Philosophy: Should we eat 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) .

 

[physicsisphirst]

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

just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

additionally, there seems to be some disagreement as to the validity of this chant that some seem to accept at a moments notice. below i have quoted an article about Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis who is just one of those who don't sing along and respectfully suggests that it may actually be nice to be nice.

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 would have thought that the calculations are pretty obvious, though i haven't done them myself. surely, it would be far less energy intensive to work with recycled 'pre-refined' materials that start from scratch with raw materials? for instance, according to this document:

No, you don't need to throw your aluminum cans in the furnace! Here's the reason why: it takes less energy to make new products out of recycled materials than from non-recycled (or 'virgin') feedstock. Your used steel, aluminum, plastic, and paper products have already been refined, smelted, pulped, and so on. So when you recycle them, manufacturers save energy. In the case of aluminum cans, it takes 95 percent less energy to make a new can from old cans than from virgin bauxite ore.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...curity.rtf+recycling+energy+consumption&hl=en

still, this being a physics forum and all that, it would be very interesting to see some of the calculations actually worked out. anyone have any links to these?

in friendship,
prad


http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/902.html
Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail ? not just the selfish
By Terri McClain

June 9, 2004 - Are altruism and morality artificial outgrowths of culture, created by humans to maintain social order? Or is there, instead, a biological foundation to ethical behavior?

In other words, are we inherently good?

The prevailing view in popular and scientific literature is that humans and animals are genetically driven to compete for survival, thus making all social interaction inherently selfish. According to this line of reasoning, known as sociobiology, even seemingly unselfish acts of altruism merely represent a species' strategy to survive and preserve its genes.

But Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, argues that this is a narrow and simplistic view of evolutionary theory that fails to explain many aspects of sociality among mammals in general and primates in particular.

"The 'selfish gene' hypothesis is inadequate," he says.

Sussman is a consultant to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion (DoSER), which brings together scholars from various disciplines - including anthropology, biology, psychology, genetics and ethics, among others - to explore the biological roots of human nature from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Sussman and Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D., director of AAAS' Science and Human Rights Program, co-edited the first book developed from DoSER's workshops and symposia.

Titled "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," the recently released book presents a new paradigm for understanding sociality that seeks to synthesize data from a variety of disciplines.

"We believe that, instead of being genetically predisposed to competition and aggression, humans - and perhaps other animals as well - have a biological foundation for unselfish social interaction," Sussman says.

"There are many examples of nonselfish altruism," he adds. "How do you explain firefighters running into a burning building to save strangers at the possible expense of their own lives? There's no biological imperative for that."

Sussman mentions the many examples of courage and cooperative and altruistic behavior in response to Sept. 11. "The predominant theories in ethology concerning cooperative and altruistic behavior, claim that social animals, including human and nonhuman primates, are cooperative and altruistic only if they have something to gain from their actions," says Sussman.

"However, the reaction of millions of people to the Sept. 11 event does not fit this paradigm. As The New York Times reported: 'Hearing of the tragedy whose dimensions cannot be charted or absorbed, tens of thousands of people across the nation storm their local hospitals and blood banks, begging for the chance to give blood, something of themselves to the hearts of the wounded.'

"We are social animals," he continues. "We derive pleasure from positive social interaction. It's part of our brain chemistry. And far from being inherently violent, humans demonstrate a natural abhorrence of violence and conflict. We have to train soldiers to kill. It's not instinctive."

Sussman's study of primates has shown that aggressive behavior is extremely rare, even among baboons, which have a reputation for aggression.

We are horrified by terrorism, he says, because violence, particularly indiscriminate murder, is a social aberration.

Rethinking natural selection

Most of the current discussion of evolutionary theory focuses on individual selection or, as it is sometimes phrased, survival of the fittest. Only the most successful individuals will pass on their genes to further generations, thus weeding out over time (or selecting "against") genetic traits that do not enhance an individual's chances of survival.

This sociobiological view explains "selfish" altruism, which generates reciprocal acts or otherwise facilitates survival within a group.
Robert Sussman (left) works with a student.

"But sociobiology and individual selection do not explain 'unselfish' unselfish behavior. By this I mean behavior that benefits others but potentially leaves the individual no opportunity to pass on his own genetic legacy," says Sussman. "To explain that, we must give more consideration to group selection and the benefits of sociality."

Charles Darwin himself believed that morality plays a role in human evolution by natural selection. A high standard of morality may give the individual and his children no advantage over other group members, Darwin wrote, yet it works to give his tribe an advantage over other tribes.

Thus, over time, groups whose members value morality or practice unselfish altruism are more likely to survive and thrive, passing on the genetic traits that encourage ethical behavior such as empathy, fairness and generosity.

Brain scans have shown this genetic legacy in humans, Sussman says, and it's probably present in other mammals as well. Unselfish behavior stimulates pleasure centers in the brain sensitive to dopamine, which is associated with addictive behavior, and oxytocin, which is associated with mother-child bonding.

"It feels good to be nice," he says.

 

[russ_watters]

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) .

We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

 

[pace]

It's logical and simple really. We're superior in certain things, which would make me choose killing a cow than a human if I Had to choose. But this isn't the situation, it's really about necessity and that we can do so much better.

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. This is what these animals are, totally innocent animals that's being used and mistreated by us.
Are you willing to defend this?

 

[JD]

It's logical and simple really. We're superior in certain things, which would make me choose killing a cow than a human if I Had to choose. But this isn't the situation, it's really about necessity and that we can do so much better.

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. This is what these animals are, totally innocent animals that's being used and mistreated by us.
Are you willing to defend this?

I think we need to be a little careful here - a distinction needs to be made between those animals reared in unnaceptable conditions (which is not, of course, acceptable) and those reared in acceptable conditions. Not all animals are, of course, reared badly.

Is it the practice of rearing any animals that you disagree with?

 

[digiflux]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want.

But it does mean you and a baby have different rights.

 

[digiflux]

Eating Meat Kills Fewer Animals? BULL!

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

 

[JD]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

I like your choice of first word!
Who were you responding to?
Are these evil ranchers worse than serial killers or genocidal maniacs? Would you place them in the same category?
Have they done something to you?

 

[JD]

This land could yield much more plant protein per acre.

But you fail to comprehend that not everyone wants your diet. Stop ramming it down our throats (in a manner of speaking).

Put quite simply, I have a right to eat meat, you have a right to not eat meat. I have no right to make you eat meat and you have no right to make me not eat meat.

 

[digiflux]

Rights

Yes, but we don't have the right to murder babies, or experiment on or eat retarded people.

Saying that we are "superior" to all other creatures on the planet is arrogance. How is it superior that, in the relatively short span of time, humans threaten the entire planet with pollution and weapons of mass destruction. I don't see that as "superior". If I had the ability to choose my desired life form (in a world without humans) I'd be a blue whale or elephant. They lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions of years. I call that "superior".

Eating animals because you enjoy the taste of their flesh is an indefensible position. It's really very simple. Cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonably possible.

 

[JD]

just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

If you accept evolution, the concept of species is rather odd (as in any population, DNA will differ from individual to individual) Why would a "species" reduce to just one male and one female? Consider geographical spread, relative availablilty of nutrients etc. So, then, perhaps there is only one male and one female of each species.

 

[JD]

Yes, but we don't have the right to murder babies, or experiment on or eat retarded people.

Saying that we are "superior" to all other creatures on the planet is arrogance. How is it superior that, in the relatively short span of time, humans threaten the entire planet with pollution and weapons of mass destruction. I don't see that as "superior". If I had the ability to choose my desired life form (in a world without humans) I'd be a blue whale or elephant. They lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions of years. I call that "superior".

Eating animals because you enjoy the taste of their flesh is an indefensible position. It's really very simple. Cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonably possible.

I've put spaces so you can have a good whinge.

I think that sounds pretty sensible. I'm not sure that whether individuals regard themselves as superior or not has much impact on this argument. Of course, every species is special and superior in some way. I suppose its what you do with it.

I want to know who is doing all this consumption of retarded people.
I will continue to eat meat however. It is a combination of taste and texture, in addition to the nutritional value. The icing on the cake really - wonderful nature.

Would you propose that those of us who enjoy meat should kill it ourselves? Perhaps we should run around with blood and bits of flesh hanging out of our mouths - now, THAT would be progress - far more civilised old bean.
Who is next on your list of animals which need "correcting"? Tigers? I'm not sure that a handful of nuts would suffice. Unless they were yours of course.

Of course, there is so little suffering in nature. Tell the next cat you see that the mouse it is thumping around is gratifying to its warped sense of reality because it has a protein imbalance.

You certainly enjoy your extreme examples - why not deal with the topic in hand without getting all excited? No-one here eats babies or retarded people, or experiments on them in their lunch hour.

If animals are raised with attention and kindness, and slaughtered quickly, and the meat eaten locally, where exactly is the problem?

 

[Dissident Dan]

We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion.

The big equalizer is that we all have feelings.
-------------------------------------

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

 

[JD]

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

I see. That's a pretty odd comparison to draw. The kind of person who would eat a baby is not the same kind of person who would eat a piece of beef (unless they happened to eat both which would be unusual).

 

[JD]

With those 'inferior cognitive abilities' (sounds a bit superior to me) they won't know what's happening to them when they are quickly slaughtered after a good life. I can't argue on behalf of animal rearers who don't look after their animals because they need to change. But then, I'm not talking about them.

 

[JD]

Here's a thing. For some people, life is really crap. But it's a temporary state. We understand who we are and what we are to a certain extent but our need to know outstretches our ability to comprehend. Who knows where the universe is, how big it is, whether there are more than one, whether we actually exist etc.

I've lost myself slightly here.

Ah yes, given all this, if I decide to eat a piece of chicken and you don't like the fact that I am doing that, you could pretend that the chicken is a mushroom and then we'll all be happy.

I mean to say, we have to eat living things to survive and why should eating a lettuce be any different from eating a cow? Are cows of greater importance than lettuces? Surely its all important. Oh no, lettuces aren't cuddly. They could be though with a little pair of glasses and a dress.

 

[JD]

A question to all the vegetarians here.

Have you ever eaten meat or a product containing meat at any point in your lifetime?

 

[JD]

What it comes down to is that you should enjoy your life as much as possible while you are here. You'll come across people that you don't agree with. In that case, unless they are harming you personally, move on. Don't think you have some right to tell other people how they should live their lives. Your life works for you. If I tried to apply your life to me, I would have two, or none, or a scramble. You'd have the same. We'd get a bit lost. Then I'd fall into a hole. You wouldn't recognise me. I would have trouble recognising myself.
Don't run along trying to trip others up, trying to convert them for their own good. Let people live their own lives.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion.

Fair enough.

The big equalizer is that we all have feelings.

Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

 

[Les Sleeth]

i am not a vetge, but i know one, my gf's aunt is a real vetge, she told she never tastes anyhting have meat, she doesn't like to have sex too, who knows if she lies. so, your qwestion is a bit meaningless, isn't uit ?

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

 

[balkan]

more importantly:

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Fair enough. Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

Not that I know of, but just because the creature doesn't feel remorse (a particular emotion) when killing prey (a specific context) doesn't mean that it doesn't feel at all. Do you feel remorse when eating a chicken sandwich? Does that mean that you do not feel at all?

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

Come again?

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

Are you serious, or are you just being childish?

 

[Averagesupernova]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

Not only are your so-called facts pretty well wacked, I would suspect you are skating on pretty thin ice concerning your privledges on this board based on the comments on the above quote.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Come again?

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars?

 

[JD]

All this talk is making me hungry - beef stroganoff anyone?

 

[JD]

Or perhaps some Doberman chicken.

 

[JD]

Doberman Chicken being a nice piece of roast chicken that someone's Doberman has eaten and is standing looking guiltily in your direction. The dog therefore owes you dinner.

What's up with all the winking JFruit?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars?

I doubt that a 6-month old vegetarian is a liar, seeing as how the child can't speak yet.

If you mean that all adult vegetarians have lied before, you are probably correct, because probably all adults have lied before...but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you are saying that people who say they are vegetarians really aren't, then you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about or are just interrupting the conversation because you get a kick out of it.

 

[JD]

I believe that the point being made by Les is that you cannot tell whether he is lying or not. That seems to be the focus rather than what is (potentially) being lied about.

If I say that I am a liar, can you tell whether I am lying about being a liar?

 

[Raven]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

[/list]

I thought I’d repost the original question by Physicskid, because to me the question being asked based on the body of the post is not “Should we eat meat?” but “Should we mistreat/torture animals?”

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

Maybe our methods of farming animals should be changed? Maybe people should eat more vegetation and less meat? Nevertheless, to answer the question directly, I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

In short, I believe nature has provided a balance that allows and maybe even necessitates the existence of carnivores and omnivores. However, I also believe that the ability of human intervention to promote its own existence has tipped the scales out of whack.