Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)

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.

it is precisely for the health benefits to the mother and the baby that people adopt veg diets (just as my wife did!)

all this morality stuff aside, it is important to understand that

not only can one maintain weight on a veg diet
not only can one get enough protein on a veg diet
not only can one get enough iron on a veg diet

but that it is a good idea to do these things through a veg diet, because

one doesn't get the other not so nice 'goodies' that come from animal based eating - and neither does one's baby.

however, if one wants the technical reasons and guidance for eating veg, it is considered a good idea to go to a veg physician rather than a non-veg one, because the latter will probably not understand the point of going veg too well.

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

a balanced diet has nothing to do with meat. if it did,

1) all us veg folks would become unhealthy or would need to supplement like crazy and then become unhealthy.
2) the meaters wouldn't be into supplements and wouldn't become unhealthy (eg heart disease, cancer, osteoporosis, arthritis, excema etc etc)

the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.

anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?

thanks for that post! ... 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.

you are very welcome!

some may notice some mass loss initially - that is not uncommon, but it comes back. the best thing to do is talk to people who have done it and are doing it. as i suggested to kerrie previously in this post, there is little point in getting veg info from a person who does the non-veg thing because tradition takes a long time to die.

for instance, in body-building, mike mentzer (who wasn't veg, btw) says in his book that he received a lot of flak when he advocated a lower protein/higher carb because the battlecry was "meat for strength" in his time. however, when in 1978, he became the first mr. universe to win with a perfect 300 pt score, people had to reconsider to some extent.

i've heard very good things about B.Brazier. he seems to be a very together person and his website has excellent info with questions and answers too.

anyway, good luck with your training! what's your sport, btw?

 

[Be Happy!]

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 chicken and turkey is all i am craving these past few weeks since i am expecting.

Hi Kerrie!

Many doctors only have 4-8 hours of required nutrition training and aren't very good at giving nutrition advice despite what many of us think! More and more doctors are recommending a vegetarian diet these days...however, there still are many misled doctors who think that meat is healthy for a developing fetus.

If you are intersted in getting some good info about a healthy pregnancy, I'd recommend checking out the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.org)...I think you'll find lots of useful info on this site, not only for your child, but also for you!

Here are some links of particular interest:
Healthy Pregnancy: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/pregnancy.html

Raising Healthy Children: http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/veg_diets_for_children.html

I have known many women who've have very healthy vegetarian pregnancies...every woman, not just vegetarians, need to be careful of their nutrient intake as they are eating for two. On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat a lot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? I would be very wary of such foods...

I wish your baby and you the best of health, and I hope that the site that I've recommended is inspiring and educational.


Sangeeta

 

[Kerrie]

Hi Kerrie!

On another note, many women have strange food desires during pregnancy,from sugar laden cakes and chocolates to even worse...these cravings are not neccessarily what a baby needs for development (which is what most women like to believe), many are just psychological cravings which have nothing to do with what the bodily needs...and aren't particulary "healthy foods."

It's also prudent to note that animal products are laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, and various other toxins which are extremely unhealthy for the baby. Did you know that women who eat a lot of fish pass PCBs and mercury onto their child? I would be very wary of such foods...

Oh yes, I do know of the strange food cravings. So far, the only things I have craved are mineral water and chicken. And not all animal products are filled with growth hormones...for example, we have a grocery store in my area that sells all organic and hormone-free meat. I was well aware of pregnant women eating too much fish cannot be a good thing, but i think a serving once a week is probably fine. Some women really need the extra iron, and in my case, I have always been low in iron. The easiest way to get this is to have a service of meat a few times a week. I am certainly not promoting eating it 3 times a day every day, but 4-5 times a week is adequate for a woman expecting. The other days, I tend to eat meatless dishes, as I do desire a lighter meal every so often.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.

 

[Kerrie]

No extra care is needed for protein. I'll grant that a person who already has a problem with iron may face slight difficulties with a vegetarian diet, as animal sources of iron are generally more iron-dense and provide more absorbable iron, but it's not like acrobatics or brain surgery to obtain iron without meat, especially with fortified foods like Special K, Total, etc.

Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Special K and Total are good for breakfast, not for a solid meal that an expectant woman needs. She needs to put aside her vanity and take care of the developing child within her by nourishing herself properly. This is my third pregnancy, and I can tell you that a bowl of wheat flakes is not going to give me the total nutrition I need for the day let alone fill me up.

I understand and appreciate your desire to provide optimum nutrition for your child. However, I think that you're making a vegetarian pregnancy out to be harder than it actually is.

Special K and Total were just two examples I mentioned off the top of my head. I did not suggest that you (or anyone) should solely eat those. The cereals that I mentioned do provide a lot of vitamins and minerals (as do other things that I have neglected to mention), but you should eat other things for other nutrients.

A statement from the American Dietetic Association:

Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence.

http://www.eatright.org/Public/GovernmentAffairs/92_17084.cfm

BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.

It never ceases to amaze me too how the pro-choice are also pro-animals. No offence Dan, but it just seems contridicting.

Who said that I was pro-choice?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The key-word is "seems" contradicting. There are many reasons why a person could be pro-choice and vegetarian. What about the fact that the unborn child has no connection to society. How can something unconnected to society be valuable to society. Furthermore, what about the fact that it will cause the mother pain to give birth? What if the baby will not live a happy life or has a horrible condition? What about population control? Female rights? I can elaborate if necessary.

 

[Kerrie]

BTW, I don't know why you consider breakfast not to be a solid meal.



Who said that I was pro-choice?

I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

I assumed you leaned towards pro-choice from your post in the abortion thread. My apologies if I assumed incorrectly.


Dooga, you should follow up your post in the ongoing abortion thread. I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me. Of course, there are always reasons I have not considered that one may be pro-choice but still choose vegetarianism (such as for health reasons above the welfare of animals).

 

[sheepdog]

The true nature of the thing.

I have known most vegetarians to be pro-choice, which seems contradictory to me.

A thing is what it is. It is not what you imagine it to be. It is not what you imagine it will become. Your hopes and desires for a thing do not change the thing. Vegetarians have a clear understanding of this.

A fetus is a part of the mother's body, like her liver or pancreas. Perhaps it will become a person. But a person is an independent organism not an appendage of someone else. A fetus is not an independent organism until born. Pro-choice is the logical conclusion.

An animal is not a piece of meat. You can make it into a piece of meat but until you butcher it it is not meat. It is a living, independent thing, unlike a fetus. Your action is required to make it meat. Vegetarianism is the logical conclusion.

Vegetarians see the thing in its true nature, not as they might desire it to be. There is no contradiction.

 

[Kerrie]

Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I consider breakfast a solid meal when it involves eggs or a good bowl of oatmeal, not just a bowl of flakes.

All right. I like dry cereal, and you don't. A bowl of Quaker Instant Oatmeal (2 packets) contains 40% of the RDI for iron. As I said, the cereals were just examples.

Also, a veggie burger and 2 slices of bread will contain ~20% RDI. One serving of Alexia Oven Fries (potatoes are a good source) contains 15%. Put that together, and you have ~35% RDI. Two servings of spaghetti and 1 cup of spaghetti sauce yields 20% + 12% = 32%. I have burritos that each have 15%.

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/iron.html#requ has a list of vegetarian sources of iron.

If you want a detailed explanation, this is a good link, but be prepared to read the whole thing: http://www.llu.edu/llu/vegetarian/iron.htm

 

[Seafang]

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 preferred 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

Well if you want to play weasel words; it is not true that we are no allowed to BUY genetically engineered corn either. We are allowed to buy it but commercial food producers who may buy it, are not allowed to use it in products intended for human consumption. I suppose it is legal to make it into dog food, and then there are always those people who will and do eat dog food.

As to the preference for 'coke' or 'water' or 'bottled water' which may be different from 'water'; I don't care what people choose to put i their bodies, but they lose the high ground of morality; vis-a-vis eating meat or plants, if they choose to do something which is neither useful nor efficient; but I defend their right to do so, and I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.

 

[plusaf]

down the tubes with...

(been away for a week and putting in a very brief appearence for now.)
the meat apparently hangs around for 5 days whereas as the veg stuff gets through in 1 day. the meat won't kill you in the time it hangs around. however, in the little time it does hang around, it is believed that it does do some pollutive damage, so perhaps it does kill you a little bit LOL.
anyway, exactly what was your concern about the veg stuff passing through in 1 day - you said it would leave skid marks. did i answer that matter sufficiently?

hi, Prad, and welcome back; hope your travels are safe and fun.

references, please, for five days versus one?

i recall several times in my youth (and single life) when i thought i wasn't getting enough iron, and would on occasion, wolf down a can of spinach in one setting. i knew that it'd done it, because about 2-3 days later, guess what would turn green...?)

never one day later... usually 2-3. hence, my conclusion that "my digestive tract is about 3 days long." empirical evidence.

now, your url's, please? why the heck (HOW the heck) could meat in the same food tube take a detour or a 3-4 day holiday in some backwater and not go through at the same rate...?)

 

[sheepdog]

Sheepdog, I appreciate your perspective But it's just that, a perspective, as is mine.

My only intention was to inform you of the logic that appeared to have escaped you. Perhaps you meant that you disagreed with it, not that you found it contradictory. If I had understood that was your meaning I wouldn't have bothered with my post, of course.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I will then ignore their pleadings that eating meat is somehow immoral; it isn't, but nobody is being forced to do it.

i've said this argument a thousand times and I am going to say it a thousand times more...

it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killed...animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods, kept in chains and dark cages sitting in their own feces, prodded, injected and cut million times...

lets put you in a cage about the size of an elevator along with about 50 other people in it. let's put it in the dark, oh and to feed you, because its more "efficient" we'll use a metal probe which we'll stuff down your throat so the opening of the probe reaches the beginning of your stomach and then we'll pump your stomach full of food and chemicals to make you fatter...okay now because you're depressed and y'know wanting real food, wanting to kill yourself and fun stuff like that, to prevent you from doing that, we'll use pliers to break off the ends of their teeth (and for piglets who like to bite each others tails when they get stressed, they cut off their tails) —all with no anesthetics. wait wait...it gets better! so you've been living in your own feces all soaking wet and smelling like your excretory presents, and you're all grown now, your wrists and ankles can barely support your obese body (sometimes the legs of animals even break under them, which of course arent treated because how would that be effecient?) ...so we'll take you to the factory in an individual “gestation” crate, which is about 7 feet long and 2 feet wide—too small for you to even turn around. so we're transporting you to the factory where we'll attatch metal clasps to your wrists and ankles, now we'll turn you upside down and slit your throat, but not too deep, not enough to cut your head off or kill you(mostly because the more skin intact the easier it is to transport your dead body and the better you sell for sine they're going to use your skins for leather) ...first we'll pull out your vocal chords so your screams and screeches and cries don't reach your mouth to be heard...okay now, the machine dumps you into a pen where you run around for a bit confused, in emmense pain and sllllllooowwwwllllyyyy dying...okay now that you're all out of energy and y'know, dead, they take you to be cut up and sold for different parts...


not immoral? you think its moral to support this factory farming? no one is being forced to eat meat...but the animals are still being forced to be tortured and die...not immoral...gimme a break

ps.~ yes I am vegan

 

[sheepdog]

which is which

it is wrong to eat the meat of animals who have been tortured, and inhumanly killed

Which part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?

 

[Alkatran]

animals are fed rotten and genetically altered foods

What's wrong with genetically altered??

 

[loseyourname]

What's wrong with genetically altered??

Every domesticated food source we have has been genetically altered for thousands of years.

 

[Philocrat]

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART I)

On page 73 of this thread I hinted that I was going expand upon the quantitative implications of the Food Chain as a prelude to answering the question as to whether we should eat meat or not. The first question is to determine the 'REASON WHY WE EAT MEAT' in the first place. So, why do we eat meat? The simplest answer that comes to one's mind is that we eat meat because it contains energy and we need energy to survive. And some of you would respond, as you have done so far in some of your postings above, that but there are many sources of energy - from plants, rocks, water, etc. But this is not the serious philosophical issue at stake here.

The serious philosophical questions are:

1) NEEDS

Why is every thing in the whole universe NEED-DRIVEN?

2) QUANTITY

Why is everything numerically driven or numerically preserved?

3) QUALITY

Why do things in the Universal from outset lack Perfect or self-sustaining qualities in their underlying structures and functions?

4) CONTINUITY

How are things really continuing, especially with regards to the spooky structure of the food chain?

5) PROGRESS

If things are truly continuing in whatever way that they do, are they also structurally and functionally progressing?


Now, let's look at the philosophical and quantitative implications involved here:

With regards to needs, when it comes to the ugly structure of the food chain, sometimes the animal creatures themselves are indistinguishable from their own needs. The ugly face of this structure unfolds when we suddenly realize that nature duplicate these animal creatures and uses them as their own needs. Nature reprodictively duplicates these animal creatures and savagedly feeds them to themselves. Animals that eat animals. And if you start intellectualising and reducing to the level of physics, you woud paradoxically be implying that:

MATTER IS EATING MATTER

Spooky, isn't it? Matter consuming matter is spooky because it is not clear why this is the case in the first place. The numerical differentiation here is fundamentally vague and unclear. Maybe the notion of animals eating animals is in some sense easier to numerically differentiate at the human level, but at the reductionist philosophical level things just get quantitativelly and logically fuzzier.

The next question is, with regards to quantity of animal creatures and the quantity of Needs, how do you reconcile both with regards to EFFICIENCY and SUFFICIENCY of both within a given food chain.? Well, this is the question for my next posting.

 

[Philocrat]

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (PART II)

If animals are being numerically duplicated not only as themselves but also as their own needs, how is the whole food chain being collectively preserved? I have asked this question for so many years now, goodness me gracious, you have no idea varied bags of answers that I always get. Some say it is an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER that is taking care of things. Some say Voodoo. Some say RANDOM CHAOS. And so on. But the puzzle remains fundamentally the same. As Ugly as the food chain outwardly appears, beneath that ugliness there is some clearly quantifiable level of intelligence in the whole process. There is a substantial level of intelligence in the process of preserving the food chain and keeping it going.

My own response to this is that the whole system is NUMERICALLY REGULATED AND PRESERVED by some sort of 'SAVED-BY-NUMBER PRINCIPLE'. This simply means:

1) The NUMBER OF ANIMALS (NA) must be numerically regulated against the NUMBER of NEEDS (NN) at any given time, if the whole food chain is to be successfully preserved. Tautologiously, this implies matter must be regulated against matter! Is it?

2) The RATE OF CUNSUMPTION (RC) must be numerically regulated against the the RATE OF DIGGESTION (RD)

3) The RC and RD must be numerically regulated against the RATE OF WASTE EXCRETION (RWE)

The far-reaching philosophical implication (and a quantitative one too) is this:

(a) If RC = RD = RWE, then we would have a gluttonous (endlessly hungry)monster in our hand, for whatever creature were to be blessed with this sort of capacity, not only would it consume every creature in every stock of animal and lick its tongue, but also it would move onto its own stock and consume every thing as well, and it would be a matter of time before it moves onto the human beings and consume everone, before self-consuming itself to self-destruct. So, it seems thereofore that the food chain is intelligibly preserved by the built-in regulatory delays in the natural quantitative interplay of RC, RD and RWS, for never at any given time should the brute force of nature speed things up in animal creatures such as to cause RC, RD and RWS to be equal.

b) The regulation of the numerical values of RC, RD and RWE has regulatory effects on NA and NN.

NOTE: Of course, if you want to get quantitativelly critical, other factors may equally be taken into account. What I have done here is set forth the spooky philosophical argument involved. If you want to mathematically spice things up and climb to any level of quantitative elegance, by all means you are free to do so. Note also, that I am not in any shape or form denying the fact that an Intelligent Designer may be resposible for this. Quite the contrary.

 

[Philocrat]

PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF FOOD CHAIN (III)

On the issue of Progress, well this is a completely different matter. The standard Philosophical questions are these:

1) The food chain appears to be numerically preserved by repetitious recycling of its imperfect parts. That is, numerically preserved by destroying and replacing the animals in the food chain via the 'Life-and-death mechanism'.

2) If (1) is the case (things seemingly going around in circles), how do the animals in the food chain actually physically progress, perhaps towards being structurally and functionally perfected? Are these creatures structurally and functionally progressing or are they illusively and self-deceptively going around in circles?

3) If the food chain is non-progressive, can we lend nature a helping hand by scientifically intervening to structurally and functionally improve things in it? Is the food chain scientifically improvable, let alone perfectable?

These are the hard-headed philosophical questions that demand coherent and fully deduced answers. On the paradox of 'MATTER CONSUMING MATTER' at the level of physics, well that is the question for science to answer since it was science that defined matter originally. Who knows, maybe the definition of matter needs to be returned back to the drawing board. The job of philosophy is to identify oddness in things and let peoplle reflect on them a little bit more.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Which part is wrong? Is it wrong to torture the animals? Or is it wrong to eat them after torturing them? Can we eat them if we raise them as pets and love them right up until they are slaughtered? In an ideal world how should we treat the animals so that we may rightly eat them? What treatment by us makes an animal deserving of being eaten?

We should not torture them, and by consuming them, we are providing the incentive for the torture, so we should not do that, either. Also, please understand that the slaughter process is very painful for many animals, especially birds, as they are exempted from the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (which isn't exactly enforced much, anyway).

No animal deserves to be eaten. As a subset of that, no human deserves to be eaten.

 

[Francis M]

Posted by physicsphirst:
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

categorizing animals in terms of food, pets etc can be said to be a form of speciesism

Thank you for putting a more in depth and better explanation on that physicsphirst, by defining the different types or reasons for vegitarianism/veganism (ain't a big vocabulary good ). BTW, welcome back. Nutriveggie That's a good one. I'm glad to see a sense of humor every once in a while on this thread.

I have to ask though (not sarcastically, honestly), if the exercise were to come true, or we could limit ourselves (not possible I think due to population) to animals that die a natural death, would that not just leave the the nutritional vegitarian or the speciest vegitarian argument? To be honest it seems to me to boil down to two camps on vegitarianism,

1)to hold all animal life in such high regard as to have it be impossible for one to even consider killing it, or

2) To not eat meat/animal products strictly on health reasons even though you may not hold animals in as high or higher regard.

Or maybe the third camp is a mixture of both?

 

[selfAdjoint]

If we could eat only animals that died a natural death, could we eat humans that did? Isn't being carniverous but not a cannibal a form of speciesism?

 

[GeD]

What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?

 

[mewmew]

Ya, I have been semi following this thread for a very long time and I thought somewhere in it, or perhaps somewhere else, that it had a link to a study that said more animals(not including insects) are killed in the farming of vegetables than the animals we eat. Think of all the animals that die by getting run over by plows and stuff and think of how horrible a death that would be.
I am all for animal rights and think animals should have the right to a good quality of life while they are here and be killed in a quick manner, but we are animals also, animals that eat other animals just as other animals eat other animals and it is just natural. It is not natural for us to eat just vegetables. Just my $.02 though.

 

[selfAdjoint]

What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?

That would be phylumism! And don't forget Kingdomism; save the bacteria!

 

[GeD]

You could, even with a bit of the so-called phylumism, only count "animals that could suffer" as the animals that deserve to live, and I'm sure insects and rodents feel pain as well, and thus not exempt from this not-killing animals rule that many people seem to want to do. Thus, as another said, farming would be killing thousands of said animals.

Indeed if one looked truthfully, all animals are dependent on struggling with (and thus killing) other forms of life - whether that be "slaughtering" animals for food, "defeating" virus/bacteria for health, and "harvesting" plant life for food.

Unfortunately, being alive or having LIFE does not guarantee YOU or that LIFEFORM some sort of universal certificate to have the right to life (any such certificates are artificial and only of our own invention). That can be said for any human/animal or plant life. We just have to accept the fact that conflict and thus killing is a part of life (albeit, we try to avoid it if it will simply be a waste).

 

[Kerrie]

Good point guys...anyone willing to do a search on how many animals (insects included) suffer due to agriculture in America?

By the way, for those of you who are dedicated American vegetarians, I think more needs to be done about our farming crisis here...soon your produce will come from another country because American farmers cannot afford to continue on. I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

 

[Dissident Dan]

What about the insects and other small lifeforms that we kill because of the need to keep vegetables and crops clean? Don't each of those lives (who are killed are more numerously than the animals we slaughter for meat) mean the same as cows, pigs, deer and sheep?

GeD, that is an important question, and it's an issue that's already come up in this thread. This thread is so long, however, that I can understand if you've missed it. Yes, unfortunately, animals are killed in plant agriculture. However, the majority of plant agriculture is input to animal agriculture. Even more plant crops must be harvested for animal agriculture than when we just eat the plants directly. This situation is incredibly inefficient. Many more animals are still killed through animal agriculture.

The vast majority of the animals killed through plant agriculture are insects. Do insects experience? I don't know. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt when necessary, but it is not as obvious as with mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., because they do not have the centralization that our nervous systems have.

That would be phylumism! And don't forget Kingdomism; save the bacteria!

I may be incorrect here, but it seems that you are taking a cheap stab at animal rights people. If you are going to post, please make it something constructive.

By the way, for those of you who are dedicated American vegetarians, I think more needs to be done about our farming crisis here...soon your produce will come from another country because American farmers cannot afford to continue on. I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

Please do not try to trivialize the issue or distract attention away because you do not agree with the viewpoints of the people bringing up the issue. There are far more many farmed animals who face fates that are incomprehensibly horrible. Ten billion land animals are are put through the confinement, drugging, painfully-fast growth, mutilation without anaesthetic, constant stench of excrement, and other sufferings of factory farming before going to the slaughter house where "They die piece by piece", according to one slaughterhouse worker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9¬Found=true).

And you want to say that that is less important than farmers (of which there are thousands, perhaps, compared to billions per year) meeting hard economic times or having to find new jobs?

 

[Kerrie]

Please do not try to trivialize the issue or distract attention away because you do not agree with the viewpoints of the people bringing up the issue. There are far more many farmed animals who face fates that are incomprehensibly horrible. Ten billion land animals are are put through the confinement, drugging, painfully-fast growth, mutilation without anaesthetic, constant stench of excrement, and other sufferings of factory farming before going to the slaughter house where "They die piece by piece", according to one slaughterhouse worker (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A60798-2001Apr9¬Found=true).

And you want to say that that is less important than farmers (of which there are thousands, perhaps, compared to billions per year) meeting hard economic times or having to find new jobs?

And please read my post a little more carefully:

I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

When your produce comes from a third world country where even more animals are killed by agricultural farming because they do not have the standards like America does, then maybe you will see the crisis farmers truly are in. Stop distracting yourself from a huge problem that will affect you in the future more so then the average meat eater.

 

[Dissident Dan]

And please read my post a little more carefully:

I think more support needs to be lended to them right now as much as animal cruelty.

When your produce comes from a third world country where even more animals are killed by agricultural farming because they do not have the standards like America does, then maybe you will see the crisis farmers truly are in. Stop distracting yourself from a huge problem that will affect you in the future more so then the average meat eater.

Kerrie, I apologize for reading your post too quickly. I thought that you said that the farmer situation is more important. Still, in light of the things that I said, the problems the global economy causes for farmers (which goes both ways, btw, as Mexican corn farmers were devasted by the introduction of US American corn following the implementation of NAFTA), just in respect to the problems it causes for farmers, is not nearly as large a problem as what faces farmed animals.

If your intent was to point out the problem this poses for animals, then I am sorry not understanding your intent. If your intent was to point out how the farmers need help for their own sake, that is a valid and serious issue, but bringing that up in this particular thread is a distraction from the issue at hand. Please let me know what your intention was.

To address the issue of how farmed animals are treated in other countries, it's actually not as one would guess. It's often the case that the richer the country, the poorer the conditions for animals, with the strongest example of that being the country you and I live in. We have the worst animal abuses in the world when it comes to food production...and in the greatest numbers. Poorer countries have not industrialized to the extent that we have, and their agriculture sectors are not as consolidated (when agriculture is consolidated in the hands of a few large companies, animals suffer because the decision makers are far removed from the animals and one thing is the sole concern: profit).

Also, as the article I linked to earlier pointed out, laws that we do have to protect farmed animals are rarely enforced, and the Humane Methods of Slaughter act exempts over 90% over farmed land animal (birds)! And, unless I am mistaken, there is no animal welfare law for animals in factory farms...the only law is the Humane Slaughter law that I just mentioned.

 

[Kerrie]

I am sure you are correct in saying that industrialized nations harm more animals then less industrialized countries, however, as our produce becomes more and more outsourced, those countries supplying us with their food will become more industrialized because of supply and demand. My point is, because they do not hold the standards that America does (in general), more animals can potentially be harmed in the agricultural business that is outsourced and you will likely receive produce that has more pesticides and wonderful chemicals to preserve the long ride overseas. I work directly with farmers, and anytime I go into my grocery store, I choose carefully that my produce is farmed in the USA and am willing to pay more for the American produce then for another nation's produce. Hopefully you do the same.

My intention was to say, let's also protect the American farmer for our OWN sake as well as the farmer's economy as well as advocate more humane methods of animal farming. Basically, if you want to continue to have the choice of produce as a vegetarian that you are, then put the effort for those who are feeding you here at home.

I think it can safely be said that within at least our generation you will not have 100% of the population stop eating meat. This is reality, whether you feel it is wrong or right. It's a free choice we are given, and most Americans (vegans, vegetarians, or Atkin's dieters) take these choices for granted. We need to not only protect our choices, but make sure our choices are done so safely and in the best interest of all of life.

 

[GeD]

GeD, that is an important question, and it's an issue that's already come up in this thread. This thread is so long, however, that I can understand if you've missed it. Yes, unfortunately, animals are killed in plant agriculture. However, the majority of plant agriculture is input to animal agriculture. Even more plant crops must be harvested for animal agriculture than when we just eat the plants directly. This situation is incredibly inefficient. Many more animals are still killed through animal agriculture.

We can agree that whether we are vegetarians or not, it will involve killing thousands of insect life and plant life, and even some animal life. Even though the debate about whether more lifeforms may be killed whether we are vegetarian or not is something yet to be researched, the major point is not efficiency. If it were, then research into the amount of kills based on a vegetarian or non-vegetarian diet would dictate whether we should be vegetarian or not (still hasn't been proven which kills less). But this is plain lunacy! The initial conditions of why we chose vegetarianism is not to kill ANIMAL life, and yet willing to kill PLANT life. Thus, the animal's right to life (and any other life) is null and void according to the vegetarian's argument, since life by itself gives no right to live. To the previously stated argument, a nervous system is required before they have a "right" to life.

Conflict, struggle and death are all inevitably a part of life. The quicker we realize this, the earlier we will stop deluding ourselves. We must work for our survival, our power - and hopefully without wasting and destroying everything around us (which would kill our future).

The vast majority of the animals killed through plant agriculture are insects. Do insects experience? I don't know. I'd give them the benefit of the doubt when necessary, but it is not as obvious as with mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc., because they do not have the centralization that our nervous systems have.

I may be incorrect here, but it seems that you are taking a cheap stab at animal rights people. If you are going to post, please make it something constructive.

This is exactly what he's talking about. There is phylumism at work here - mammals, etc who "OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to insects because of a nervous system, and yet they will reject humans who "EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to normal animals because of the ability to deliberate, a superior intellect, etc.


The question of cruelty to animals is another case, which if it needs to be dealt with, must be done so directly - and not by taking away people's freedoms to eat what they want and force vegetarianism in "a couple generations' time".

 

[Dissident Dan]

Even though the debate about whether more lifeforms may be killed whether we are vegetarian or not is something yet to be researched, the major point is not efficiency.

Efficiency is a major concern, when the efficiency is in terms of how much plant material must be produced, and you're talking about deaths are a result of plant agriculture. More efficiency->fewer plants produced->fewer deaths.

If it were, then research into the amount of kills based on a vegetarian or non-vegetarian diet would dictate whether we should be vegetarian or not (still hasn't been proven which kills less). But this is plain lunacy!

"This is plain lunacy!" is not a good argument. A little bit of research will tell you that a majority of grains produced in the USA, for example, goes into animal agriculture. This, combined with the fact that nothing is 100% efficicient (and thus more plant food goes in than animal food comes out) leads to the obvious conclusion that animal agriculture leads to more death just from the production of plant crops, let alone the torture and killing of the billions of farmed animals, themselves.

The initial conditions of why we chose vegetarianism is not to kill ANIMAL life, and yet willing to kill PLANT life. Thus, the animal's right to life (and any other life) is null and void according to the vegetarian's argument, since life by itself gives no right to live. To the previously stated argument, a nervous system is required before they have a "right" to life.

How is the animal's right to life null and void? I'm not following.

Conflict, struggle and death are all inevitably a part of life. The quicker we realize this, the earlier we will stop deluding ourselves. We must work for our survival, our power - and hopefully without wasting and destroying everything around us (which would kill our future).

That same argument could be used to justify the Nazi takeover of Europe, or, in fact, anything. It is a might makes right argument, which ultimately means that whatever happens is right. I reject this view.

I don't understand your reasoning regarding inevitability. Sure, having death and suffering (or struggle, to use your terms) is inevitable, but not all death and suffering is inevitable.

This is exactly what he's talking about. There is phylumism at work here - mammals, etc who "OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to insects because of a nervous system, and yet they will reject humans who "EVEN MORE OBVIOUSLY" seem to be superior to normal animals because of the ability to deliberate, a superior intellect, etc.

I am just applying the non-arbitrary, non-prejudiced criterion of ability to experience, which leads me to examine nervous systems without any preconceptions. I did not make any definite statement as to whether or not insects can feel.

The question of cruelty to animals is another case, which if it needs to be dealt with, must be done so directly - and not by taking away people's freedoms to eat what they want and force vegetarianism in "a couple generations' time".

I don't know how people can make this argument without seeing the obvious contradiction in it. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing to not care about animals' freedom from harm. It has never been otherwise, and I cannot forsee it becoming otherwise. If someone stated, "Don't try to take away my freedom to beat my kids," or "Don't try to take away my freedom to eat human burgers," wouldn't you find that a little ridiculous?

 

[learningphysics]

Give me my freedom to eat other humans, and all is well. I'll have no further argument with meat eaters.

 

[GeD]

Give me my freedom to eat other humans, and all is well. I'll have no further argument with meat eaters.

Then prepare for the family's revenge

 

[GeD]

Efficiency is a major concern, when the efficiency is in terms of how much plant material must be produced, and you're talking about deaths are a result of plant agriculture. More efficiency->fewer plants produced->fewer deaths.

Fewer plants would be used to feed animals "for the slaughter" yes, but more plants (and thus plant fields) would be used to feed humans.

"This is plain lunacy!" is not a good argument. A little bit of research will tell you that a majority of grains produced in the USA, for example, goes into animal agriculture. This, combined with the fact that nothing is 100% efficicient (and thus more plant food goes in than animal food comes out) leads to the obvious conclusion that animal agriculture leads to more death just from the production of plant crops, let alone the torture and killing of the billions of farmed animals, themselves.

The argument wasn't based on that statement - it clearly just an observation of what has been ascertained by vegetarians.

How is the animal's right to life null and void? I'm not following.

If I must explain it again, you wish to save animal life, because you feel that their lives are worthy of saving. Yet, you do not feel the same way with plants - which are also alive. Thus, you claim that animals are superior with their nervous system and conclude that they must have the right to live, whereas plants do not.

That same argument could be used to justify the Nazi takeover of Europe, or, in fact, anything. It is a might makes right argument, which ultimately means that whatever happens is right. I reject this view.

I have notstated that whatever happens is right. Only those who assume the existence of moral phenomena believe that things happen for right or wrong.
Moving on, it is useful to understand that the powerful have always controlled the way things are done. Unfortunately, that's just how life has been, and I believe continue to do so. The powerful have always exerted its physical dominance over the weaker - if not physical strength, then in numerical strength - as is the case in democracy. But it is always about power. Under these conditions, it is best for us - who value human life, since we have similar "superior animal" abilities - to keep worthless cruelty, wasteful conflicts, and unnecessary killings to the minimum (including those of animals). But it does not mean any of those actions should be deemed "right" - these are simply useful solutions to commonly felt problems of food resources, life preservation, conflict stabilization, etc.

I don't understand your reasoning regarding inevitability. Sure, having death and suffering (or struggle, to use your terms) is inevitable, but not all death and suffering is inevitable.

Indeed not all should die and suffer at exactly the same time, but all life will reach death - it's inevitable. All beings who feel joy, will feel suffering - it is that simple. There is no escaping them.

I am just applying the non-arbitrary, non-prejudiced criterion of ability to experience, which leads me to examine nervous systems without any preconceptions. I did not make any definite statement as to whether or not insects can feel.

The point isn't about whether you believe insects have nervous systems or not. The point is that you feel certain animal species are superior to others and have the right to live over the inferior insects, etc. Yet, you are not willing to declare that the even more superior animal - humans - do not have a right to life over normal animals.

I don't know how people can make this argument without seeing the obvious contradiction in it. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing to not care about animals' freedom from harm. It has never been otherwise, and I cannot forsee it becoming otherwise. If someone stated, "Don't try to take away my freedom to beat my kids," or "Don't try to take away my freedom to eat human burgers," wouldn't you find that a little ridiculous?

Why exactly should we keep certain animals free while not smaller ones like insects? Also, why should do we have a duty to animal freedom in the first place?
A person would only find such statements ridiculuous, if he valued not traumatizing children, and valued not killing people for food.
But self-chosen kid beaters and cannibals would agree with those "freedoms" and would not feel any guilt; they think it's what they ought or need to do.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The point isn't about whether you believe insects have nervous systems or not. The point is that you feel certain animal species are superior to others and have the right to live over the inferior insects, etc. Yet, you are not willing to declare that the even more superior animal - humans - do not have a right to life over normal animals.

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

 

[Kerrie]

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological makeup. dan, i think highly of you for advocating something you feel so strongly in, but is your goal to help educate others, or just to preach how wrong it is? i would hope to educate, and it might be helpful to show others facts about how healthy a more vegetarian diet can be over the inhumane treatment at first, and what we can personally benefit from...pictures of slaughter houses just doesn't seem to penetrate the hearts of people like it does to you. i think once you can get people to see the health benefits, it might be possible to go further and enlighten more people about the inhumane treatment animals receive in the butchering factories, thus securing their choice of eating vegetarian.

 

[learningphysics]

A person would only find such statements ridiculuous, if he valued not traumatizing children, and valued not killing people for food.
But self-chosen kid beaters and cannibals would agree with those "freedoms" and would not feel any guilt; they think it's what they ought or need to do.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?

 

[Dissident Dan]

this is a statement based more on opinion yet fact clearly shows humans have and most likely remain the most superior animal due to our biological.

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

 

[Kerrie]

We are superior at certain tasks, and other species are superior at other tasks. There is no such thing as "superior", in general.

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

 

[Dissident Dan]

you addressed only the first portion of my post, what is your response to the remainder?

Fair Enough.

dan, i think highly of you for advocating something you feel so strongly in, but is your goal to help educate others, or just to preach how wrong it is?

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.

i would hope to educate, and it might be helpful to show others facts about how healthy a more vegetarian diet can be over the inhumane treatment at first, and what we can personally benefit from...pictures of slaughter houses just doesn't seem to penetrate the hearts of people like it does to you. i think once you can get people to see the health benefits, it might be possible to go further and enlighten more people about the inhumane treatment animals receive in the butchering factories, thus securing their choice of eating vegetarian.

The healthiness of vegetarian diets can be a strong motivator for some people, but my analysis leads me to think that highlighting ethics aspects is more effective at causing lasting change in a person's behavior. This is a strategic point. Also, it would be insincere for me to posit that my main concern is with people's health, when it is not my primary concern (although I do care). I also think that I would get even more of a "You choose to be vegan. I choose to eat meat" responses with that approach.

It's good to mention the health arguments, as has already been done in this thread, but I would not put them forward as the primary arguments.

 

[GeD]

Humans and many other species all have the ability to experience. Neither humans nor one of these other species is superior in that regard.

Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

So are the kid beaters and cannibals morally right or wrong or neither?

The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

 

[GeD]

I want to reduce the suffering in the world. Cutting out the animal consumption helps both oneself and reduces the suffering that farmed animals face--the farmed animal end being the more significant point. I want people to be healthy and happy, but my main motivation is to reduce the suffering of so many animals suffering in animal agriculture, because they suffer so intensely and in such great numbers.

As noble as that may sound, it doesn't reflect what everyone else wants to follow, and also does not imply that every highly regarded moral system would want us to do that as well.

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

 

[Dissident Dan]

This means that even if you were successful in bringing about vegetarianism in western societies, it can only be called as such: enforcement - but neither a necessity nor nobility. Victory in this manner is only a testament of POWER, not of superior ideas.

Would you say the same thing of the Civil Rights Act, child labor laws, etc?

 

[K.J.Healey]

Not to veer form the current discussion, and I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (87 pages to read is intimidating...) but..
Has there ever been any research on whether or not the human population could either:
A) Afford to feed themselves without using meat
What I mean is, could we financially do a conversion without the costs of non-meat products skyrocketing?

B) Survive on a non-meat diet?
Currently meat is a primary source of food which provides high levels of protien and high caloric content by weight. Would overpopulated or starved countries, such as China, N Korea, and the like, be able to keep their population from malnutrition and still be able to produce enough food to meet their nutritional requirements? I cannot think of a non-meat diet that is both inexpensive, healthy (in terms of survival), and could be self-harvested. (People have their own animals to consume).

Just wondering. I still am undecided on my stance. I eat meat, but only because everytime I try to go without it my red blood cell count drops drastically and I lose lots of energy.

 

[learningphysics]

Then the biggest issue is whether humans are superior or not. If humans are superior to normal animals, then vegetarians are in the same boat as meat eaters.

The existence of moral phenomena is still under dispute, but if you assume that they do exist, it still depends on which moral system is actually correct.

Ok... if we take moral phenomena as non-existent, then everything's equally ok, or equally bad. Eating meat, rape, murder, eating humans,sitting quietly doing nothing etc...

If we assume moral phenomena do exist then how do we determine which system is correct?

Which is your position?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Not to veer form the current discussion, and I'm not sure if this has already been discussed (87 pages to read is intimidating...) but..
Has there ever been any research on whether or not the human population could either:
A) Afford to feed themselves without using meat
What I mean is, could we financially do a conversion without the costs of non-meat products skyrocketing?

Actually, if more people ate the speciality products such as veggie "meats", the prices would come down, because the scale of production would go up and there would be more competition. As far as traditional plant foods, such as fruits, vegetables, nuts, beans, grains, etc., we would actually need to produce less plant food because we would not be feeding them to animals first (and you get a lot less food out of an animal than you put in). We would probably need to produce more of the types that we don't currently feed to farmed animals, but this would be more than made up for by the fact so many other plants no longer need to be produced.

B) Survive on a non-meat diet?
Currently meat is a primary source of food which provides high levels of protien and high caloric content by weight. Would overpopulated or starved countries, such as China, N Korea, and the like, be able to keep their population from malnutrition and still be able to produce enough food to meet their nutritional requirements? I cannot think of a non-meat diet that is both inexpensive, healthy (in terms of survival), and could be self-harvested. (People have their own animals to consume).

It is my understanding that most extremely poor people in 3rd-world countries eat hardly any meat, anyway. Instead of spending effort on the inputs that go into animal agriculture, we could spend that effort on producing food for direct human consumption. We could produce much more food given a certain amount of resources on animal-free diets, so feeding a hungry world is actually easier through vegetarianism.

Just wondering. I still am undecided on my stance. I eat meat, but only because everytime I try to go without it my red blood cell count drops drastically and I lose lots of energy.

I'm sorry to hear that. How do you know that your red blood cell count dropped? Did you get it tested in a lab?

If you eat a well-balanced diet, you will not have problems. I hope that you weren't eating just french fries and potato chips. Whether vegetarian or not, if you do not eat a variety of foods, you will have problems.