Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Mazuz]

no you're right it doesnt. but dooga here is explaining how much power we have and how we don't need animals for anything but food but if we keep up with that attitude you never know where it'll take you

Unfortunately for this argument, we don't need animals for food. And it's a different discussion as to whether we need them for anything else or not, I won't touch that.

There is one good reason for not eating meat, and its simple. By not eating meat we aren't supporting the meat industry. This doesn't mean it’s impossible to eat meat without supporting the meat industry, but no one does. How many people only eat what they hunt?

The reasons for not supporting the meat industry are also simple. The meat industry is needlessly causing suffering on a massive scale. Meat production is also destroying the environment.. animals are an extremely inefficient source of food. The food energy we put into growing animals is FAR greater than the food energy we get back out of them.

Again, people eat meat because they enjoy it.. not because it is the right thing to do. And what's pleasurable has little to do with what is right.

 

[lilboy]

wow thanks for all the info guys. Good stuff. Its great to have a better understanding of all this.

I think when you're concerned about the expoitation and mistreatment of animals and are actively doing something as a result, you're an advocate of animal rights, yet not in the way many people perceive it eg. saving animals from laboratories.

I think my analysis of all this is being vegan/vegetarian for 'animal rights' reasons is certainly acceptable and in a way admirable, yet I don't think there is anything wrong with not being vegan/vegetarian.

lilboy do I detect some sarcasm?

Sorry if you've found sarcasm in my post.
It so happened that I was arguing with a friend of mine about not eating meat. He kept quoting from his religion, arguing that all animals have been created to benefit humans. And when I tell him that animals have other better ways benefit humans, he goes back quoting on his religion again.

The argument is going nowhere, and I was frustrated.

Anyway - just as animal can be eaten, when we don't have a choice, we use lab animals because we don't have a choice.
Nevertheless, ,strict rules should be given to prevent abuse of this animals.


To pace : Hi!
Guess you're right about the need to clear up on certain points.
Nevertheless, I think it's very important to note how desensitized we have been to animal cruelty. From fishing to hunting, we have created numerous ways to inflict injuries on other creatures.

I believe constant practice of this may desensitize us, and lead us to commit worse actions in the future.


So people: eat veggies while you can.


To current postings (Actually to Doogaz)
Yo man, I don't think its necessary for me to tell you how conceited that post was...

So I just want to share some information:

While animals may not look useful to humans, they contribute to the ecosystem indirectly. Every species (including humans) are all interdependent.
For example, sharks may seem unrelated to our lives, but they are the ones who prey on unhealthy marine animals, keeping the marine ecosystem healthy.
Decrease of the sharks population will affect the ecosystems and ultimately affect the quality of fishes that you eat (if you eat fish) which will affect YOU.

 

[pace]

you never know where it'll take you

Oh yes. All the Love and friendship. All the difference that we'll be experiencing from seeing and listening to how the other animals live. All the variation. Blossowing of life. Realising a lot of truths about our nature and how it works.

It's really scary. I don't want that. I want to live in a pavement, wall, block by block society.

;)



lilboy: Hello again. Yes I agree. Our society really changes the way we think about things. It's scary how things that's cruel can become so obvious to our lifestyle..

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I think I'm onto something now, I'll continue thinking about it later as well. I appreciate everyone's input.

I don't get offended when people insult or criticize me about my morals. However, my morals are constantly changing and being developed. Even if you disagree with me, I'd like to analyze the disagreement collaboratively(sp) rather than argue over different view points. If my thoughts are evil, I am not truly evil until I act on any thoughts.

To someone who mentioned my thinking with logic. I do, but I also try to analyze emotion and the unexplainable through logical extrapolation of facts.

I believe a lot about emotion is unexplained and therefore separated from logic as a way for individuals to cope. I see no reason against including the logical analysis of emotion within one's moral beliefs.

The entire foundation of my belief is based on intellectual (thinkers, not just genius') society working together to provide the best result for a massive group of individuals. The best result is achieved by choosing the path best for yourself and the group (ABM) Those uncapable of contributing are left behind. Unlike Darwinism, I do not think the strong should prey on the weak. I believe the strong should prey on the uncontributing. Those who can still contribute should be used by the strong; however, the best way to get people to work for you - from what I can discern - is to provide them with happiness. That also contributes to the happiness of powerful individuals due to the contagious qualities of happiness.

Those are my current thoughts, but my thoughts often change. I do not intend to offend anyone with my ideologies.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

Vegetarian evangalists like to show videos of the horrible things that go on in factory farms, and argue with questions like, "Do you think it's ok to eat your dog/horse?" I see this fallacous appeal to emotion all the time. But anyways, I digress.

Philosophers have thought about this a lot. And it usually comes down to the question of "Do animals have any utility-trumping rights," if you're a Utilitarian, or "Do animals have a right to life?"

These are interesting questions. And it seems to me that people's answers come close to what can be called "philosophical primatives." (If I remember correctly.) Basically these are base assumptions that have no (need no) justification: "Animals have a right to life," "Animals don't have a right to life"

So two people taking these diametricly opposed viewpoints will find no common ground on which to agree. And I have no idea how someone can defend against one of these, so called, primatives. But if some common ground is to be established, then one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So if someone asked me if it was ethically permissible to kill a cow to give 500 people some almost marginal satisification, I would say "It's not the best use of resources, but there is nothing wrong with it" because animals don't have a "right to life" as argued from above, or maybe by some other means.

Now I do believe that we can all (espically Americans) stand to eat less meat, and I do think that anmials have a right to be free from suffering, and I just went to a Vegan resturant yesterday, but animals still don't have a right to life that we want to attribute to them.

But back to my point. The key question to ask is whether it's ok to eat meat, above and beyond any circumstances you can build into your argument. To argue from emotional atachment, factory farms, people starving in Africa, plants suffering--and yes espically health concerns, is to miss the main argument of vegetarians. Most moral vegetarians would say that eating meat is wrong even if you get rid of all these circumstantial concerns. But of course I would disagree.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a good characterization and I more or less agree, with one caveat: the human right to life has been accepted for centuries and has a lot of philosophical backing (meaning lots of philosophers have discussed it and written about it), the animal's right to life is a new concept, not widely accepted, and with little or no philosophical backing. These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

 

[Mazuz]

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

 

[Mazuz]

That's a good characterization and I more or less agree, with one caveat: the human right to life has been accepted for centuries and has a lot of philosophical backing (meaning lots of philosophers have discussed it and written about it), the animal's right to life is a new concept, not widely accepted, and with little or no philosophical backing. These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

What evidence, philosophical or otherwise, is there that human beings aren't just a different sort of animal? I think both science and philosophy are in agreement here, religion however is a different story.

 

[russ_watters]

What evidence, philosophical or otherwise, is there that human beings aren't just a different sort of animal? I think both science and philosophy are in agreement here, religion however is a different story.

Well, we are just a different sort of animal. I realize its a long thread, but my point in it is essentially just that: as animals, we eat other animals just like a lot of other animals do. But as "a different sort of animal" we've decided to treat each other differently.

 

[physicsisphirst]

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

i don't think that is really the case. the right to life for animals has quite a large amount of philosophic backing (and from various camps such as utilitarian and deontologic) both in the past and present (more in the latter, understandably though).

As a reference for anyone interested in learning about this topic, here are brief summaries (with links) to some of the more prominent animal rights philosophers' ideas:

Peter Singer
a utilitarian approach in which there is no presumption of inherent animal rights, but that the interests of animals should be given proper consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_singer.htm

Tom Regan
establishes the rights of animals on the basis that they have complex mental lives, including perception, desire, belief, memory, intention, a sense of the future and because an animal cares about its life, that life has inherent value.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm

Carol J. Adams
brings a feminist's perspective to animal rights linking the objectification of women and other non-dominant humans to a similar attitude towards animals.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

James Rachels
argues that scientific knowledge such as the evolution of species and the heliocentric theory alters antiquated views of morality in which only humans have moral worth and that the ability to reason is not usually relevant to moral consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_rachels.htm

Steve Sapontzis
uses traditional moral principles such as fairness, protecting the weak, the reduction of suffering cannot be limited to humans because suffering and pain are not exclusively human.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_sapontzis.htm

A source providing some of the actual writings is here:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/essays/edits_anirites1.html

the ideas have been around for quite a while, but pragmatic acceptance as with many things can be slow.

in friendship,
prad

 

[cogito]

...one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

 

[hypnagogue]

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

 

[cogito]

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror. It is possible that an animal, when looking in a mirror, believes something of the form "there is an animal there that is not me". Such self-referential belief content is indicative of self-consciousness. Do you have any evidence that mammals other than those you mentioned cannot recognize themselves in mirrors?

 

[Loren Booda]

Should the belief that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny influence our diet?

Also, are there any vegetarian alternatives for the raptors and snakes I feed?

 

[hitssquad]

Recognizing yourself in a mirror vs knowing what you look like

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror.

It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror.

Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

 

[cogito]

Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

Season the example to taste. Suppose the animal has a belief that 'that animal moves whenever I do" while looking in the mirror. Again, the self-referential content of the belief indicates self-consciousness, even though the animal fails to recognize the image in the mirror as its reflection.

 

[pace]

Sometimes I have NO idea who's in the mirror. I'm much too busy, and it's much too early in the morning.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

well you can both look at the question either way you want but when asking either question you must look at one very permissible point (whichever way you want to word it): how are they killing the meat? if we were to simply take the animal out of the wild, or the non-industrial farm, would that be moral? i think that almost anyone can agree that the way farmers treat animals is inhumane and disgusting. that can be said with respects to how they kill the animal as well as what they do before and after the killing.

 

[envscigrl]

I am a vegetarian and have been for two years now. I eat fish and eggs and have recently started eating chicken again (not often, once every two weeks or so). I did this for protein resons because I am in college and on the go and don't often get enough protein from my current fav foods ( ie EZ Mac). However, I am very healthy, thin, and I would recommend vegetarianism over any fad diet (including the Atkins diet which is actully bad for your health) to anyone trying to lose weight. The whole diet situation is very interesting. I feel like I should write a book on it or something. Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling. My entire mental state concerning food had to change when I became a vegetarian and I honestly do not believe many people have the will power to do it even if it will greatly improve their health. So what it all comes down to is that I think it would beneficial to the health of our planet and the human population to switch to vegetarianism (with some fish eggs and chicken thrown in there ). But in reality this will never happen, peoples inherent instinct is to gorge and fat is where its at for most people.

 

[NUKEELT]

I am a vegetarian and have been for two years now. I eat fish and eggs and have recently started eating chicken again (not often, once every two weeks or so). I did this for protein resons because I am in college and on the go and don't often get enough protein from my current fav foods ( ie EZ Mac). However, I am very healthy, thin, and I would recommend vegetarianism over any fad diet (including the Atkins diet which is actully bad for your health) to anyone trying to lose weight. The whole diet situation is very interesting. I feel like I should write a book on it or something. Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling. My entire mental state concerning food had to change when I became a vegetarian and I honestly do not believe many people have the will power to do it even if it will greatly improve their health. So what it all comes down to is that I think it would beneficial to the health of our planet and the human population to switch to vegetarianism (with some fish eggs and chicken thrown in there ). But in reality this will never happen, peoples inherent instinct is to gorge and fat is where its at for most people.

It's great to hear you're healthy but eating chicken and fish is still meat so you're definitely not a vegitarian. It's wonderfully easy to get enough protien (I for one get monumentally more protien than when I ate meat) through simple foods. One glass of soymilk has more protien than a chicken breast for example. You can get a great full feeling with pasta and complex carbs. So you can still get all the benefit and spare the fish and chickens too.

 

[NUKEELT]

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

As Prad pointed out above there's an abundance of writings on the topic many dating back centuries (pythagoras for example). But beside the point, just because nobody has thought of a concept before doesn't invalidate the assertion. In fact it's wonderfully easy to argue this topic just using common sense. It's not good for you, it's not good for the environment, it's definitely not good for the animals would be the "No you shouldn't" philosophy and well... I suppose It tastes good, or God makes animals for us to use would more or less be the standard "yes you should" arguement.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling.

I get that feeling quite frequently...there's nothing about being vegetarian that says that you have to eat small portions.

 

[pace]

I'm really stuffed right now

 

[kouga]

should we not eat meat and let the animals of the world overpopulate it taking the needed room for our own expanding population?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

first of all, it would take a LONG time for animals to over populate the world.

second of all, i don't think that would happen because most animals have a shorter life span then that of humans

third of all, to defend my own opinions, i am against how people kill animals. not the actual eating of it. if things were done a little, no wait, a lot differently before and after an animals death maybee i wouldn't be against it so much but the fact that the poor animal is tortured and the meat tampered with is just utterly(no pun intended) digusting

 

[mee]

Short story

There is a short story by Gardner Dozois called I believe "A Kingdom by the Sea" It talks a great deal about a slaughter houses and used to be posted on the scifi.com website. It was published in 1972 I believe. Its worth a read.

 

[steveb]

Ah, the joy of a good steak, and baked potatoes.

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.
https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
Rolleyes
I think my favorite thus far is a grilled porterhouse, and red potatoes. Oh, and of course, we cannot forget Popeye's favorite... Spinach.
Of course, I do have to say that I do enjoy a good shark steak... and I can assure you, they do not just use the fin, and throw away the rest. And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.
Then only true vegetarians that I've ever met were practicing hindu's, and they used it properly. Of course, they believe that the fly you just killed is their long dead greatgrandfather, so who knows.
Nope, give me a good steak, hamburger, chicken breast, etc... along with some other good foods, and I'll be a contented man.
Enjoy your debate though, perhaps you'll stop guys like me from going hunting one day,and killing that bambi that feeds my family once every few years. Now there is a good meat.
And I must say, I do agree with the native americans. Take only what you need, and eat what you take. Those who throw food away are hurting the rest of humanity. As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh... now that is a steak!

 

[geraldmcgarvey]

Quote from Albert Einstein

It is best to cut down on consumption of animal foods, particularly from factory farms. There are several benefits.
Protecting our environment:
. It takes much less resources and causes less pollution to produce plant food.
. Factory farms pollute our environment, partly because the pollutants are concentrated in small areas and are not properly filtered. Also because of the pesticides and herbicides used to grow the plants that the animals eat.
Compassion:
. Factory farms cause a tremendous amount of suffering to billions of animals. For example, chickens have their beaks sliced off and are put in tiny cages.
Our own health:
. Animal foods from factory farms are laced with antibiotics and added growth hormones.
. Nutrients such as protein and iron can be gotten in adequate amounts from plant foods, it just takes a little bit of research.
. I've seen conflicting information about soy, but soy is not the only source of protein from plant foods. I eat some soy and haven't had a problem.

Regarding a response such as "I expect vegetarians not to bother me.", people have a right to promote the benefits of eating less animal foods, it's called freedom of speech. What you eat is your choice, and you have a choice of whether to feel bothered. If you're not interested, don't read the thread.

From
http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/forenviron.shtml

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

Water - Animal food production uses up huge amounts of water resources. A pure vegetarian diet uses nearly 14 times less water to be produced than an animal based one.

Land - Overgrazing destroys millions of acres of land that would more efficiently be used to grow food that feeds people directly.

Pollution - Raising animals for food is the largest industrial polluter of water and topsoil. ...

Energy - Veggie diets consume less energy to produce. ...

Fishing - Hundreds of species of fish are now extinct or threatened due to the effects that fishing has on the world's oceans. ...

Resources - Producing animals for food depletes a huge amount of resources. ...

 

[hitssquad]

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
Rolleyes

Your link to post 102911 doesn't work. Try this one:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=102911#post102911

 

[pace]

Ah, the joy of a good steak, and baked potatoes.

What is Love really compared to Beef with Onion. - George Bernard Shaw.

 

[shrumeo]

It's great to hear you're healthy but eating chicken and fish is still meat so you're definitely not a vegitarian. It's wonderfully easy to get enough protien (I for one get monumentally more protien than when I ate meat) through simple foods. One glass of soymilk has more protien than a chicken breast for example. You can get a great full feeling with pasta and complex carbs. So you can still get all the benefit and spare the fish and chickens too.

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

that said, here's me 2 cents on the matter.

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

We can try to get around this if we think that we must, but it is difficult and less healthy than eating meat.

Does this mean we have to be cruel to our "prey." No.
We don't have to be cruel to chickens, cattle, swine, or any other animal we use for meat. But, we should not stop eating them.

We should also not eat any animal that is endangered, obviously, but this is a problem in Asia and Africa right now.

 

[neend]

I think the logic and philosphy behind the topic is not much stronger that we stope eating meal, as our body structure support us to eat meat and vegetables both so we should eat both but also try to save those species which are going to be finished. One thing more; as tiger eat only meat as its body supports only meat and similarly some animals eat only vegitables so we should go as nature tell us that is the system made by God for us.

 

[3mpathy]

I agree with shrumeo. we were made to eat meat, we have thrived on eating meat, why stop now? it is the niche that we are (meant to/ are) occupying right now.

on the other hand, i do enjoy playing the devil's adovacate so here it goes:
Since ppl complain that humans are to "animal-ish" in their behavoir, is this not some way to separate ourselves and say "Yo everyone look at me! I am above those puny animals for I have decided not to be like them!"? Also maybe this whole "man is meant to be a meat eater" thing is outdated? Yes eating meat has gotten us this far, but slaves made Rome great(for a while) yet most ppl would agree that slavery is a old fashion tradition that is evil. Is this not like slavery in a way?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Can an animal cognitively understand what we are doing do it and attempt to negotiate a course of action that would benefit us enough to logically allow it to live - no.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I don't think that eating meat is wrong. I enjoy it. What is wrong, in some cases, is the way the animals are treated before and during the slaughtering process. This should change.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

not just some cases doll...the majority of farms now are "industrial farms" just about every bit of meat you eat is from an industry farm where they pump the animal full of hormones until they cannot stand. fun eh? mmmmm mmmmmmmm cow

 

[learningphysics]

If eating animals is acceptable if they are treated and killed humanely, is it acceptable to eat humans if they are treated and killed humanely? If not, why not.

Basically, why do we grant humans more value than animals?

 

[3mpathy]

because we are humans and we don't like to think that we would be eatin'( well the sane ones at least agree with me) we don't care about animals.

Newton's Third Law of Hamburger's : The "greatest scientist ever" makes another dazzling discovery!. cow+grease = yummmmmmmm

 

[abitofnothingleft]

its true though. why don't we eat humans? we think of ourselves as a "civil" and "brilliant" species. therefore, why waste a perfectly good species right? if you look at it though, not many species actually eat their own...save for the insects and a few fish. animals don't really eat there own species either.

 

[Dissident Dan]

It's not a matter of the amount of protein you get but the kind of protein you get. The protein has to have the right balance of amino acids to be wholly beneficial to you. An egg is the golden standard for the right mix of amino acids a human should have in his/her diet. You just can't get the right types of proteins from plants, even soy.

I'm sorry for being so blunt, shrumeo, but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Soy has all the essential amino acids, and other plants complement each other to get the right amino acids. Check our the American Dietetic Association's website: http://www.eatright.org

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.

I hope you're joking. If not, then remember that, according to creation, the creator created humans, rocks, lava, and everything else. Why don't you eat those, as well?

And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.

http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/archive/battery.html

As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh... now that is a steak!

Well, with an ever-growing population, it will continue to be harder and harder to provide enough food as long as people continue to eat animal products. It's just inefficient. It takes dozens or hundreds of times more resources to produce meat than it does to produce wheat.

 

[juju]

not just some cases doll...the majority of farms now are "industrial farms" just about every bit of meat you eat is from an industry farm where they pump the animal full of hormones until they cannot stand. fun eh? mmmmm mmmmmmmm cow

If you want to see a doll, look in the mirror.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

thats so sweet...thanks

 

[Madhavi Thakurdesai]

Should we eat meet

Meat does not contain fibers so not much helpful to body so we should not eat meat

 

[juju]

thats so sweet...thanks

Sweet it isn't and sweet it wasn't meant to be.

You need to find out whose pulling your strings, 'cause for sure it ain't you.

juju

 

[abitofnothingleft]

well i didnt mean it as an insult to you so i didnt take it as an insult to me

 

[physicsisphirst]

As an organism, a human is designed to eat meat.

while i agree with what you say about not being cruel to animals, your statement above really isn't accurate.

humans process meat and all animal proteins very inefficiently. as posted earlier:

We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs). Our jaws can move sideways (grinding capability) unlike a true carnivore. Nor do we possesses the short digestive tracts through which consumed flesh passes through quickly. Instead, humans have teeth that are suitable for grinding and a long digestive tract in which vegetable material can be processed (in fact, when meat winds up here it putrifies leading to a host of physical problems).

Our digestive system is not capable of properly breaking down large animal proteins which wind up in the blood stream resulting in protein antigeneity (the production of antibodies to attack the large proteins) leading to inflammatory conditions such as eczema, asthma and arthritis. Nor can it handle the high cholestrol fat that animal products contain leading to obesity and clogged arteries resulting in heart problems. When an autopsy is done of a heart attack victim one can pull out the cylinders of fat that constricted blood flow. Never, ever has it been found that the flow of blood was stopped by pieces of apples, brocoli or tofu!

Even our psychology isn't designed for an animal consumptive lifestyle: when you see a squirrel do you think 'how cute!' or do you start salivating?

dissident dan has answered well on your, neend's and 3mpathy's other points.

in friendship,
prad

 

[martillo]

Meanwhile we should!

I think that our world is not in an ideal state.
In an ideal state no animal or human should eat other animals! Just ideal vegetals should feed everyone perfectly.
But in today´s state we evolutionated eating meat. Meat give us some essential things that vegetals can´t. For example B-12 vitamin. If you become a vegetarian you should need B-12 suplementation.
I´m expecting the world to reach that ideal state some day in the future. Many things will change.
Meanwhile we need to eat our complex complete diet that is a mixture with some meat, some cereals some vegetals and some fruits.
We need all them!

 

[Richard Harris]

Being only 20, and definatly not my field of study, i know one thing.

Science has conclusivly proven, that we are Designed to be carnivores, and it has proven that we are omnivores, and yet again, we have been proven to be vegen.

saying one or the other is a Falicy, because science doesn't have the answers, and it never will. the only diet to ever come close is the one that starts and ends with the word 'Moderation' and contains nothing else.

Medical science Proves that All substances are Benifical and Harmful, depending on the Dosage. being the same test subject, and mainly the same compounds, Food is no different. If you eat Vegtables Exclusivly, you will never be as healthy as if you also ate even one chicken a year on top of that.

If you ate all meat, you would never be as healthy as if you also ate even one carrot a year on top of that.

modern science may have found a way to replace meat in our diet, but where was it 600 years ago?

If meat is a Replaceable part of our diet, why do we have a Taste for it.

For a Creationist, we are Unequely Created to eat both, and we are allowed to eat both.

for a Evolutionist, why do we not have 4 stomoch's like a Cow and a heard instinct, we are 'evolved' from hunters, with a gatherer side too. why do you knock the strength of those who 'survived'

I know what goes on in a meat processing plant, and I still eat it, I've seen the chemicals Sprayed on Vegtables, and I still eat it, none is more Moral than the other, just now that we agree animals feel pain when before we didnt, we may someday learn that plants feel pain (or have we already discovered this)

America is FAT because it is a glutinous Nation, breed by the mindset that drives America.

Moderation in everything is the ONLY diet, and the healthy way to live.

there is no should we eat meat, because a true Philosophor would Render the question down to the beliefs that drove it, and attempt to answer them.

 

[donjennix]

Actually the small cages physicskid mentions are not used for chickens intended for eating but for laying hens. Moreover, I have learned to be suspicious of the claims made by anti meat, anti whatever enthusiasts and if eating meat is really not economical we will see it soon enough in the price of meat.