Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

  • Thread starter physicskid
  • Start date

Should we eat meat?

  • Yes

    Votes: 233 68.5%
  • No

    Votes: 107 31.5%

  • Total voters
    340
  • #1,226
119
1
Physicsphirst
i do not quite understand what you are asking here


Sorry I wasn't clear on that, what I meant was where do we draw the line on what animals to kill. As a thought/morality exercise if we treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly (therby not having them suffer and do it in a way as to not cause a bad enviornmental impact) it pretty much leaves it wide open as to what catagory we start putting animals in as far as food, pets etc.....WHich as I understand varies from culture to culture anyways. I suppose at that point (I don't mean to sound callus here) it would come down to pure economics, i.e. what's the most cost effective animal to raise for food.
 
  • #1,227
16
0
Animals kill each other all the time for food and we all no that animals hold no moral code whatsoever. Cats will catch prey then let it go only to catch it again. Certanly this would be seen as immoral in human scociety but animals do it all the time. They do not murder, only kill for food. One should not shoot an animal for the fun of it, leaving the body to rot. For thousands of years men having been eating meat and it is a vital part of our body. Besides, compare a spinach salad to a roast beef. Health problems aside because the beef will not hurt you so long as it is not consumed on a regular basis. There is no moral reason not to eat meat and there is no helath reason not to eat meat, so long as it is done in moderation.
 
  • #1,228
Hat_Man said:
There is no moral reason not to eat meat and there is no helath reason not to eat meat, so long as it is done in moderation.

Not eating meat can still be healthier than eating it in moderation. Animals can still die as result of occasional meat consumption. Humans are generally incapable of self-limitations; people are not capable of moderating there diet properly - look at obesity. Should the government regulate meat eating then? That seems like a waste of money, effort, and time. What kind of uproar would be created when people found out their right to kill was being taken away?
 
  • #1,229
sheepdog
The point. Not a tangent.

learningphysics said:
No no... I would not answer, "if you do it without my knowledge". I'd try to prevent it from happening.
But this is how these things happen. You have an idea of what you want and complain when someone doesn't give it to you. They find a way to give it to you to stop the complaining. That's marketing. It doesn't really matter what you tell them. They can figure you out all by themselves. The pain/pleasure reversal would happen because you make it easier for the scientist s to live that way than without it.
Yes, once it is done and I can't reverse it, then I wouldn't complain about the factory farms.
And you would eat the factory farm lambs, right? That's how their pleasure would be maximized. If you did not you would then be denying them their pleasure. You sacrificed them to the factory farms in order to satisfy your pain/pleasure needs. You cannot now abandom them by not following through and eating them.
We seem to have gone off on a tangent.
Not at all. The scenario is a realistic consideration of the possible consequences of focusing on a single arbitrary idea as a basis for living. An arbitrary idea is easily used to obtain whatever ends are desired.
Basically I'm saying that if the only way sheep are going to be happy is if they are held in factory farms, then we should hold them in factory farms.
So this would apply to the man-chimps as well then, of course. They should be treated the same? And of course eating them would also be required to maximize their pleasure?
Maybe I can clarify here... Suppose sheep will be miserable unless we put them in factory farms, would you agree to put them there? Would you be against it?
I am absolutely against factory farms. It has nothing to do with pain/pleasure and whether they enjoyed it or not I would be equally as opposed.

You see, it isn't for me to decide where sheep belong, so I understand that my opinion doesn't matter. But of course that pertains to all of us, especially those who wrongly put them there. They must not decide either.
My ethic is mainly negative utilitarianism. I see it as more urgent to prevent pain and suffering that to create pleasure. But yes, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is the idea. But maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain for all beings! Not just myself... and not just humans.
Nice words, but it doesn't work. Any system of ideas you hold as your "ethics" I can devise a realistic scenario that will defeat it. It's just a big game you cannot win. Everyone else knows how to play at least as well as you and they will use it to take you to the cleaners.
As far as the completely non-destructive thing... Lots of people find that all of life is destructive... Buddha, Schopenhauer, many others. Even using physics, ever process increases the entropy in the universe. I don't know why you had such a reaction to my answer. Life being destructive is almost a cliche in a philosophy forum.
That's just a load of hogwash. You must be channelling from Bizzaro World, because there is nothing in my world that is destructive. Everyone I know can find at least some small example of non-destructiveness they are willing to defend. There is no other possible basis for day-to-day existence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,230
marley.wannabee said:
Well, i'm training to be a professional athlete...
how is it that i would get enough protein to keep my muscle in peak condition without some meat again?

soybeans and some vitamins to help me use the veg protein to the maxx?
yummy

I know a vegan guy who is probably the most muscular guy I know. The idea that you can't get the protein that you need without animal sources is bunk. All sorts of bean and legumes, as well as nuts, have a good amount of protein. Even grains provide useful levels of protein. You can get enough volume of proteins, and all the essential amino acids, without consuming flesh.

Of course, the easiest is stuff made without soy...I'm not just talking about whole soybeans, but any of the bazillion products out there that are made with soy. And then there are the other beans, legumes, nuts, and grains that I already mentioned.

If you were honestly asking, then I would have been glad to provide you with information. However, your sarcastic remarks are borne of prejudice. Please educate yourself before trying to make fun. You only make yourself look foolish.
 
  • #1,231
learningphysics
Homework Helper
4,099
6
sheepdog said:
But this is how these things happen. You have an idea of what you want and complain when someone doesn't give it to you. They find a way to give it to you to stop the complaining. That's marketing. It doesn't really matter what you tell them. They can figure you out all by themselves. The pain/pleasure reversal would happen because you make it easier for the scientist s to live that way than without it.

All we need to do here is make the pain reversals illegal, and imprison the scientists that do it.

sheepdog said:
So this would apply to the man-chimps as well then, of course. They should be treated the same? And of course eating them would also be required to maximize their pleasure?

Yes. Once the pain reversal is done, and if it is irreversible it seems we have no choice. We have to do what it takes to keep the man-chimps happy. At the same time I'd make sure the scientists that did the pain reversal were punished, so that such pain-reversals don't happen in the future.

Any system of ideas you hold as your "ethics" I can devise a realistic scenario that will defeat it.

So you have no system of ethics? You have no basis for saying this is right, or this is wrong? If this is really your position, then it seems to me you're saying that nothing is right or wrong. If this is not your position please clarify.

How do you come to the conclusion that one particular action is good, and another is bad? Please don't say that it is by looking at the consequences of those actions, because then I'd just ask you why a particular consequence is good, and another is bad.

What is it that makes something good, and something else bad ultimately. Pain, pleasure are irrelevant?
 
  • #1,232
sheepdog
The ways we are forced to be good.

learningphysics said:
All we need to do here is make the pain reversals illegal, and imprison the scientists that do it.
Right. There's always brute force. If something doesn't work then do it harder. If a rouge country does it then make war to stop them. I will kill or imprison those who don't do what I want. That worked so well for drug trafficing. Brilliant!
Yes. Once the pain reversal is done, and if it is irreversible it seems we have no choice. We have to do what it takes to keep the man-chimps happy. At the same time I'd make sure the scientists that did the pain reversal were punished, so that such pain-reversals don't happen in the future.
So your solution is to make sure that all the prisons are abundantly supplied with man-chimp meat. Good plan. Brilliant, again!
So you have no system of ethics? You have no basis for saying this is right, or this is wrong? If this is really your position, then it seems to me you're saying that nothing is right or wrong. If this is not your position please clarify.

How do you come to the conclusion that one particular action is good, and another is bad? Please don't say that it is by looking at the consequences of those actions, because then I'd just ask you why a particular consequence is good, and another is bad.

What is it that makes something good, and something else bad ultimately. Pain, pleasure are irrelevant?
This is really nonsense. It's a pointless distraction to worry about good/bad, evil/holy, right/wrong. But just to play along this is my answer.

What is good is good without my choosing. I know something is good when I am compelled to know it to be good by physical circumstances, in spite of any desire I may have to conclude otherwise no matter how strong. It is good if, no matter which way I turn and try wriggle out of it, there is no escaping the conclusion. I conclude an action is good if I must. All else is bad.

There you go. Happy now? No? What, you cannot figure out how to know you must conclude an action is good? Well, how do you know you must do anything? It's no different.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,233
learningphysics
Homework Helper
4,099
6
sheepdog said:
What is good is good without my choosing. I know something is good when I am compelled to know it to be good by physical circumstances, in spite of any desire I may have to conclude otherwise no matter how strong. It is good if, no matter which way I turn and try wriggle out of it, there is no escaping the conclusion. I conclude an action is good if I must. All else is bad.

How does exactly does a situation compel you to know if an action is good? Can you give an example?
 
  • #1,234
sheepdog
example

learningphysics said:
How exactly does a situation compel you to know if an action is good? Can you give an example?
I am compelled to know that breathing fresh, clean, healthy air is good for a person.
 
  • #1,235
Francis M said:
Sorry I wasn't clear on that, what I meant was where do we draw the line on what animals to kill. As a thought/morality exercise if we treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly (therby not having them suffer and do it in a way as to not cause a bad enviornmental impact) it pretty much leaves it wide open as to what catagory we start putting animals in as far as food, pets etc.....WHich as I understand varies from culture to culture anyways.
thanks for clarifying this francis.
if you "treat every animal great and can kill it painlessly", you may not get any objections from the utilitarian faction provided their premise is to minimize suffering. (note: that since this doesn't really happen, it is as you say merely "an exercise"). however, from a deontologic perspective one may complain if you cut the animal's life short. of course, if you limit yourself to natural deaths or even roadkill, then it is possible that many ethical vegetarians would not object, but of course, we nutriveggies wouldn't possibly tolerate this sort of gastronomic crisis :rofl:

categorizing animals in terms of food, pets etc can be said to be a form of speciesism. for instance, why should you treat your cat like a king, yet treat pigs the way they are treated in factory farms? certainly, this decision is not based on intelligence or capacities to suffer or even a human need for nutrition. it is based on the fact that a cat is a cat, whereas a pig is a pig - hence, speciesism.

some people in the far east may accuse north americans of being speciesist because we make cows endure horrible lives, but treat our pet dogs better than how most people in the world have it - they perhaps think they are not being speciesist because they end up eating the dogs.

Francis M said:
I suppose at that point (I don't mean to sound callus here) it would come down to pure economics, i.e. what's the most cost effective animal to raise for food.
except in certain hostile climates or certain "free-range" situations, the most cost effective solution to food production probably is not to raise any animals. the food that is fed to fatten up the animals can usually be directly consumed by humans.
 
Last edited:
  • #1,236
Dissident Dan said:
I know a vegan guy who is probably the most muscular guy I know. The idea that you can't get the protein that you need without animal sources is bunk. All sorts of bean and legumes, as well as nuts, have a good amount of protein. Even grains provide useful levels of protein. You can get enough volume of proteins, and all the essential amino acids, without consuming flesh.
"athletes need meat" is one of those silly ideas that still occasionally rears its ridiculous head .... well, i suppose since some athletes do use steroids and stuff, they will find a suitable source of those sorts of things in meat etc. :rofl:

some people are still under the weird impression that vegetarians are skinny weaklings. here is a list of veg professional athletes that might inspire some reconsideration (from an earlier post in this thread):

Hank Aaron (home run champion in major league baseball)
Andreas Cahling (body builder)
Chris Campbell (1980 world champion wrestler)
Sally Eastall (Marathon runner - UK No 2)
Sally Hibberd (British Women's Mountain Bike Champion)
Billie Jean King (tennis champion)
Martina Navratilova (tennis champion)
Silken Laumann (Olympic rower)
Killer Kowalski (wrestler)
Jack LaLanne (Fitness guru)
Donnie LaLonde (Former Light Heavyweight Champion of the World.)
Katherine Monbiot (world champion arm wrestler and nutritionist)
Edwin Moses (longtime world hurdling champion)
Carl Lewis (world record for 100m)
Bill Pearl (Bodybuilder, Mr America)
Anthony Peeler (NBA Grizzlies basketball player)
Jacques Vaughn (All American point guard, #1-ranked Univ of KS Jayhawks)
John Salley (only 4x NBA champ in history)

here is the excellent website for veg worldclass ironman triathlete brendan brazier who also was winner of the Canadian 50km Ultramarathon Championships in 2003:
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/

this post ends with an article by Monique N. Gilbert, B.Sc. (Certified Personal Trainer/Fitness Counselor, Health Advocate) which explains some of this as well as provides another list of veg aths (some repetition exists).


in friendship,
prad

http://vegweb.com/cgi/faq/smartfaq.cgi?answer=1004192561&id=1004838128 [Broken]

I'm a teen athlete - Do I "need" things from meat because of my age?

Question: I'm 16 and want to become a vegetarian but my grandparents don't agree with this choice. They said it was because I'm a athlete and there are certain things I need from meat. I know of many adult athletes that are vegetarians and it doesn't affect their performance. Do I "need" things from meat because of my age? Thank you, Frankie

Answer: No, I do not believe that you need meat to be an athlete at any age. While heavy physical activity may require you to increase your daily protein intake, it does not have to come from meat. There are hundreds of top athletes from all over the world that have shown their performance has not been hindered in any way by adopting a vegetarian diet. Many of these athletic champions have discovered that eating meat decreased their strength and stamina. In fact, in 1978 the Journal of the American Medical Association warned athletes (and non-athletes) against taking protein supplements, stating "Protein does not increase strength. Indeed, it often makes greater energy to digest and metabolize the excess protein." Meat protein is one the most difficult foods for the body to metabolize, taking sometimes up to 3 days to digest. Vegetable protein, on the other hand, usually only takes between 25 and 30 hours to pass through the body's gastrointestinal tract. Excess animal protein intake can break down in the colon into toxic substances, some of which are absorbed in the bloodstream. Meat is also high in saturated fats and cholesterol. Protein from vegetable sources like soy (tempeh, tofu, textured soy protein, etc.), seitan (wheat gluten), beans, legumes, seeds and nuts are virtually free of saturated fat and contain no cholesterol. The body will absorb and assimilate the nutrients from vegetable proteins more easily than with animal proteins. Additionally, soy's protein is complete, equal to that of meat but without the negative side effects. Diets high in animal protein can have a detrimental impact on the kidneys and pancreas; increase the risk for heart attack and stroke; lower resistance to cancer, and contribute to the development of osteoporosis, diabetes and kidney stones.

As more athletes become vegetarian, the myth of the need for meat is coming to light. If you are still unsure about how vegetarian diets can improve athletic performance, just look at this list of top athletes.

BASEBALL
Hank Aaron - All Time Baseball Home Run Champion
Jim Kaat - Baseball Player

FOOTBALL
Joe Namath - Pro Football player (NY Jets)
Lawrence Phillips - Pro Football player (49ers)
Desmond Howard - Football Player (Washington Redskins, Jacksonville Jaguars)

BASKETBALL
B. J. Armstrong - Basketball Star
Bill Walton - Basketball Player

OLYMPICS
Carl Lewis - Olympic Track Star (vegan)
Paavo Nurmi - 20 World Records and 9 Olympic Medals in distance running
Edwin Moses - Olympic champion
Leroy Burrell - Olympic champion
Murray Rose - Olympic swimmer

BODYBUILDING
Stan Price - World Record holder in the Bench Press
Andreas Cahling - Mr. International Body Building Champion
Roy Hilligan - Mr. America Body Building Champion
Bill Pearl - Bodybuilder, Mr. America and Mr. Universe
Bill Manetti - Power Lifting Champion
Pat Reeves - Power Lifter (vegan)
Jack LaLanne - Fitness Guru (vegan)


WRESTLING
Chris Campbell - 1980 World Champion Wrestler
Killer Kowalski - Wrestler

TRIATHLON AND MARATHON RUNNING
Dave Scott - 6-time winner of the Ironman Triathlon
Sixto Linares - World Record holder in the 24-hour Triathlon
Lucy Stephens - Triathlete (vegan)
Debbie Lawrence - 5k record holder
Ruth Heidrich - 3 time Ironman, marathoner and age-group record holder (vegan)
Sally Eastall - Marathon runner (vegan)

MARTIAL ARTS
Ridgely Abele - 8-Time National Champion in Karate

TENNIS
Bille Jean King - Tennis Champion
Martina Navratilova - Tennis Champion (vegan)
Peter Burwash - Tennis Champion (vegan)

SKATEBOARDING
Brad Staba - Pro Skateboarder
Andrew Reynolds - Pro Skateboarder
Brian Sumner - Pro Skateboarder
Brian Anderson - Pro Skateboarder
Sergei Trudnowski - Pro Skateboarder
Rick Mc Crank - Pro Skateboarder
Ed Templeton - Pro Skateboarder
Jamie Thomas - Pro Skateboarder
Geoff Rowley - Pro Skateboarder
Steve Berra - Pro Skateboarder
Laban Pheidas - Pro Skateboarder

SKATING
Sorya Bonali - Ice Skater
Joanna Conway - Ice Skater

So you are not alone in your desire to be a vegetarian athlete. To find out other famous vegetarians from all walks of life, go to http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm [Broken], and to find more vegetarian and vegan athletes, go to http://veggie.org/veggie/famous.veg.athletes.shtml [Broken].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,237
45
0
loseyourname said:
There are reasons for that have nothing to do with meat itself. The correlation with colon cancer has a lot to do with the quality of the meat, such as hormones that have been added to it and such. The negative correlation with the vegetarian diet has a lot to do with antioxidants in the vegetables being eaten, as well as with dietary supplementation. Vegetarians in general are more careful about their diet because, if they aren't, there can be serious consequences from eating a strictly vegetarian diet. This same positive effect can simply be achieved by eating more vegetables and better supplements while still eating meat.



Eating meat isn't necessarily an inefficient use of energy. Many of the forms of meat farming used are, but the act of eating meat itself needn't be. For instance, eating beef that is corn-fed, although it is generally of higher quality, is wasteful because of more corn needs to be grown to support the cattle than would be needed to feed the people eating the cattle. However, if we just eat cattle that grazes on natural pastures, there is no real inefficiency as the cattle are in effect a natural resource themselves, plus not a lot of effort is needed to maintain a pasture. The same thing goes with eating fish. If the fish are farm-raised, we have an inefficiency. If, however, we simply eat fish that have been caught at sea (and don't overdo it), we really aren't harming anything.

Still, this is the one argument for vegetarianism I am actually sympathetic to. I do make an effort to eat mostly seafood that is caught at sea for this very reason. That and the evidence for experiential capacity in most fishes is scant.

A very rational viewpoint IMHO. It turns out that I am not unsympathetic to some of Dissident Dan's points. it is true that in the USA, eating meat is relatively inefficient, in that you could have simply eaten the corn you grew for the cows. And it takes 5000 gallons of water to grow one pound of beef.

Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn.

Now the odd thing about Dan's objection, is that that specific country I mentioned which has 20 domestic livestock animals for every single man woman and child in the whole country, does not grow corn to feed that livestock. The animals feed on what grows naturally; grasses, and they have to go get it for themselves, so they don't grow tons of fat; they are all lean muscle. So that place which has the most efficient food production on earth in terms of energy input to food output, really is using plants which humans cannot digest and which grow on their own without human intervention. Unfortunatley, it doesn't have enough production capacity for everybody on earth.

But in America, even plant foods are not necessarily good for you. The whole reason for white flour, is that it is so lacking in nutritional value that even rats won't eat it, so it can be stored in warehouses without the varmints getting into it. But then it has to be 'fortified' to make it of any value for human food.

This is the only country on earth which has whole industries which make billions of dollars making non-foods which are disguised as food for persons who have so much food, and so little self control, that they just can't stop eating. I once worked for a major chemical company, and the lab next door to our lab, was a 'cooking/food' research lab, in which scientists developed non-foods out of ordinary chemicals, and then would whip up batches of cookies or other 'goodies' to bring to us to be the guinea pigs to see if they were either edible or tasty. they had zero food value, but they could certainly fill your belly and keep your hands and mouth busy.

Coca Cola Company, and others take ordinary water, and convert it into a liquid which is more expensive than gasoline, and which has no more food value than the water they started with; then they truck it by the millions of gallons around to places which all ready have plenty of water.

So I am not very sympathetic to arguments of morality, when it comes to food.
 
  • #1,238
91
0
Dissident Dan said:
I'm not going to agree with Les that it will sit around for weeks or months, but a few days at internal body temperature is enough to make animal matter rot.

sorry for the delay, but i've been busy elsewhere (who cares... :smile: )

DD, please consider this: a few days at internal body temp is enough to make animal matter rot........ YES!

therefore, anyone who eats shrimp, for example, should die of food poisoning, since if you let the shrimp sit around even at ROOM temperature for six or 12 hours, it'll spoil....

y'see, inside the body, the world is different for food, compared to outside, so you can't just apply those kinds of rules or generalizations like that! it's an anaerobic world inside the body... there aren't any "inlets" from the outside, once the stuff has made it to the stomach and beyond. there are enough fairly ugly chemicals inside the body to kill off lots of bugs, except for some of the really strong, toxic ones, and they have to be introduced INTO the body WITH the food, such as botulism, before they'll kill you!

food "sitting around inside the body" is being digested actively by the body; it's not just milling around, spoiling.

ciao (pun...)
:rofl:
 
  • #1,239
91
0
physicsisphirst said:
that's no problem! it will give us something to talk about!
this is a good thread with nice people generally who usually make an effort to respond with sincere effort regardless of the position they hold. i hope you will enjoy your stay here.

The small intestine measures approximately 23 feet in length and contains the duodenum, jejunum and the ileum. The large intestine measures approximately 5 feet in length and contains the cecum, colon, rectum and the anal canal.
http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cach...asures+approximately+23+feet+in+length"&hl=en
(snipped for space's sake...)

so given that the above sources are correct and the combined length is at least 30 feet, veg food would move on average 1.25 feet/hr (of course, it spends more time in certain places than others). i don't really see this as a problem, but perhaps i am misunderstanding what you are trying to say. do you think that moving through the gastronomic highway (great phrase btw!!) at 1.25 feet/hr is too fast?

thanks for the welcome, and yes, i'm really enjoying it here..... :approve:

and quoting from the first link (copied above)......

"The time required for digestion in the small intestine is influenced by many factors. It depends largely on the proportions of different foods included in a meal. For adults on a mixed diet, the passage of ingested foods through the tract is between twenty and thirty-six hours. For proper functioning of the intestinal tract, fiber is essential. Fibers clean the tract and keep it free of excess mucus and wastes."
and...
"Fiber is comprised of components of plant materials that are resistant to human digestive enzymes. Fiber functions in the digestive process from the very beginning of the process -- the mouth. Through chewing, the mouth stimulates saliva flow, which initiates the flow of digestive juices. Fiber enters the stomach, contributing bulk as water is absorbed. Pectins and gums increasethe thickness of stomach contents, which gives a feeling of fullness and slows down the emptying of the stomach. In this, fiber performs a unique service to the body by contributing to the maintenance of normal bowel movement. Through this process, the body removes toxins and bacteria."

nothing about meat putrefying or hanging around to kill you. balanced diet, fiber and meat (and other stuff, too...) healthy.

o:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,240
91
0
i think there are several important things in this post:


"....It is my view that morality, like physics, can be arrived at empierically (sic). Science is largely predicated on the assumption that there are absolute laws that govern how the universe works and if we are smart enough we might find them (paraphrase, Hawking) ... So what about morality? Why can't we start with the same assumption (in my view, a reasonable assumption, but even if you don't buy it, try it anyway and see how it works) and attempt to find moral laws emperically (sic)?...."


is a nice quote, but i believe it misses one of the key elements of science, at least imnsho.... the predictive element. all of the laws we seek are rules that can be applied to some input or driving force, from which an output (prediction) can be made. einstein was one of the best examples. some of his "laws" were predictions of how he thought the universe operated, and many of them have been proven to be accurate descriptors/predictors decades after his death; in some cases they had to wait until instrumentation was sufficiently accurate to measure the stuff he predicted...

so.... whether veggies have a right to oppose meaties... so what? that's called "free speech" in this country (USA)...

i haven't read ALL of the threads word for word (some are as excruciatingly long or longer than mine!)..... but i don't remember seeing anywhere that anyone has posited any kind of rule or prediction which has in any way said, "this kind of action is right (or wrong) for this reason, and some future action, as yet not experienced or having come into existence yet, can be judged as "good or bad" by these measures:......

in that sense, i had to laugh at the "mental masturbation" comment below, because the exact phrase had crossed my mind just a few minutes earlier!

show me the yardstick. (analogous to "show me the money").....

no predictive value; not = science.

ciao (pun intended...)
+af
 
Last edited:
  • #1,241
91
0
once again, please?

Seafang said:
<snip>
Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn.
</snip>
<snip>
This is the only country on earth which has whole industries which make billions of dollars making non-foods which are disguised as food for persons who have so much food, and so little self control, that they just can't stop eating. I once worked for a major chemical company, and the lab next door to our lab, was a 'cooking/food' research lab, in which scientists developed non-foods out of ordinary chemicals, and then would whip up batches of cookies or other 'goodies' to bring to us to be the guinea pigs to see if they were either edible or tasty. they had zero food value, but they could certainly fill your belly and keep your hands and mouth busy.

Coca Cola Company, and others take ordinary water, and convert it into a liquid which is more expensive than gasoline, and which has no more food value than the water they started with; then they truck it by the millions of gallons around to places which all ready have plenty of water.

So I am not very sympathetic to arguments of morality, when it comes to food.</snip>

re: "Have you noticed that while humans are not allowed to eat genetically engineered corn; they are allowed to eat cows that have been fed almost entirely on genetically engineered corn..........."

ummm.... isn't it a bit more like "we're not allowed to BUY it"? it's there, but some groups have lobbied against it and used scare tactics to make its use illegal? i guess one of the theories is that if the GM food is run through a converter (cow), the bad parts of the GM of the food are not passed through. hmmmmmmm... but cows can pass prions through from their food to their meat to the folks that eat the meat.......

as for Coca-Cola and their ilk.... if the people who wanted something to drink prefered water to Coke, and someone could deliver water to them at a price which would displace Coke from all of those markets, don't you think it would have happened already????

maybe humans actually prefer Coke to un"enhanced" water? so, is it you or me who should help them see the errors of their ways and stop drinking Coke?

sorry, i abdicate that throne.

ps.
same for meat versus vegetables.
:)
+af
 
  • #1,242
91
0
so, where did this start?

"should we eat meat?"

it's become a wonderful, intricate, complex, woven thread.

but i just wondered about something.....
in asking the original question, was that done as a lurker tossing a rock into a lake to sit back and see what ripples resulted and where they went?

i wonder.

to ask such a general, open-ended question begins to sound more and more to me like someone's psych 101 term paper project, ghostwritten by the rest of us, including regulars, part-timers, and folks that just stumbled across the link....

Should we eat meat?

based on what? what's your driving point? what moves you to make the decision? morals? ethics? religion? because your mommy told you to? because your god told you to? because you're better than all other species? because you're hungry and it tastes good? because you can? because you don't like the alternatives? because you don't mind it or care if someone else does the butchering and packaging and shipping, and maybe even cooking? because it's cheaper? because it takes less work?

why should we NOT eat meat?

based on what? your mommy told you not to? your god told you not to? because it hurts them when you kill them? because there are alternatives you consider acceptable? because you don't like the taste? because you don't want to kill any animals? because we're humans and we should be better than that? because we don't have to? because it's expensive? because it's worth the extra energy?


so, if the person (or cow, or whatever.... :rofl: ) who started this all would please drop back in and clarify that a little bit.....

(edit): the originator is Physicskid, and if you look at the posts he's made and in some cases, such at this thread, the number of replies and views that resulted, you may be astounded! i was.... https://www.physicsforums.com/member.php?u=873 alone may be a link to keep and browse, by itself... the topics are amazing! so many threads, so little time.....(/edit)

you've asked the starting question...... what kinds of answers would you consider to be good, bad, acceptable, unacceptable, etc..........?

:cool:
 
Last edited:
  • #1,243
sheepdog
plusaf said:
is a nice quote, but i believe it misses one of the key elements of science, at least imnsho.... the predictive element. all of the laws we seek are rules that can be applied to some input or driving force, from which an output (prediction) can be made.
If this were true, it seems to me, then the study of chaotic systems would not be scientific, since their behavior is known to be inherently unpredictable. I am assuming you aren't referring to deterministic behavior since otherwise even probabilistic quantum laws would not be categorized as scientific.

I think that for something to be studied scientifically it is only necessary to look into the nature of the thing with respect to its reality. Whether that results in predictable rules or not doesn't validate or invalidate the science. Science is only the deeper understanding of reality. Predicting the future may or may not be a side benefit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #1,244
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
sheepdog said:
If this were true, it seems to me, then the study of chaotic systems would not be scientific, since their behavior is known to be inherently unpredictable.

This is a common misunderstanding. The future state of a chaotic system is unkown, but it has many other predictable properties, self-similarity or strange attractors for example. If there were no more to chaos theory than to throw up your hands and say "I don't know" then why would anybody ever study it?
 
  • #1,245
sheepdog
complexity

selfAdjoint said:
If there were no more to chaos theory than to throw up your hands and say "I don't know" then why would anybody ever study it?
What makes chaotic systems interesting, though they are unpredictable, is that they produce complex behavior. One can predict that much, perhaps. That their product will be complex, often with an unpredictable and irreproducible but complex organization. But I don't think that's the kind of prediction plusaf was referring to when it wrote
no predictive value; not = science.
 
  • #1,246
phisicsisphirst... thanks for that post!!! unfortunately to do it justice it will probably take me 3 weeks to work my way through all that info. I was not trying to imply, that i have to eat meat no if's and's or but's. I just thought, in my possoble ignorance, that it is better for me to be taking in easily useable proteins... since i do actually train very rigorously. I cant see myself not eating meat... but if i CAN find a better... more healthy diet i will use it... and if not eating meat is actually healthier and will let me keep every ounce of muscle i have and promote strong core strength growth and a possible +5-10 lbs of solid muscle mass... i'm in. I'll try it to see how i feel. But i'll gratefully check that reference before i do.
 
  • #1,247
ps, just ordered B.Brazier's "thrive" he seems to have done the study on himself that i was about to do on myself. Looks like a good book to get eh?
 
  • #1,248
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
i think the answer should be a "yes one should eat meat" in a situation such as a woman who becomes pregnant and has been a vegetarian for some time. i know of a pregnant woman who was criticized by her doctor for not gaining enough weight for her baby because of her vegetarian eating habits. he strongly advised her to consume some meat to help her baby develop properly. that certainly won't be a problem with me :biggrin: chicken and turkey is all i am craving these past few weeks since i am expecting. :cool:
 
  • #1,249
A person can easily gain weight on a veggie diet. Fat, the most calorie dense of our three main energy sources (fat, carbs, protein), is not animal-only.
 
  • #1,250
Kerrie
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
839
15
Dissident Dan said:
A person can easily gain weight on a veggie diet. Fat, the most calorie dense of our three main energy sources (fat, carbs, protein), is not animal-only.

Your key word here is "can", but extra care needs to go into making sure a woman's diet has enough protein and iron, which are easily found in fish and chicken. In my opinion, a woman's vegetarian diet needs to come second to the development and care of her baby.
 

Related Threads on Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
17K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
135
Views
19K
Replies
1
Views
841
Top