Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[digiflux]

Link

Lemme try again. If it still doesn't work just copy and past it. It's a must see! hahahaha...

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/george_w_bush_picking_his_nose.htm

 

[poolwin2001]

I don't agree that we should stop eating meat for reasons like saving animals spieceies being extinct but there are many other reasons to do so.
We have to compulsorily study biology till STD 10 and i learned something about Bio magnification(i think it is called that)=more and more pesticides/insecticides etc are sprayed on crops,when we eat plants, these chemicals in low ppm(ppt?) arent degraded and cumulate and cause harm,get passed on to the next generation etc etc
If we eat meat,we eat beings on whom biomagnification had already acted and so on...
There was also something about robins being killed which lead to the DDT ban

 

[Alkatran]

Top priority should be the continuation of life on earth. We should be more worried about mosquitoes going extinct than the cute n cuddly panda, which doesn't really contribute much, going extinct. If the pandas die off, who suffers? A few people get sad.

If mosquitoes die off, who suffers? Any animal that was eating mosquitoes. That's... a lot of animals.

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

 

[Alkatran]

Deer populations were fine before we got here.

Aren't there hunting seasons to make sure that they aren't hunted to extinction? And you're talking about overpopulation. Anyway, this has little to do with the purpose of the thread.

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

 

[stefan80302]

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

 

[Alkatran]

I'm sorry to disagree with you Alaktran but I think when you say i consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most i think you mean human life. Everything humans do to prolong their existence is infact imorral. We kill animals, destroy the land, burn the forests, drain the lakes, warm the atmosphere. Further on, i think the planet can handle anything we trow at it, unless we change its orbit it is going to be here long after we are gone.
sorry for not having a concrete point but i just needed to respond.

I figured someone would bring up that point. That's why I based all my arguments around what would go wrong for animals.

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person.

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

 

[siliconhype]

Good point...

I am studying Science 10 here in a Canadian High School. We are running over the beginning of the textbook - looking at ecology. I have learned about certain ways scientists categorize ecosystems and relationships between biotic and abiotic members of the ecosystem (some, at least); and one way of looking at relationships is to graph or represent the transfer of energy from one organism to the next. I have learned something interesting here: aparently, the energy we take from our food (measured in Kj) lessens as the food we consume aproaches the top of the food chain. Note to take here: eating a shark will give you much less energy than consuming what the shark ate, consuming what the shark ate, ate, or cosuming what the shark ate, ate, ate... catch my drift? In coclusion, cosuming plants, which get their energy from the sun and nutrients in the terestrial system will give us optimal energy transfer. What do you guys think? Is this true?

- V

An alternative reasoning i developped independently (perhaps this has already been debated?), is that, perhaps by consuming mamals (eating meat) allows us to bypass the metabolic preparation of the matter we have consumed, simply, (and i might be thinking too simply here) because the animal we are eating has performed the digesition and transformation of plant matter into protein and hormones, through its own metabolism, for us; thus we do not need to alocate much energy to our metabolic system which would, otherwise, use it to break down and transform plant matter into protein and hormones.

 

[siliconhype]

Top priority should be the continuation of life on earth. We should be more worried about mosquitoes going extinct than the cute n cuddly panda, which doesn't really contribute much, going extinct. If the pandas die off, who suffers? A few people get sad.

If mosquitoes die off, who suffers? Any animal that was eating mosquitoes. That's... a lot of animals.

Also, believe it or not we have a delicate balance going here. If you stop deer hunting for even a year the deer overpopulate, car-deer accidents increase, deer start leaving the forest looking for food, ETC

I can't imagine how bad it would be if we just stopped hunting these animals.

It wouldn't be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

 

[siliconhype]

It has everything to do with the purpose of the thread. I consider what is moral to be what benefits life the most. That's how I'm going to make my decision, could the planet handle a massive halt in meat eating?

Think of it this way: If we stop eating meat we need more room for crops. That means we need to either move or get rid of the animals currently on the field. How do we do that? Be eating them and NOT REPLACING them.

And saying deer populations were fine "before we got here" has little relevance. We ARE here now. The population has adapted to keep the balance it has with the hunting season. Yes, if the hunting season was year round it would mean the end of deer, but the same goes for if it was removed. There would be massive amounts of death due to disease, hunger, etc. Better for some to get shot (much better than starving to death) than for all to hunger.

By the way, if the deer overpopulated, they would become a nuisance, trying to eat at the crops we need.

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly until very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

 

[siliconhype]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

 

[Alkatran]

you'r reasons might be valid, to a point, but your thinking is a bit facetious. We didn't alwasy eat deer, and we haven't developed the gun to hunt the deer so easily and readilly until very recently in natural history. Therefore, don't you worry about deer overpopulation.

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

This research also shows that wildlife professionals foresee that without their ability to hunt or trap, the current population of some species will increase phenomenally. When asked by how much their budgets would have to increase to maintain the same level of service if they could neither hunt nor trap, most wildlife professionals stated that no increase in funding would make up for the loss of those two methods.

 

[Alkatran]

Thats a load of carp. Excuse my spelling mistakes. These are food chains we have created. There is no option anymore, we have pretty much disturbed everything. Why do you think nation leaders have meetings on the issues of ecology and natural resurces? Because there is no war to wage and they are bored? Why do we wage war first of all? For resources; directly or indirectly, for the same resurces under question here, food and space (among other things).

- V

I didn't say to do nothing. I said an ultimatum on meat wouldn't work.

 

[Alkatran]

It wouldn't be that bad... the wolf will hunt them. There is always a way, in nature.

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

 

[siliconhype]

For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

 

[siliconhype]

That's bull and you know it. We've hunted deer for a long time (centuries), and human civilization has changed A LOT since the beginning.

This is what I mean:
http://www.texasdeer.com/deer.htm

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

- V

P.S.

To bring focus back to the original topic, i will say this: by this method you have presented in your original post - we have not done anything exept relocate a naturally occurring very large number of chickens and cows and other species from their environment, into enclosed ones we have made. Why? Why do you think this theory doesn't sound right?

 

[siliconhype]

That's what I said. Not only would the deer population explode, but the wolf population would explode afterwards. Wolves run out of food. Wolves start hunting pets... maybe worse.

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

 

[siliconhype]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rader
For digestion several glasses of water should be taken before eating and also after eating but not until real thirst sets in. It was a common fallicy that water hurts digestion. Wrong, for every beer and coca cola you need to drink another one, which means that you are dehydrated yourself. Water is necessary and 2=4 liters a day. Digestion needs water and lots of it. Fruit should be eaten after meals.

Equilibrium in mind and body leaves the mind and body healthy. Sickness comes from acces=body and defect=mind. pysco=somo efect mind=body. Problems of mind effect how you eat. Resolve your conflicts of mind and your body will eat well.

Good health to all.

See i don't know about that thory, to me doctors saying that you should drink so much water a day is starting to sound like sponsorship of "Pure Life" water, a Nestle brand.

How much water do people drink in a natural ecosystem? My theory is this: When hungry eat, when thirsty drink, don't listen to anything anybody says, it's you who lives in your body. Unfortunately i also do believe that our bodies' desires can be tampered with through psychological means, resulting in a false desire to consume certain substances, when in fact it should not be so.

- V

Wow, sometimes i surprize myself, i appologize for not paying more attention to your words, i think i basically repeated what you meant.

 

[siliconhype]

I say skip the part where they test one pinky, brain and monkeys and just go straight to human testing. There's plenty of us we can spare a few people. Maybe clones but that just wouldn't be the same as real experinced humans.

"There's plenty of us we can spare a few people."

That's what Hitler thought too...

- V

 

[Dissident Dan]

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

-------------------

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

 

[siliconhype]

I wish that people would read some of the previous posts before posting.

The food chain/overpopulation argument is thus broken:

99.99% of the food we eat is NOT from wild animals. We breed them to eat them. We feed them plants. We would actually need to grow fewer plants to feed our selves directly than we do to feed to animals which we eat.

-------------------

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

"Obviously, this is absurd."

Absurd only in the mind of the victim or potential victim. It has always been so even among humans.

Otherwise i agree with most of your opinions, The majority of Earth's population does, in fact, not eat meat in the majority of their diet; the majority (around 90%) eat grains.

- V

 

[lightbeing]

caloric restriction

America is poised to gain from "learning" how to eat. Exemplified by this thread and all of your local nursing and convalescent homes in your areas. Just go visit them once to see what the benefits are a life of eating the typical FDA and Rx. influenced American diet can do.

Then, observe the aged yogi or buddhist monk located in the Eastern rural part of the Asian continent. I am not saying exploit their disposition. Simply, learn. Learn what the state of the matter that enters the body has the ability to do. Learn, what the last phase of matter( of the three, but not taught here!), the "dead" phase which includes previously killed meat, and or vegetables that have been cooked at high temp and smothered in chemicals and reactants as well as inert ingredients, has as far as nutrients and lifeforce function inhibiting tendencies.

Feeding the mind of arrogant, egotistical based scripts of educational accomplishment has not improved the understanding of the world around us. Believe what you want about adkins and advertisement. But, there is always possibilities of what can be done, can NOT be undone.

Contrary to the underdeveloped conscious awareness of the population.
You don't know! Nor I...

So, stop saying you do. And...
Learn.

johnny

 

[Alkatran]

Wolf start hunting pets? Maybe worse? Clue: "worse" implies evil, evil is a human concept - and a relatively new one at that, it is not a natural concept. You are confusing nature with philosophy. (of course there is much to say on this topic, and here is where i think it should be taken up, if interest allows, in a different post)

- V

If wolves started trying to attack people because they couldn't find enough food, that would be 'worse' (but unlikely). Where's the 'evil'?

Also, it does not matter that we are the smartest. That doesn't give us the right to do whatever else we want to others. By that reasoning, we can do whatever we want to mentally retarded people, and, hypothetically, if extraterrestrials more intelligent than ourselves came here, they would have a right do whatever they want to us. Obviously, this is absurd.

Intelligence does not determine the value of someone's life. The only things that matter are capacities for pleasure and suffering. These give value (positive or negative) to an entity such as a human or a pig.

Survival of the strongest. If aliens come and wipe us out, well they were more evolved for the task. But this also means that since WE are the strongest (acquired strength through weapons counts!) we are a higher form of life. Just as the tiger is higher than a human stupid or unfortunate enough to walk in its path.

But it's all a very vague and arguable line, on who is more important.

So you are saying we are hunting as much deer as prehistoric/pre-industrial human? Oh really?

I explicitly said centuries. I don't know the history of hunting, but I'm sure as long as we've been here in North America, we've hunted the local wildlife.

 

[russ_watters]

America is poised to gain from "learning" how to eat. Exemplified by this thread and all of your local nursing and convalescent homes in your areas. Just go visit them once to see what the benefits are a life of eating the typical FDA and Rx. influenced American diet can do.

Then, observe the aged yogi or buddhist monk located in the Eastern rural part of the Asian continent.

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

 

[digiflux]

Face it, humans are one the higher versions of life. Highly Intelligence, capable of large scale change. A dog will spend it's entire life eating, sleeping, etc. ... Then again, so will your average person.

I kill billions of bacteria every day, I'm sure. I crush mosquitoes if they decide to bite me (I let them be if they don't both me). I brush off a spider crawling up my leg. Is this wrong? If nothing ever crushed a mosquito wouldn't they get out of hand?

Anyways, my point is, if we make a RADICAL change like completely stopping consumption of meat the animal population will EXPLODE. There will suddenly by double (or more!) the number of herbivores that we eat around. What happens next? Well carnivores have an easy few months ahead! The population explosion moves up the food chain (herbivores go down to normal and lower when carnivores get high). I can't see very many 'good' situations arising from a sudden change like that. Wolves in the streets and such.

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse...

 

[Alkatran]

I'm not even going to reply to an idiotic post like this. This thread has taken a turn for the worse...

That was a reply. If the post was idiotic you should have shot it down.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What's the average life expectancy of a buddhist monk in asia compared to the average american? I doubt it compares favorablly.

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

 

[Alkatran]

Yes, but I doubt that has anything to so with vegetarian vs. meat diet.

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

 

[YourLooks]

I have never eaten meat for a year or so, reasons ? only one, because I have no money to buy meat. I am only able to afford rice, bread, and cheese.
Oh well, I know bread and in cheese I eat daily, there are also fats and eggs but they are not meat anymore, right ?
I eat a lot, and do exercises every morning, I am healthy and in a very good condition, 45kgs.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Is he implying that they eat nothing but vegetables or something else?

I don't know. I assumed he simply meant meat vs. non-meat diet. Environmental stress can't be discounted when comparing health in different cultures. Diet isn't all there is to health.

I think most informed people today would say that a balanced, nutritional meatless diet is most likely to be better for one's health, than a balanced, nutritional meat diet; yet, a balanced, nutritional meat diet is most likely to be better for one's health than a bad meatless diet. In terms of living on just veggies (i.e., no dairy), I did it for 8 years about 20 years ago and was never healthier, but I also knew a lot about nutrition, combining incomplete proteins, etc. (the relatively small amount of dairy I eat now is purely for sensual enjoyment of my food). I had some friends who did it and they always looked ragged because they ate poorly. So the comparison between diets has to be correct to make any sense.

However, none of that has nothing to do with the morality of eating meat, which I still cannot see. More efficient, healthier, better for the planet . . . yes. But moral or immoral I don't get.