard to my morals. That's what I think most people feel. This is of course assuming that most people would rather not have to butcher up a live animal and this is probably due to the fact that people (like me) have never had to do such a thing. If it's not a matter of morals, then it's a non-issue anyway.

 

[Skyhunter]

2 points I would like to make.

Plants are the "standing ones." They stand there and make themselves available as food for animals. Animals eat them, digest them, and in doing so begin the process of composting the nutrients necessary for the next generation of plants to feed on. Animals also spread the seeds of the plants thereby increasing the chance for the DNA of the plants to spread, diversify, and ultimately enhance the opportunity or those plants to survive genetically.

Plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Is it just coincidence that animals breath in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide?

Life lives on life. Humans under the age of fifty have the ability to produce enough HCL in their stomach to digest meat. This makes us perfectly suited to survive in an environment of scarcity. We can eat almost any thing organic especially at a young age. This does not mean that it is the best fuel, only one of many that will provide nutrition.

I follow 2 simple rules for what I eat.

1) Does it look like it grew that way?

2) If it runs away, it doesn't want to be eaten.

Coronary heart disease is the result of the circulatory system building up plaques in the heart and arteries. The source of these plaques is dietary fat and cholesterol. The only source of dietary cholesterol is animal protein.

If you have lung cancer stop smoking. Liver disease stop drinking. If you have heart disease stop eating animal protein


If you would like to learn more read these studies and watch Dr. Esselstyn's video.

http://www.vegsource.com/esselstyn/

 

[Pengwuino]

Whoa whoa whoa skyhunter... plants WANT to be eaten? There FOOD is CO2?

Some plants will certainly kill an animal if they are eaten. Many others have natural defenses against animals. Are we to now assume plants don't want to be eaten so we shouldn't eat htem?

 

[Jelfish]

If it runs away, it doesn't want to be eaten.

Assuming that organisms (attempt to) act in their own best interest, I would imagine that if plants had the option, they would run away as well. Though regardless of anyone's moral standpoint, I've always felt that going vegetarian for health reasons is usually a more rational reason than for animal welfare. If one were truly devoted to animal welfare, it would be far more beneficial to actively protest (read: not firebomb) animal cruelty than to declare something so passive as vegetarianism as an animal welfare act.

 

[Skyhunter]

I don't know why I even bother responding to you Penquino since your argument is absurd and you seem to miss the point of my argument.

There is a balance to nature. Plants provide food and shelter for animals, produce oxygen for them to breath, and are the food staple for most species. Carnivores in nature kill of the sick weak and injured herbivores to regulate the population, thereby keeping the plant eaters from overgrazing.

Humans do not need meat to live in an environment of plenty. When you eat meat the fat and cholesterol is absorbed into the blood and must be cleansed. It takes 5 hours for the liver to scrub the blood, by then most people who eat meat will have dosed the blood again, so their blood is never clean, leading to a buildup in the heart and arteries which leads to heart disease.

Please visit the site watch Dr. Esselstyn's video and then offer me an intelligent argument based on real information not some wild reasoning you come up with off the top of your head.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

 

[Skyhunter]

Jelfish,

I was simply stating how I choose my food.

I grew up on a farm. I learned to kill when I was very young. I had to first supress my compassion for the animal before I could do it, but I wanted to "be a man" so I murdered an innocent animal that had grown to trust me. I also killed the seed of compassion with in me and it took me 30 years to realize it.

I quit eating meat at 42, became vegan at 43. At 45 I am now the same weight I was in high school, I eat less, have twice the energy, and I don't even catch a cold anymore. My motivation for posting this information is that maybe one othere person out there will start researching, like I did and perhaps discover the tremendous benefits of a well balanced vegan diet.

Bears are true omnivores. If they come upon an injured animal they start salivating. When a human comes upon an injured animal, we feel compassion for it.

 

[Pengwuino]

Please visit the site watch Dr. Esselstyn's video and then offer me an intelligent argument based on real information not some wild reasoning you come up with off the top of your head.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

Look at the name of the website before you tell people to "watch a video".

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Do you feel factory farming of pigs is similarly not-cruel as killing a wild boar? If so, then this argument is irrelavant to you. There's a difference between believing that your standpoint is moral and that the notion of morality is not involved. That is the argument at hand, isn't it?

I'll repeat that I'm not making my arguments based off of "morals". I call this "ethics" as opposed to "morals" though I know my definitions aren't necessarily dictionary accurate so I haven't used these words in that context.
As for your example I don't think pig farming is any less "ethical" than hunting. I think either can be practiced both ethically and unethically.

Though regardless of anyone's moral standpoint, I've always felt that going vegetarian for health reasons is usually a more rational reason than for animal welfare.

This I completely agree with though I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own.
Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

There is a balance to nature. Plants provide food and shelter for animals, produce oxygen for them to breath, and are the food staple for most species. Carnivores in nature kill of the sick weak and injured herbivores to regulate the population, thereby keeping the plant eaters from overgrazing.

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Argument for the sake of argument is a waste of my time and yours.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

 

[Jelfish]

Bears are true omnivores. If they come upon an injured animal they start salivating. When a human comes upon an injured animal, we feel compassion for it.

I have a feeling that such a human response is due to our culture. Of course, that's where many morals come from (which is why I'm glad we don't legislate accordingly).

I have several friends who successfully maintain a healthy vegan diet and I'm willing to believe from knowing them that their good health is at least partially due to their diet.

 

[Jelfish]

Personally I have no problems with vegetarians and I would not say that I have moral/ethical superiority over them, my only problem is when a vegetarian believes that they are morally superior to me. It's similar, in my mind at least, to speaking with a Christian who believes you are going to hell because you are not Christian.

I find these people very annoying as well. Although I do think that it occurs on both sides. Scenario I've experienced:

Omnivore: Why aren't you eating meat? Aren't you hungry?
Vegetarian: No, I'm a vegetarian.
Omnivore: Oh - so you think you're better than me because you don't kill animals? I can't stand people like you. Vegetarians are so arrogant!

Preemptive defensiveness? Whatever - it doesn't bother me. I won't get started on debates I've had with some rather adamant Christians I've disagreed with.

I would respond to your other response, in regards to the fruit, but I'm afraid that it would decend into a long tedious discussion. If your up for it I'll go ahead but it doesn't seem like it's a line of discussion your terribly interested in.

If you have a point you want to share, then I'm up for a discussion since it seems this topic has perhaps diverged too from its original topic for recovery.

 

[Skyhunter]

What is it you are trying to say Penqino?

Because the site has the prefix "veg" that it is somehow suspect?

Do you believe that you will find someone like Dr. Esselstyn sponsered by the beef or dairy industries?

If you are a critical thinker, you must be willing to look at the supporting evidence for an opposing argument.

Otherwise you can not offer intelligent rebuttal?

Here are Dr. Esselstyn's credentials

BIOGRAPHY
Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., MD

· Yale University, 1956 AB
· Gold Medal, 1956 Olympic Games - 8-oared rowing event
· Western Reserve University, 1961, MD
· Surgical Training - The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
· St. George's Hospital, London, England

Cleveland Clinic:

· President of Medical Staff, 1977-1978
· Member, Board of Governors, 1977-1982
· Past Chairman, Breast Cancer Task Force
· Head, Section of Thyroid and Parathyroid Surgery

Other:

· President, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons 1991
· "Best Doctors in America", 1994-1995
· Scientific Publications - Beyond 150 in Peer Review Journals
· Director and Program Chairman, "1" National Conference on the Elimination & Prevention of Coronary Artery Disease", Tucson, AZ, 1991
· Arresting and Reversing Coronary Artery Disease - A 5-Year Study. The Journal of Family Practice, Vol. 41,No. 6(Dec)1995.
· Director and Program Chairman, "Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease", Orlando, FL, 1997
· Editor, "Proceedings on Summit on Cholesterol & Coronary Disease Supplement The American Journal of cardiology, Vol. 82(1OB),
November 26, 1998
· Updating a 12-Year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease, The American Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 84, August 1, 1999.

If we could somehow eliminate all cruelty to animals, thatd be great by itself. But if we have the choice of curing heart disease or stopping cruelty, i think ill choose the heart disease cure.

I responded to your post because I found your words so ironic. If you truly care about ending heart disease you will look at the work that Dr. Esselstyn has done.

If you said it insincerely simply for the sake of argument then you will offer up another immature response.

My response to which will be to ignore any of your further posts.

 

[Skyhunter]

So do you believe that this balance is intentional? That it was set up that way on "purpose"? Or do you believe that it just happened that way because it works? By your statements I'm thinking that we may have a difference in opinion on some fundamentals that would keep us from really understanding each other.

Any argument is useful as long as you mean to listen to what the other person is saying and learn from it regardless of whether or not you agree with them.

Now that is a question that is harder to prove either way.

I believe that if we have eternity in which to do it we might answer that question.

Which begs the next question are we eternal?

Does the consciencness that we identify as uniquely us survive this physical existence?

Only way I know to find out is to die and I am not through living. So I will seek the answer, knowing that it will probably take an eternity to discover it and have faith that "eternal life is the endless quest for infinite value".

When I say "faith", I mean the ability of humans to believe more than they can know. I have belief's based on faith, yet I remain open-minded enough to discard obsolete knowledge, so as to allow for a greater conceptual capacity.

You, me, and all of us exist in a linear space/time cause/effect universe.

What is beyond the end of the universe?
Is there a beyond?
What is beyond that?
Where did it start?
When did it start?
Did it start or has it always been?
What was/is the uncaused cause?

We don't exist outside space and time, yet we can contemplate existence outside of space and time.

I am all the evidence I need for my personal beliefs.

[edited]

I certainly agree with your quote about argument. I was looking for a similar one by Einstien and found this:

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Albert Einstien


Here is the one I was looking for:

"I know that it is a hopeless undertaking to debate about fundamental value judgements. For instance, if someone approves, as a goal, the extirpation of the human race from the earth, one cannot refute such a viewpoint on rational grounds. But if there is agreement on certain goals and values, one can argue rationally about the means by which these objectives may be obtained." —Albert Einstein

 

[James R]

TheStatutoryApe:

Most of the condescension I have seen so far in this thread has come from you and your defense of your morally superior posturing.

Most of the condescension you've seen from me in this thread has been in response to Pengwuino's rather puerile arguments. I think it's justified, don't you?

My argument also is not a philisophical one, it is scientific and logical. ... Pain, "consciousness", and the like are just more tools for survival which have evolved. The only difference is familairity. Animals are more similar to people who fall into the "fallacy" of believing that there is something inherantly more "special" about an animal than a plant due to familiarity.

I say that animals are more worthy of moral consideration than plants because they are conscious, sentient beings with some perception of their own existence. I am about as familiar with plants as I am with animals. Do I empathise with plants to the same extent? No, I don't, and I don't think any other human being does either.

Your argument on the other hand is not as logical and obvious as you think. The crux seems to be "consciousness", morality, and sufferage. These subjects are the ones that are largely philosophical and highly debatable.
Surely you can agree that morality is a subjective and debatable point. The others you may not agree with me on. I think we can agree to place sufferage and consciousness together for the sake of argument yes? Now about "consciousness". I have a friend who is a grad student at UCI in the Cognitive Science department. We argue the existence of consciousness all the time. Oddly enough I'm generally the one arguing for it. At any rate, considering what I have gleened from my friend, our discussions, and what I have read personally on the subject it's safe to say that those who study "consciousness" themselves still debate furiously on it's nature and even it's existence.

I've never seen a debate about the existence of consciousness. If there's nothing there to study, then there would be nothing to debate. But this is a discussion for another thread.

I do not generally consider "moral goodness". Like I said morality is subjective and debatable. I hold the same standard for the concepts of good and bad or right and wrong. I prefer to lean on logical analysis. I assume that what is natural is only logical, evolution has been working for millions of years on this and I have only been pondering these things for a couple of decades.

Everybody has moral views. It is part of being human. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you when you claim you don't have a moral view.

You say that you have the "same standard" for right and wrong. I can't believe the two things are indistiguishable for you.

Do you consider genocide acceptable?
Do you have no moral view on pedophilia? Do it, or don't do it, it's up to the individual?
I guess you wouldn't even consider it morally wrong for your best friend to kill your sister, would you? It might be a bit of an inconvenience for you. Assuming you have a sister and you like her, you might miss her. But would you really have no moral problem with the act of killing her, by somebody you trust? Would you consider your friend's act as nothing worse than illogical?

Closer to the current topic:

If you could go to the supermarket and buy pre-packaged human flesh to eat, would you buy it? I assume you would, because humans are just one more animal, and if eating a cow is acceptable, so is eating a human being. Or, do you make a distinction between humans beings and food animals. If so, on what "logical" grounds?

I really don't believe you have no moral position on anything.

 

[James R]

Moonbear:

We could continue this debate, but I really don't have enough information at my fingertips or the time to do the research I would require to respond properly to your argument.

I guess at this stage I will end by saying that I don't believe that the decision as to whether or not to eat animals is or should be primarily an economic one based on some notion of "efficiency". For me, the moral aspect is far more important.

I am not convinced that meat eating is a good way to protect the environment. This is the argument which seems to float your boat, and maybe I could be convinced, but I doubt it. Forgive me, but I think you've just latched onto one thing which makes you feel more comfortable, rather than facing up to what I imagine is the actual reality, which is more along the lines Jelfish has talked about. I think you're rationalising. Please forgive my presumption for judging you this way; it is just my impression, and I'm sure you have an equally unflattering perception of my point of view.

 

[James R]

Back to the initial topic for a minute...

What PETA is primarily concerned about is not, of course, that everybody should become vegetarian (although I'm sure they would love it if that happened).

What they are against, as a top priority, is cruel and unnecessary treatment of animals. This includes:

* The killing or harming of animals purely for human entertainment (not for food or anything else).
Examples: Killing animals so we can wear their furs, which we do not need.
Cock and dog fighting, where people bet on animals to kill each other.
Bear baiting.
Bull fighting.

* The inhumane rearing of animals in "factory" farms.
Example: "Battery" chicken farms, where chickens are kept in tiny cages which they can't even more in for their entire lives, under bright, 24 hour light, covered in excrement and fed drugs to fatten them up. Sheds full of hundreds of thousands of these birds, which are cleaned perhaps once a year. Birds which are injured in the cages are left to suffer and die where they sit.

Example: Factory beef farming, in which cows are kept in pens too small for them to move or turn around, again for their entire lives, never seeing the outside world.

* The unnecessary use of animals for "scientific" experimentation.
Example: Testing of human cosmetics on animals, such as rubbing makeup into the eyes of rabbits.

Surely the intelligent people at physicsforums would find these practices deplorable?

 

[Skyhunter]

Moonbear,

Since you are the "biology guru", could you give me a list of the animals with a seminal vesicule that eat meat as a dietary staple?

To my knowledge there is only one. Homo-sapien.

 

[hypatia]

humans are omnivores

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

- To the person asking about a meatless world solving world hunger. I don't remember where I heard that information (on more than one site). I stated some people claim that - it is a claim. I don't think could be substantiated as the economy and population, food growth, ect, are complex.

Humans are cabable of being omnivores and being healthy, yes; however, they can also be healthy through vegetarian or vegan diets. Arguably, a vegan diet is the healthiest diet. It's unfair to generalize all humans as being omnivores. Some humans are omnivores, but they would probably be healthier as vegetarians.

This debate has little to do with the biological nature of humans. It's a simple animal rights debate. If you think torturing animals is wrong, you shouldn't eat meat. I don't mind when people eat meat, but it's ludicrous to claim it is truly moral. The only excuse, in my opinion, that is legitimate is moral objectivity. Basically, you do it because you want to do it. You realize animals aren't going to get up and attack you, you like eating them, and you disregard their pain because morality is arbitrary and insignificant. In short, animals benefit you more dead so you eat them.

This nonsense about humans being natural omnivores, needing meat, or benefiting animals by sustaining the population is just an excuse not to accept the truth. You can continue making irrelevant rationalizations to try and make yourself feel better or make vegetarians seem deplorable or stop eating meat - if you want to consider yourself truly moral. Or, if you want, you can just make the legitimate argument that you should do what is in your own best interests regardless of morals.

I only argue for vegetarianism in debates or when people bring it up. If vegetarians bother you because you think they feel superior to you, then you're insecure. It's never happened to me, but, if someone criticized me for acting haughtily about my diet, I could just find another reason to make myself seem better than them. When it comes down to it, by incorporating the moral standards of modern society, it is hypocritical and immoral to eat meat. In reality, you can argue that nothing matters. However, if two people are identical and one is vegetarian, they have a right to feel morally superior - whether or not they are or not.

I apologize if I offended anyone. However, I haven't been vegetarian long, and I've noticed that vegetarians aren't a widely accepted minority. I think people bother me more about vegetarianism than atheism.

 

[Kenshkrix]

humans are omnivores

There is no taxonomical definition of 'omnivore'. The only definition I could find (that relates to diet) is: omnivore - an animal that feeds on both animal and vegetable substances.

This is far too broad a term, using it as a basis I can't really see anything that isn't an 'omnivore' (almost every living creature may occasionally eat an insect). I would also like to point out that humans (in my understanding) were fruigivores, which means we had a diet mainly consisting of fruit. We have ~1.6% genetic difference with chimps, they are also mainly fruigivorous.

 

[Skyhunter]

humans are omnivores

Here is the taxonomical definition of humans:

Hominids

The family Hominidae includes only one contemporary species, Homo sapiens, which you may recognize as the scientific name for modern humans. It also includes all the fossil forms of distinctly human ancestors and related species that became clearly differentiated from the other hominoids (the various species of apes) and evolved in a distinctly human direction. In general, anthropologists apply the term hominid to all human and human like forms the fall within this taxon.
Hominids characteristic be divided into two types:

primitive, or generalized, characteristics, which are held in common with other species within a more comprehensive group (primates, anthropoids, catarrhines, and hominoids); and
derived, or specialized, characteristics, which are distinct to hominid lines and are not shared with non-human primate species.
The derived characteristics are especially important for charting and understanding what we are as humans and how we came to differ from other primates. One key to understanding the special features of our species is our adaptation to a special habitat, the tropical grasslands of Africa, which represents a departure from the dense forests that support most primate species, including our closest relatives: the gorilla, chimpanzee, and bonobo. A second is the development of technologies and other cultural modes of behaviour that increasingly transformed the environments and contexts in which we survived and developed.
Specialized hominid characteristics

teeth: small front teeth (canines and incisors) and very large molars relative to other primate species;
(The reduced canine size is associated with the absence of a diastema, a gap between the canine and the premolar, which accomadates a large canine in ape and monkey species. The large molars may be an adaptation to a diet based on relatively hard vegetable foods such as nuts, berries, and grains that were abundant in the grasslands.)
posture: bipedalism, involving numerous anatomical adaptations including:
a fully erect stance and gait,
shortening of the arms relative to the legs,
restructuring of the pelvic bones for weight bearing,
restructuring of the foot or weight bearing, involving the loss of toe opposability;
hands: increased manual dexterity involving a lengthening of the thumb;
brain: increase in brain size, especially in the frontal lobes;
face: reduction in the musculature and bone mass of the skull and face involving a flattening of the muzzle area.


I don't see omnivore there any where, in fact note the teeth, adaptation to hard vegetable foods.

You need to distinguish between biological and cultural. We are capable of eating meat, after we prepare it properly. We are not biologically equipped to run it down kill it and eat it raw. If we were we would. We are also capable of flying, but I don't hear anyone claiming humans are avian.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've never seen a debate about the existence of consciousness. If there's nothing there to study, then there would be nothing to debate. But this is a discussion for another thread.

It definitely does belong on a different thread which is why I only mentioned it in passing. If you would like I'm sure that you can find a number of threads in the Philosophy forums debating consciousness. The only one I saw at a glance was in Metaphysics on the topic of "conscious atoms". There was also a thread here in GD that rather absurdly found its way to the discussion of the consciousness of a baseball due entirely to a joke which was taken way too seriously. So not only are there people who argue it's existence but even those that would argue inanimate objects possesses consciousness aswell. So I'll repeat, this is not as clear cut a subject as you seem to think.

Everybody has moral views. It is part of being human. I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you when you claim you don't have a moral view.

You may have missed it but I clarified my stance on this a bit more. I consider "morals" and "ethics" to be two different things. The way I look at it "ethics" is the logic based equivilant of "morals". I know this isn't the dictionary definition of these words so I have avoided using them in this manner. Suffice it to say that I do have what I call "ethics" but I do not use "morals". My definition of "morals" being arbitrary or "devine" sets of rules not necessarily based on a logical frame work.
And this again is an argument for another thread so I'll shut up now.

 

[loseyourname]

Perhaps my wording was poor. I did not mean to imply that plants have intentions. However, it is to the plant's interets that the seeds be spread and by creating a fruit that is desirable to animals that can relocate the seeds, the plant's best interest is carried out. It is an interpretion of evolution and that was what I meant to imply.

It it's a horse eating the fruit, fine, but I don't think humans dumping seeds into sewage treatment systems are doing the plants much good.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You need to distinguish between biological and cultural. We are capable of eating meat, after we prepare it properly. We are not biologically equipped to run it down kill it and eat it raw. If we were we would. We are also capable of flying, but I don't hear anyone claiming humans are avian.

Ummm.. you do realize don't you that our ancestors are believed to have been almost single handedly responsable for the extinction of the Wooly Mammoth because we ran them down, killed them, and ate them.
Also we do eat, and have eaten, raw meats.

 

[loseyourname]

All apes eat meat. Chimpanzees even seem to enjoy playing with and killing little monkeys and really savor the meat. Human evolved out of the capability to chase down and kill - with our bare - hands most animals (we can still catch and kill some) because we developed the ability to use tools to do the killing, like spears and traps and later on, guns. Not to mention fences.

 

[loseyourname]

You're forgetting one other thing: the fields used to house the animals and the fields used to grow grain for the animals are not always suitable for growing human crops. Not all land is equal. For instance, where I live it is extremely hilly and fairly rocky, although we do get a lot of rain and the climate is moderate. There is a lot of agriculture, but the hillsides are really only good for two things: cattle pastures and growing grapes for wine production. The land used for cattle pastures offer little to no ecosystem destruction because the plants that the cattle graze on are largely naturally occurring grasses that require no tilling or soil treatment. Two things to consider are these: 1) The rockier land, especially the land on hillsides, could not be used for human crops. That throws the argument that the land would be better used that way right out the window. 2) The richer land in the valleys that can be used for human crops would still require a lot of tilling and soil treatment, as well as the introduction of non-native plant species that would result in a great deal of ecosystem destruction.

By the way, I think I should add for the people making moral arguments that the cattle - at least the ones in my immediate vicinity - are treated well and seem to be happy. I even wander out into the fields and hang out with them every now and then.

Also, in line with the argument that we shouldn't kill animals because they don't want to die, is it okay to kill k-selected species after they've reproduced? Usually they only live long enough to produce a bunch of eggs and then they lose their purpose for living and die. Some species even seem to get depressed and completely stop eating (presumably an adaptation to ensure their offspring have more food), then of course there are those rare species where the female kills the male and uses him to feed her young and mating. Can we eat them?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By the way, I think I should add for the people making moral arguments that the cattle - at least the ones in my immediate vicinity - are treated well and seem to be happy. I even wander out into the fields and hang out with them every now and then.

There are also the legendary Kobe cattle. Top notch diet(including beer!), exercise programs, and sometimes they even get massages.

 

[hypatia]

We have ~1.6% genetic difference with chimps, they are also mainly fruigivorous.

Chimps eat meat too, often other monkeys. And they eat bugs. Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago. From that time until now they have observed eating more then 35 different varities of tastie meats. Hunting by chimpanzees has been well documented (Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986),
The presence of primitive stone tools in fossils tells us that 2.5 million years ago early humans were using stone tools to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged.

Dang, Looseyourname beat me to it!