Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[mee]

... it would be more like a lack of important proteins and healthy fatty acids (from e.g. fish) they lack... and often calcium... fat doesn't really do much other than being an energy supply... a not very easily accessible energy supply, that is...

Actually, aren't all of our hormones derived from fat in our diet?

 

[mee]

Once again, vegetarians are not generally frail. There is no empirical evidence to support such a claim.

I did not say generally frail, I said "some" vegetarians. Balanced meals for vegetarians are often hard to come by if not made for ones self. Sometimes perhaps leading to "frailty."

 

[balkan]

Actually, aren't all of our hormones derived from fat in our diet?

you can't avoid fat... i was talking "fat"...

 

[TheBestOfMe]

This will never end. Many facts and opinons, but all in all, its your choice. Freedom, isn't it great. The only part we can really change now, is the abuse to animals. As for the diet and health of a vegetarian lifestyle, I believe a vegetarian lifestyle is much healthier. But you have to take into consideration of the differences of others, and how their body reacts to a no-meat diet. Everything is not black and white.

 

[digiflux]

Self Restraint

Humans have no "self-restraint". They are to self-absorbed.

Kerrie: Just take some iron pills or drink some well-water.

The evil human creature pollutes it’s own world and supports unimaginable horrors for self gratification. The Earth will not tolerate this arrogance for much longer.

 

[simulaskk]

Anything

It actually doesn't matter what you eat. so what if the species becomes extinct? well that is the purpose of evolution, the survival of the fittest? and it is actually natural to eat meat. it is humans who artificially brought in the "vegetarian thing". and a general argument given is that vegetarians are fit and fine. this is just compromise. i want to eat good food. i shall eat whatever i want. if it is tasty then why do i bother to ignore it ? by the way i am a vegetarian. that was because i was brought up that way. i am from a very orthodox hindu family. but i cannot stay this for long for sure!

 

[Dissident Dan]

simulaskk, I encourage you read some of the other posts in this thread. You may gain an appreciation for the pro-vegitarian arguments.

Why do you consider it "just compromise"?

 

[JD]

simulaskk, I encourage you read some of the other posts in this thread. You may gain an appreciation for the pro-vegitarian arguments.

Why do you consider it "just compromise"?

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

 

[JD]

The evil human creature pollutes it’s own world and supports unimaginable horrors for self gratification. The Earth will not tolerate this arrogance for much longer.

Now, when is that on general release?

 

[pace]

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

 

[JD]

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

Not at all no. You can say anything you like. Nothing to stop you seeing any possibilities you like. If you want to change your own life then do it. Just don't assume that everyone is going to stand around looking impressed when you are talking about how wonderful your view of the world is and how everyone else should subscribe to it. Anyone can see possibilities (it's rather like talking about what you are going to do) - realising them (doing something) is what counts.

My point was not that people should shut up (who am I to say that?) but that, if people made choices and justified them based on the positive aspects then that would be great. But what seems to happen is that a significant proportion of the justification is negative - arguing that others are wrong.
I would be just as misled if I said 'What you are suggesting is that everyone should see everything from your point of view because you're right'

 

[Averagesupernova]

What you are suggesting is that everyone that see the possibilties of a better world should just shut up? That's silly. :yuck:

That seems to be what SOME of the people on the pro-veg side are suggesting from there viewpoint. Remember, what a 'better world' actually is is just an opinion.

 

[digiflux]

Unfortunately there are to many self absorbed people like “simulaskk” who don’t care about species extinction. The Earth will be a less precious place without whales, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, et...

Somebody educate simulaskk on the unprecedented increase in species extinctions within the last century.

The people on Easter Island didn’t care either. They cut down all the trees and now it’s a desert. They didn’t care about extinction until it happened to them...

 

[physicsisphirst]

what seems to happen is that a significant proportion of the justification is negative - arguing that others are wrong.

There seems to be plenty of justification for the view that "others" are indeed wrong, in this situation.

For starters,

1) from a health perspective, vegetarian diets are considerably healthier (rather significant reduction in the heart attacks, the cancer, the osteoporosis, mad cow disease, the samonella, the cow pus etc)
2) from an environmental perspective, vegetarian diets are far easier on the planet (rather significant reduction in pollution, water consumption, deforestation etc)
3) from an ethical perspective, vegetarian diets are kinder to 27 billion animals that are killed every year, as well as to the people who have to do the actual dirty work which can have profound effects on them (for instance, look at the recent KFC Supplier Cruelty expose in the NY Times that I have quoted below)

It is often the case when a significant societal change is proposed to dismiss it with things like

"it is actually natural to eat meat" (which it really isn't) or
"a 'better world' actually is is just an opinion" (which seems to suggest that all opinions are created equal)

However, if one does a bit of research, one may find that 'holding on' to status quo may be more a matter of inertia than common sense.

I do think that the research should take place, rather than blindly following dictums such as you should be vegetarian because Einstein said, "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

While Einstein's opinion may have enormous sway, the only way to really be convinced, is to convince yourself.

In friendship,
prad


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/20/business/20chicken.html
KFC Supplier Accused of Animal Cruelty
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

An animal rights group involved in a long legal dispute with Kentucky Fried Chicken about the treatment of the 700 million chickens it buys each year is to release a videotape today showing slaughterhouse workers for one supplier jumping up and down on live chickens, drop-kicking them like footballs and slamming them into walls, apparently for fun.

After officials of the KFC Corporation saw the videotape yesterday, they said they would seek dismissal of the workers, inspect the slaughterhouse more often and end their relationship if the cruelty was repeated. The company that owns the slaughterhouse, the Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, the country's second-largest poultry processor, said it was "appalled" by the tape.

Animal rights groups have long complained that sheer malicious behavior - on top of the expected confinement and bloodletting - goes on in slaughter plants, but this is the first time such graphic proof has been produced. The tape was taken surreptitiously by an investigator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals who worked from October 2003 to May 2004 at a Pilgrim's Pride plant in Moorefield, W.Va., that won KFC's "Supplier of the Year" award in 1997.

KFC and its parent, Yum Brands, have repeatedly committed themselves to a promise that all suppliers would treat animals humanely. Yesterday, a spokeswoman for KFC said the company "wouldn't tolerate the type of behavior in the video."

KFC "will require that the employee or employees responsible be terminated," said Bonnie Warschauer, director of public relations, and further violations will "result in termination of our relationship."

Prominent veterinarians, including those on the company's animal welfare advisory board, called for shutting the plant and dismissing or prosecuting its managers. Dr. Ian J. H. Duncan, an animal and poultry science professor at the University of Guelph in Ontario, who is a KFC adviser, said the tape "contains some of the worst scenes of animal cruelty that I have ever witnessed."

A Pilgrim's Pride spokesman said the company had an anonymous report about poultry mistreatment at the plant in April and had made it clear to its workers that "any such behavior would result in immediate termination." In light of the tape, the company said, it will reopen its investigation.

The tape includes loud music the workers listen to, the screeching of the birds and the sound of each hitting the wall. When released, it will be on a Web site of the animal-rights group, which is known as PETA, at kentuckyfriedcruelty.com.

The undercover investigator, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared retaliation and still does undercover work for the group, said in a telephone interview that he saw "hundreds" of acts of cruelty, including workers tearing beaks off, ripping a bird's head off to write graffiti in blood, spitting tobacco juice into birds' mouths, plucking feathers to "make it snow," suffocating a chicken by tying a latex glove over its head, and squeezing birds like water balloons to spray feces over other birds.

He said the behavior was "to alleviate boredom or vent frustrations," especially when so many birds were coming in that they would have to work late.

On April 6, one day he filmed, workers made a game of throwing chickens against a wall; 114 were thrown in seven minutes. A supervisor walking past the pile of birds on the floor said, "Hold your fire," and, once out of the way, told the crew to "carry on."

On another day, he said, the supervisor told the crew to kill correctly because inspectors were visiting. To document cruelty and position his tiny camera, he said, he spent eight months working in the "hang pen," where workers attach newly arrived chickens by their feet to a conveyor that carries them upside-down through an electrified "stun bath" and then into the whirling blades of the throat-cutting machine.

KFC says all its suppliers train their workers in animal welfare, but the investigator said Pilgrim's Pride had nothing on the topic in its orientation manual and the only instruction he received was after five months, and then only in how to wring a chicken's neck by hand. The Web site of Pilgrim's Pride does not note any animal welfare policy.

Last year, PETA sued Kentucky Fried Chicken and called for a boycott, demanding that it require its suppliers to give chickens more room in factory barns, stop forcing growth so rapid that it cripples birds, and to gas birds before hanging them so they feel no pain.

The group has won similar concessions from Burger King, McDonald's and Wendy's.

Yum Brands did not do as PETA requested, but its KFC Web site says the company is "committed to the humane treatment of animals." It describes steps taken to assure such treatment, including creating an advisory council and promising to "only deal with suppliers who provide an environment that is free from cruelty, abuse and neglect."

Dr. Temple Grandin, a well-known veterinary scientist who designs plants for humane slaughter, called the behavior shown on the videotape "absolutely atrocious."

Dr. Grandin is on KFC's animal welfare advisory board, but said PETA had not told her when it sent her the tape this month where it had been taken. "They need to fire the plant manager," she said.

Both Ms. Warschauer of KFC and a spokesman for Pilgrim's Pride said they would ask Dr. Grandin to visit the plant.

PETA said it planned to ask a West Virginia prosecutor to prosecute plant employees and managers under state laws that make torture or malicious killing of animals a felony. It has also written to KFC and Pilgrim's Pride, asking them to use gas to knock the animals out before they are killed and to mount video cameras to forestall employee cruelty.

The PETA investigator said he would testify, calling it "the right thing to do."

Several American and British veterinary experts to whom PETA sent the videotape expressed disgust.

"I have visited many poultry slaughterhouses but I have never seen cruelty to chickens to the extent shown in this video," said Dr. Donald M. Broom, professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University and chairman of the European Union's animal welfare scientific committee. "It would be grounds for a successful prosecution for cruelty to animals in most countries."

 

[flash33773]

Humans are made to eat meat, that is why we have canine teeth, which are teeth specifically designed to tear meat, they would serve no purpose if we were all vegetarians. Even down to how we process protiens and feed our muscles, we are made to eat meat! Why deny our nature? Everyone is all about natural food, and nature, cow, pig, and chicken meat is all very natural and a lot of things in nature live very well primarily by eating just meat. So if you are all about nature, don't go against it by not eating meat!

 

[yesicanread]

I like KFC, Burgerking, Steakhouses, Pig bacon, chicken type birds.
I also eat pasta.
I eat cheese whiz, and ketchup, and spice.
I eat fruits like citrus, apples, bananas, potatoes, squash, even pumpkin.
I eat chips, chocolate, pop, sports drinks, ice creams, a variety of penny candies, and pie such as apple and cherry etc, cookies, and pastry.
I drink a lot of water. More than eight cups a day, and so use the bathroom a lot. I drink juice every now and then. And coffee and tea every now and then.

I'm 20 pounds over my body weight index. Maybe less now.
My heart rate is considered excellent, and I really don't exercise.

I don't suffer aggressiveness caused by my diet.

I limit my meals to one full plate each, with a nice big cup of water.

So, yes. I eat meat.

 

[mee]

Humans are made to eat meat, that is why we have canine teeth, which are teeth specifically designed to tear meat, they would serve no purpose if we were all vegetarians. Even down to how we process protiens and feed our muscles, we are made to eat meat! Why deny our nature? Everyone is all about natural food, and nature, cow, pig, and chicken meat is all very natural and a lot of things in nature live very well primarily by eating just meat. So if you are all about nature, don't go against it by not eating meat!

Actually, the canine teeth could have evolved for defense, to look scary to that which threatens us. I'm not sure we would have been able to catch prey and crush its throat or rip its jugular with our teeth like cats and dogs. We probably started out eating insects and eggs as any sort of meat, maybe lizards or something somewhat easy to catch. You might then say we evolved to eat insects, not cows. But how many people eat insects? Few.

 

[mee]

I think the thing is, Dan, that if you eat meat, then you probably aren't that interested in pro-vegetarian arguments. You just eat meat. Some meat eaters are careful about sourcing, some aren't. That you eat meat doesn't mean that you don't care about animals. Some people who eat meat don't care about animals. Some people who don't eat meat think the world would be a better place without humans. Indeed the world, so we are told by doomsayers, has been ending since it began.

So, the point is, enjoy, celebrate even, what you enjoy and leave other people to enjoy what they enjoy. If it conflicts with what you enjoy, too bad - you are no-one other than yourself and so have little or no right to tell other people how they should live their lives, regardless of the 'ethical sustainability' of your argument, or whichever set of quack words you wish to employ.

Ethical sustainability is a lovely set of words, descriptive and succinct. Not quack words. We tell people that they cannot kill ones mother with an ax or eat ones children, it is a small leap to tell them that they shouldn't abuse other creatures as well.

 

[mee]

Interesting study showing that eating beef results in less killing of animals than eating vegan.

http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm

This is if it is seen as 1 mouse life = 1 cow/ lamb life. Not only that, cow population, with careful peaceful management, will not spiral out of control due to birthrate, ease of husbandry etc, while mice breed practically like cockroaches and if all of them survived, as sad as it may be, we would be overrun with them like a plague. I think this mouse plague has happened in australia. Mice would have to be all captured and kept alive in captivity for their population to be controlled without death. Cows and lambs are already captured and can thus can be guided to a sustainable population. I think we should eat milk products from these animals to help pay for the land on which they live. I just don't think we should kill them.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Humans are made to eat meat, that is why we have canine teeth, which are teeth specifically designed to tear meat, they would serve no purpose if we were all vegetarians. Even down to how we process protiens and feed our muscles, we are made to eat meat! Why deny our nature? Everyone is all about natural food, and nature, cow, pig, and chicken meat is all very natural and a lot of things in nature live very well primarily by eating just meat. So if you are all about nature, don't go against it by not eating meat!

Our canines are puny. They are not designed for tearing through the flesh of an animal like a cat's or a dog's. A gorilla has huge, sharp teeth, but they are mainly used for intimidation. If you look at the human digestive system, it is much better suited to eat plant matter than eating animal matter.

Humans have evolved to include some animals in their diets and have some adaptations to that end. But we can evolve again--psychologically. Let us not be stuck in the ways of the past. Just because we have certain adaptations for eating animals does not mean that we should stick to it or that it is even healthy for us. When our species was diverging, most did not live past the early 30s (it appears that way from the evidence, anyway). They did not have time for heart or artery failure or strokes to develop.

Any adaptations that we have for eating animal matter are a result of evolution. There is no reason to think that we should stop evolving, that we have reached some golden pinnacle of physical form and habits. At times in our evolutionary history, we were probably completely herbivorous. At other times, we weren't.

BTW, no typical diet today resembles that of early man. So no diet that you or I will eat is very "natural". Saying that we should stick to what early man ate, even though we are in completely different environments, doesn't make much sense.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Our canines are puny.

ya get a magnifying glass! it is unlikely they will impress any true carnivore or even omnivore. strangely enough, those little doohickies of ours are still upheld by some as nature's blessing for ripping apart the flesh of animals :surprise:

Here is a bit from a chess site (of all places), that summaries a few of these ideas rather well:


We do not have teeth for ripping and tearing as do real carnivores (eg cats) or omnivores (eg dogs), 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?


The truth is that we don't 'eat meat' (we don't go out and take down a wild gazelle with our claws and teeth) - we have meat fed to us (someone has to do the dirty work, prepare, tenderize, dress, cook etc). Eating meat is really a most unnatural thing to do - but then, meat these days isn't particularly natural either with all the 'bonuses' you get thrown in.

It is evident that more and more people are figuring all this out since the vegetarian movement seems to be an ever increasing one. The thread poll above in itself is most interesting because it presently shows a 37% veg population - unthinkable even 2 decades ago when it would be unlikely that veg pop would reach even 5%.

in friendship,
prad

 

[emortis9]

You can't tell an eskimo not to eat meat. What else would they eat? But we are not eskimos(I apologize to all eskimos online right now!). There is plenty of food that is vegetarian and it is most likely more healthy for you than eating meat. Just try it. You will feel better. Look at the size of a carnivores intestine. Very short. Now look at ours. Very long. Of course we are omnivores and CAN eat anything we chose to eat but the average red meat eater dies with 5-10 pounds of undigested meat in their intestine. We simply cannot digest meat as well as vegetables. What if we were raised from birth in closed quarters and only allowed to become more fat and delicious to satisfy the taste buds of some superior being. Would you condone that?
Animals also have feelings, mabye not as complex, but feelings none the less.

 

[allanpatrick]

I don't think animals have feelings. They may only be influenced by positive or negative reinforcement. We should eat meat becuase not only is it healthy for us to do so, it also tastes good. Meat+vegetables=a hearty, healthy, delicious meal.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I don't think animals have feelings. They may only be influenced by positive or negative reinforcement.

Believe it or not, at one time some people even thought that animals couldn't feel pain. Rene Descartes, of the "I think therefore I am (but refuse to budge much further)" fame considered animals to be insensitive automatons. Under this pretense, vivisectors nailed down their victims and cut them open refusing to acknowledge that they were causing pain even though the poor creature was screaming and writhing right in front of them:

During the 18th Century, the "mechanicism" of Descartes´rationality set the standard. His cogito ergo sum convinced him that animals did not really "exist", that they were machines reacting to instincts, or even mere reflexes. As Orlans states, "according to his thinking, the cries of animals are like the ticking of a clock, no more" (Orlans 4). Decartes himself used to tap with nails the dogs´ legs to a wooden board to work on a live dog without anesthetics.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...0Paper.pdf+Decartes+++Voltaire+++animal&hl=en

The reality is that animals share some very similar physiologies and as Voltaire said in response to Descartes' absurdity that the mechanisms of a nervous system wouldn't be there if it were not to feel pain:

People must have renounced, it seems to me, all natural intelligence to dare to advance that animals are but animated machines... It appears to me, besides, that [such people] can never have observed with attention the character of animals, not to have distinguished among them the different voices of need, of suffering, of joy, of pain, of love, of anger, and of all their affections. It would be very strange that they should express so well what they could not feel. ~Voltaire, Trate sur la tolerance

Some people like to deny animal feelings so they can do horrific things to them. After that wall is breached and it is no longer possible to propagandize the non-existence of animal feelings, one turns to the 'animals are stupid' claim. Now if we can put aside the astute observation that a cow can't do calculus (neither can most humans, from what I've seen, but it doesn't mean they are stupid), we can perhaps see that how we treat another being shouldn't depend upon our presumption (after all a cow probably does do cowlculus) of that being's intelligence. Or as Jeremy Bentham put it

The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

Finally, there is the great bastion "animals are not self-conscious"! How one comes to that conclusion regarding a being who is aware of her environment in which she lives, her companions with whom she co-exists and her offspring whom she protects, is a remarkable achievement of curiousity. Fortunately, research into this area over the past 3 decades by people such as Goodall, Savage-Rumbaugh, Griffin, Masson (and many others) is slowly eroding even this Mordorian fortress.

Why is there such resistance to acknowledge that other creatures share many of the same capacities that we have?

Some of it relates to the EGOcentric theory of the universe which is just an extension of the old GEOcentric theory - it seemed as though if man were not placed at the center of the universe, then "Ichabod! Ichabod! The glory will be departed from us!"

Much of it has to do with the rationalization for oppression. If you are going to argue slavery, then it seems necessary to consider the negro as being subhuman. If you are going to deny equal opportunity to women, then it seems necessary to regard the female as less competent or mindless or even as a 'non-person'. If you are going to factory farm, then it seems necessary to deny that the creatures have feelings or even the capacity to suffer the pain and horrors they are routinely put through.

What people do to animals and even each other is indeed cruel. However, the fact that these atrocities must be justified within their own minds with so much effort, proves that the conscience is still alive, desperately and eternally making its poignant plea.

In friendship,
prad

 

[Locrian]

Fantastic post physicsisphirst.

 

[emortis9]

I don't think animals have feelings. They may only be influenced by positive or negative reinforcement. We should eat meat becuase not only is it healthy for us to do so, it also tastes good. Meat+vegetables=a hearty, healthy, delicious meal.

What kind of evidence do you have to support that first statement!? Do they not have brains and nervous systems? Is there somthing I don't know about the anatomy of animals that you could clue me in on? I mean last time I checked WE were members of the animal kingdom, and I happen to have some feelings about this subject. Or mabye I am just being influenced by your negative reinforcement. And as far as meat tasting good: I heard crack makes you feel good. Is that good enough reason for you to smoke it? Cause it sure as hell is the same twisted logic. So, from my dog (who most likely has more personality and better arguments than you do) and I, we beg you to spend ten minutes with a chimp and then tell me if you still think animals don't have feelings.(that is as long as you don't try to eat the chimp)

 

[simulaskk]

Why are some animals herbivorous?

Unfortunately there are to many self absorbed people like “simulaskk” who don’t care about species extinction. The Earth will be a less precious place without whales, elephants, rhinos, gorillas, et...

Somebody educate simulaskk on the unprecedented increase in species extinctions within the last century.

The people on Easter Island didn’t care either. They cut down all the trees and now it’s a desert. They didn’t care about extinction until it happened to them...

ok.
do we agree on this thing. breeding animals for the purpose of eating is ok, coz they wouldn't be here otherwise. now consider yourself in a situation where you have not seen animals like whales, monkeys to name a few. then you wouldn't complain or attach yourself emotionally with these. and you haven't addressed my point of survival of the fittest. and that eating meat is natural and you don't if you are told so, just as in my case. please reply and i am listening.

 

[Dissident Dan]

ok.
do we agree on this thing. breeding animals for the purpose of eating is ok, coz they wouldn't be here otherwise. now consider yourself in a situation where you have not seen animals like whales, monkeys to name a few. then you wouldn't complain or attach yourself emotionally with these. and you haven't addressed my point of survival of the fittest. and that eating meat is natural and you don't if you are told so, just as in my case. please reply and i am listening.

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation. They serve no helpful ecological function. I do not condone the continuation of great suffering so we can have a particular genetic strain out there. The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static. The animals (humans are animals) that have been our ancestors have had different eating habits at different times. Also, just because something is natural does not make it good or even necessarily acceptable.

 

[physicsisphirst]

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

agreed! we aren't proving our 'survival of the fittest' capabilities by slaughtering 27 billion animals a year.

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation.

i don't either. the animals aren't bred for the preservation of that species, they are bred to fatten up humans. if species preservation were really the concern, then it would be very easy to set up cow, pig or chicken sanctuaries where people could get to see just what their ancestors weren't missing.

besides, these sanctuaries are already in existence (eg http://farmsanctuary.org/) where they do a much better job of preservation than the factory farms.

in friendship,
prad

 

[JD]

Ethical sustainability is a lovely set of words, descriptive and succinct. Not quack words. We tell people that they cannot kill ones mother with an ax or eat ones children, it is a small leap to tell them that they shouldn't abuse other creatures as well.

I suppose it would rather depend on the circumstances. You confuse killing with abuse. There are situations where killing may be deemed necessary for one's own survival.

I don't recall ever having told someone that they can't kill their mother with an axe.

 

[JD]

The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static.

As we are part of nature, then how can eating meat not be natural for those amongst us who eat it?

 

[JD]

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be. Also, not eating animals would actually be better for our survival, because we'd be healthier and have more resource longevity (animal agriculture is disgustingly inefficient).

I don't agree that breeding animals for food is justified for species preservation. They serve no helpful ecological function. I do not condone the continuation of great suffering so we can have a particular genetic strain out there. The "eating meat is natural" argument ignores the fact that nature isn't static. The animals (humans are animals) that have been our ancestors have had different eating habits at different times. Also, just because something is natural does not make it good or even necessarily acceptable.

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?

"Good"? "Acceptable?" From whose perspective exactly? Are these not relative concepts rather than absolutes?

 

[russ_watters]

"Survival of the fittest" describes how things have been, not how they should be.

I would agree with that in that humans have evolved into beings which can on their own change the evolution equation for themselves and a large number of other species. But you have argued in the past that we are just like the animals and should respect them as equals at least insofar as rights and morals are concerned. We can make the choice not to eat deer - a lion cannot. So either we're equals or we're well above them. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.

It is that way in many cases, but in many cases, people help out those without strong survival abilities. For example, we take care of the handicapped in this society. Either, my point was not the distinction between past and present, but is and should.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?

I don't know what this has to do with the thread, but recycling saves a tremendous amount of energy. Just do a google search.

"Good"? "Acceptable?" From whose perspective exactly? Are these not relative concepts rather than absolutes?

Of course, it's from my perspective. I don't think that "good" necessarily subjective. The statement containing the word "acceptable" was without a specific context...acceptable to any given individual.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I would agree with that in that humans have evolved into beings which can on their own change the evolution equation for themselves and a large number of other species. But you have argued in the past that we are just like the animals and should respect them as equals at least insofar as rights and morals are concerned. We can make the choice not to eat deer - a lion cannot. So either we're equals or we're well above them. You can't have it both ways.

We are superior in our ability to consider (being grammatical subject), but for many creatures (humans included), there is no reason to say that a particular sentient species is necessarily more worthy of being considered (being grammatical object) .