Why I'm becoming a vegetarian

[Subotan]

Animals are stupid. Really stupid. Not in the way that we sometimes call people stupid, such as that they mistakes or are bigoted or that they're not very good at their times tables, but fundamentally and inarguably irrational and stupid. We, as a species, have sent technology beyond the Solar System, bent fission to our will and created civilisation, all from nothing. Arguments that animals aren't stupid usually involve chimps poking sticks into holes to eat termites. We are clearly superior to animals, regardless of how fast they can fly, or how much weight they can lift as a proportion of their body weight, or how long they can stay underwater without coming up to breathe. In every faculty in which animals specialise in, we can use our minds to engineer, produce and operate the technology that will do the job better. We are all products of evolution, and yet we have achieved, and will achieve so much more than any other species ever will.

And yet this imbalance, this self-evident superiority is exactly why I want to stop eating meat. As I said, animals are stupid - if they've evolved to eat plants, they eat plants. If they've evolved to eat meat, they eat meat. If they've evolved to eat both, like us, then they eat both. When a lion kills an antelope for food, she isn't thinking about the suffering the antelope is going through to feed him, or any alternative ways the lion could feed itself without resorting to killing - all she's thinking about is the tasty meat of the antelope. She can't think about the ethics of doing so, because she's a lions, and lions are stupid.

In contrast, we can. Most of us ignore it, of course, but we still possess the powers of reasoning available to consider the ethics of eating meat. This reasoning is also what makes us superior to animals. Surely by the very fact that this reason, which lifts us so far above animals, also gives us the power to even consider that perhaps killing for food is wrong should give us pause? Furthermore, we also possess the technology required to make a meat-free lifestyle plausible for our omnivorous biology. We can a make a choice which animals cannot, and given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.

[A Very Super Market]

Here is a video of a deer eating a bird.




We are not evolved to change the world around us. We are just evolved to be better at thinking, which isn't the same thing. A lot of our daily processes are very stupid indeed. Stupid and inefficient, but all the product of too much time on mother Earth. You cannot claim that we are above the biological logistics of life. Socializing is an evolutionary trait. Getting annoyed when people talk about dreams is an evolutionary trait. Intelligence is an evolutionary trait, but not so we could invent ethics. We were smart so that we could take advantage of the stupid, not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts.

I'm not terribly pro-meat, but we aren't obligated to our veggies through intelligence.

[Subotan]

We are not evolved to change the world around us

Disagree. We evolved to have the capability to do so, as the dinosaurs who evolved and obtained lighter bone structure, feathers etc. also evolved the capability to fly.

Intelligence is an evolutionary trait, but not so we could invent ethics. We were smart so that we could take advantage of the stupid, not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts.

I agree that this has been the case for the majority of human existence, but the fact that we have evolved to be able to do X because of Y does not mean that X is acceptable.

not so we could nurture them, cooing and whispering philosophical tracts

I'm no animal lover, and I'm quite happy having nothing to do with them. That said, you're correct in that it's philosophy which has brought this about in me.

[Viking]

Arguments that animals aren't stupid usually involve chimps poking sticks into holes to eat termites. We are clearly superior to animals, regardless of how fast they can fly, or how much weight they can lift as a proportion of their body weight, or how long they can stay underwater without coming up to breathe.

It is easy to mix up the human mind with technology. Technology is an offspring of the human mind, but not a trait of it. Physically, humans haven't changed much the last 1000s of years or so. The ancestors of those people sending probes into space were people who thought thunder was coming from a specific god. Yet physically, they were largely the same. The most important differences should be the upbringing - the education.

Furthermore, if creatures such as dolphins were as smart as human beings, they would have a hard time manifesting it in a way that we could gauge it.

We can a make a choice which animals cannot, and given that our rejection of irrational, mechanistic behaviour is what distinguishes us from animals, the rejection of killing for pleasure is a necessary step we must take in order to further separate that divide and increase the prestige of our achievements as human beings. To reject it is to embrace civilisation.

We aren't all that terribly distinct from the other animals, really. It does not make sense to differ from other animals for the sake of it, either.

[Louis VI the Fat]

SO WHAT IM NOT GOING TO BE APOLOGETIC I WON THE EVOLUTION THEY LOST SUCKS TO BE THEM

[Ronin]

people are free to make their own mistakes.
have at it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I killed a lamb once, or rather I held it while someone else did, most horrible thing I've ever had to experience, but I still ate the meat afterwards. Being a vegetarian doesn't "help" animals, they'll still be killed for meat whether you eat it or not, the important thing is to face up to that and ensure they are treated as gently as possble up to their deaths.

[Fisherking]

You know that plants are very amazing. They can nurture other plants near by or they can try to repel them.

The more we study them the more that we discover that is just astounding.

They seem to be aware of themselves and the other plants around them. They are also aware of those who use them for food.

The major difference seems to be that animals can run for a threat but a plant is at the mercy of large predators because they can’t uproot themselves.

So it is mostly a matter of deciding which species you will murder for your next meal.

Or maybe you can just give up eating.

[HoreTore]

Meat tastes good. Very good.

Animals are food first and foremost. I too consider the ethics of eating animals. And to me, it is very ethical to do so. I see nothing wrong or bad about killing an animal whatsoever.

[Subotan]

It is easy to mix up the human mind with technology. Technology is an offspring of the human mind, but not a trait of it. Physically, humans haven't changed much the last 1000s of years or so. The ancestors of those people sending probes into space were people who thought thunder was coming from a specific god. Yet physically, they were largely the same. The most important differences should be the upbringing - the education.

I chose technology as it was the easiest and tangible way of showing human achievement as being superior to that of monkeys. We have achieved other things as well, such as culture, language, humour etc., and these are less time and context specific than technology. Besides, even if physically we are the same, then we've moved on as a set of societies from primitive notions such as thunder gods to reach a modern, rationalist view of the world; in other words, improvements in technology have been concurrent, more or less, with improvements in society*. Both will certainly continue to "improve", and one of the improvements of the latter should be the idea that it is wrong to kill for pleasure.

Furthermore, if creatures such as dolphins were as smart as human beings, they would have a hard time manifesting it in a way that we could gauge it.

I'm taking animal intelligence at face value. If dolphins could be shown to be as intelligent as people, then that would be a different argument with different conclusions. Until they can demonstrate that, we should restrict ourselves to assuming that they are stupid, so as to not to get caught up arguing for a position which is probably is based upon a false assumption.

We aren't all that terribly distinct from the other animals, really. It does not make sense to differ from other animals for the sake of it, either.

Biologically, no, not at all. We all eat, shit and sleep. We are definitely special though, and although there's no divine reason for this (indeed, the lack of it actually increases our exceptional nature), and "with great power, comes great responsibility", to quote Uncle Ben.

I killed a lamb once, or rather I held it while someone else did, most horrible thing I've ever had to experience, but I still ate the meat afterwards. Being a vegetarian doesn't "help" animals, they'll still be killed for meat whether you eat it or not, the important thing is to face up to that and ensure they are treated as gently as possble up to their deaths.

I'm not squeamish, and never have been. I have always been comfortable touching meat and butchering it, and if someone asked me to joint a chicken then I would without any hesitation. However, the argument that as my personal decision likely won't stop any animals from being killed (And even if it did, it won't be for some time - it will take some time for me to transition fully to a vegetarian diet) is essentially the same fallacy as claiming that there's no point in voting as my vote won't have any impact.

You know that plants are very amazing. They can nurture other plants near by or they can try to repel them.

The more we study them the more that we discover that is just astounding.

They seem to be aware of themselves and the other plants around them. They are also aware of those who use them for food.

The major difference seems to be that animals can run for a threat but a plant is at the mercy of large predators because they can’t uproot themselves.

Plants are irrelevant.

So it is mostly a matter of deciding which species you will murder for your next meal.

I never once used the word "murder", as murder exclusively refers to the killing of a human being by another human being. Meat is not murder, and neither is the eating of plants.

Or maybe you can just give up eating.

Right, because saving the "lives" of plants is more valuable than saving the life of a human being.

people are free to make their own mistakes.
have at it.

Sure, and I'm not posting this in an attempt to convince any of you. It's a declaration of something which I've been thinking about for the past couple of months, and an attempt to provoke discussion which isn't the constant BAKRUM PULITICZ .

EDIT:

Meat tastes good. Very good.

Definitely! Bacon barms are delish.

And to me, it is very ethical to do so. I see nothing wrong or bad about killing an animal whatsoever.

How so? Or are you just being facetious for effect?

[HoreTore]

How so?

Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach.

[Greyblades]

So... what made you come to this decision Subotan?

[ajaxfetish]

Plants are stupid. Really stupid. No, seriously, however stupid someone may think animals are, plants are stupider. We are clearly superior to plants, and this imbalance is why I want to stop eating plants. When an antelope kills some grass for food, it isn't thinking about the lives it is cutting short, or any alternative ways it could feed itself without resorting to killing - all it's thinking about is the tasty grass. It can't think about the ethics of eating plants, because it's an antelope, and antelopes are stupid.

In contrast, we can. Perhaps the thought that killing for food is wrong should give us pause? Perhaps we could use our technology to develop a life-form free diet? To reject the eating of plants is to embrace civilization.

Ajax

edit: Mushrooms are also stupid.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I AM NIBBLING ON THE FRONT PAWS OF A CUTESY LITTLE WABBIT RIGHT NOW

eddit: Mushrooms are also stupid.

Nonsense mushrooms are enlightened beings when I eat them they make me smart then I come here and debate politics

THAT WABBIT IS STILL ALIVE I'M NOW GOING FOR THE HINDLEGS

LETS SEE IF THEY ARE COOKED ALREADY

Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach.

See! I told you people when the Scandinavians don't recognise themselves in something they lose all empathy and their superiority complex takes over. Tsk.

I'M JUST COOKING THE HINDLEGS BY HOLDING THEM IN BOILING WATER BY FRIMLY GRASPING THE FURRY LITTLE CRITTER BY THE TAIL AND EARS AS HE DANGLES ABOVE THE POT HE'S PUTTING UP QUITE A FIGHT IS THAT A PANICKED LOOK IN HIS BIG BEADY EYES

[Samurai Waki]

And yet despite all this there is no proof that intelligence will allow us to outlast the inevitable...

[Subotan]

How so?

Why on earth should it be bad to kill an animal? As I said, they are food first and foremost. They exist primarily to fill my stomach.

I asked for an argument, not a restatement of your conclusion.

So... what made you come to this decision Subotan?

A combination of two things, the influence of a friend, C. , and a course in philosophy, particularly utilitarianism and logic. I had a drunken rant at C. about animals (As C. feels very strongly about animal welfare, vegetarianism and such), and in the apologising process afterwards, C. gave me some arguments which I hadn't heard before in favour of vegetarianism, that I found myself surprisingly sympathetic to. Meanwhile, this was whilst doing a degree in philosophy which introduced me to both utilitarianism, which I'm strongly in favour of (Despite its problems), which in turn introduced me to the idea that we should apply the same principles which we apply to humans to animals - although my original reaction was along the lines of this, combined with what C. had said, I found myself pretty convinced. Finally, logic has changed the way I think (No, it has actually has - it's almost creepy how it has), and one of the consequences was a brand new dislike for contradiction. I agreed that eating meat was an ethically dodgy area, and yet I continued to eat it anyway, until I made a commitment to phase it out.

Plants are stupid. Really stupid. No, seriously, however stupid someone may think animals are, plants are stupider. We are clearly superior to plants, and this imbalance is why I want to stop eating plants. When an antelope kills some grass for food, it isn't thinking about the lives it is cutting short, or any alternative ways it could feed itself without resorting to killing - all it's thinking about is the tasty grass. It can't think about the ethics of eating plants, because it's an antelope, and antelopes are stupid.

Clever. It's not applicable though, for several different reasons:

1. You used the analogy incorrectly. The focus of the original analogy wasn't the antelope, but the tiger, to make a point about the behaviour of animals. In your analogy, the focus is on the antelope, but you're trying to make a point about the behaviour of plants.

2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.

3. The technology does not exist for me to survive without harming over living things. Is it a big deal? Not really. I explicitly stated that I was opposed to killing for pleasure - for necessity is a different story, and why I don't care if the Inuits kill whales or whatever. Besides, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect, especially when you consider that the perfect will necessitate saving the lives of millions of bloody nematodes.

In contrast, we can. Perhaps the thought that killing for food is wrong should give us pause?

That's a misrepresentation of my position. If I'd said that, then you could derive that pretty much anything was wrong. I said that as the very capabilities which separate us from animals also give us the abilities to create ethics in the first place and thereby consider that eating animals might be wrong, eating animals is arguably irrational.

I AM NIBBLING ON THE FRONT PAWS OF A CUTESY LITTLE WABBIT RIGHT NOW

Please Louis, surely you don't think I'm moved in the slightest by cuteness?

Nonsense mushrooms are enlightened beings when I eat them they make me smart then I come here and debate politics

Well, there's a difference between debating politics (Or any other controversial issues that shake the very foundations of its members' worldviews) in the pseudo-intellectual nature of the circlejerk that is the backroom, and debating politics where it actually matters in the real world...

But I digress, far too much for my own good.

And yet despite all this there is no proof that intelligence will allow us to outlast the inevitable...

Which is why we have to make the best out of the hand we've been dealt in the here and now.

[Greyblades]

A combination of two things, the influence of a friend, C. , and a course in philosophy, particularly utilitarianism and logic. I had a drunken rant at C. about animals (As C. feels very strongly about animal welfare, vegetarianism and such), and in the apologising process afterwards, C. gave me some arguments which I hadn't heard before in favour of vegetarianism, that I found myself surprisingly sympathetic to. Meanwhile, this was whilst doing a degree in philosophy which introduced me to both utilitarianism, which I'm strongly in favour of (Despite its problems), which in turn introduced me to the idea that we should apply the same principles which we apply to humans to animals - although my original reaction was along the lines of this, combined with what C. had said, I found myself pretty convinced. Finally, logic has changed the way I think (No, it has actually has - it's almost creepy how it has), and one of the consequences was a brand new dislike for contradiction. I agreed that eating meat was an ethically dodgy area, and yet I continued to eat it anyway, until I made a commitment to phase it out.

Ok, power to you, just do me a favour and make sure you come to us first if your friend pulls out a copy of dianetics.

[HoreTore]

I asked for an argument, not a restatement of your conclusion.

The argument is that they're tasty and delicious. How much more do you need....? What else than food should animals be...?

[Greyblades]

Pets, work animals, feriliser producers, test subjects, producers of raw materials for textiles, transportation, I could go on.

[Gregoshi]

A combination of two things...

Bummer. I thought maybe you evolved into a being of pure energy or something. Reality disappoints again.

[ajaxfetish]

2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.

Yeah, that's what it always seems to come down to. And it's that 'not clear' bit, in particular. If they do feel pain, and we're just incapable of recognizing it, then we're doing much more harm by eating plants than eating animals. On the other hand, with improved slaughtering techniques, it would not be necessary that animals used for food feel pain. Would you consider a diet including meat killed painlessly to be ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?

Ajax

[naut]

Well, [snip] in the pseudo-intellectual nature of the circlejerk that is the backroom [snip]

You've all been giving each other reach-arounds in here all this time?! WHY AM I ONLY NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS!?

[Fragony]

The argument is that they're tasty and delicious. How much more do you need....? What else than food should animals be...?

We don't HAVE to eat them, argument is pretty clear, we can do without. Not going to myself, it's tasty indeed. I do buy good meat though, not just for the taste

[Major Robert Dump]

You should try eating people. Just the really, really evil ones. I know people in corrections, and we could probably work something out.

[Populus Romanus]

Would you consider a diet including meat killed painlessly to be ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?

Would you consider a diet of humans killed painlessly ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?

[ajaxfetish]

Would you consider a diet of humans killed painlessly ethically equal to a vegetarian diet?

I would avoid eating humans for religious, social, and medical reasons.

Ajax

[Ironside]

2. Plants aren't sentient. They're certainly not conscious, and it's not clear that they feel pain.

They do feel stress and it's also infectious (as in if you kill one plant, it's neighbouring plants will react on it).

3. The technology does not exist for me to survive without harming over living things. Is it a big deal? Not really. I explicitly stated that I was opposed to killing for pleasure - for necessity is a different story, and why I don't care if the Inuits kill whales or whatever. Besides, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect, especially when you consider that the perfect will necessitate saving the lives of millions of bloody nematodes.

Equating killing for food as killing for pleasure is quite devious. The Inuits can move nowadays, so they don't need to hunt the whales anymore. Personally, if you're planning to eat what you kill, then you're hunting for food.

That's a misrepresentation of my position. If I'd said that, then you could derive that pretty much anything was wrong. I said that as the very capabilities which separate us from animals also give us the abilities to create ethics in the first place and thereby consider that eating animals might be wrong, eating animals is arguably irrational.

That doesn't make people come up with good ethics.

Of the animals born to die as food (I can give you numbers later today, but chickens outnumber humanity by 5-6 times our numbers), how many decendants do you think they'll have when humanity stops eating meat?

Zero. Well, very close to zero. So your suggested mercy is a genocide on billions of sentient beings.

And this is what we call not thinking through all consequences of your suggested actions. The fate of the animals born to die are forever linked to humanity, whatever you like it or not.

[The Stranger]

i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.

[Subotan]

Ok, power to you, just do me a favour and make sure you come to us first if your friend pulls out a copy of dianetics.

Don't worry, if C. ever does, I'll run a mile.

Bummer. I thought maybe you evolved into a being of pure energy or something. Reality disappoints again.

Dang, I wish. If I ever do become an energy being you'll be the first to know

Yeah, that's what it always seems to come down to. And it's that 'not clear' bit, in particular. If they do feel pain, and we're just incapable of recognizing it, then we're doing much more harm by eating plants than eating animals.

If they do feel pain, then that's too bad, as there's no alternative to eating plants. A fruitarian lifestyle is both incredibly impractical and dangerous.

If, theoretically, we could choose to do without plants, would it be wrong to keep on eating them? I have no idea. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't shape my behaviour in the present to the best of my knowledge and the current conditions.

You've all been giving each other reach-arounds in here all this time?! WHY AM I ONLY NOW FINDING OUT ABOUT THIS!?

Oh nooo, you haven't been missing out have you?

We don't HAVE to eat them, argument is pretty clear, we can do without. Not going to myself, it's tasty indeed. I do buy good meat though, not just for the taste

It's a personal decision, and although I think it's wrong to eat meat, I certainly don't think that doing so makes you bad. I'm not zealous about it (or anything for that matter), or animal welfare beyond the typical criticisms of traditional medicines. Likewise, I'm not going to make a huge fuss if I find out that my food has been cooked with animal fat in a restaurant etc.

You should try eating people. Just the really, really evil ones. I know people in corrections, and we could probably work something out.

Pick an unpopular prisoner, and get the others to tenderise him by beating the crap out of him for me.

They do feel stress and it's also infectious (as in if you kill one plant, it's neighbouring plants will react on it).

If they do, it's certainly not on a level experienced by sentient creatures. And as I said, it's foolish to scorn the good for want of the perfect.

Equating killing for food as killing for pleasure is quite devious. The Inuits can move nowadays, so they don't need to hunt the whales anymore. Personally, if you're planning to eat what you kill, then you're hunting for food.

Let's look at two puzzle cases:

1. A certain T. Roosevelt is out in the Dakota badlands, travelling from his ranch back to Bismarck. He's ran out of provisions, his horse bolted during the night, so he's travelling a few hundred miles or so on foot with no food. He sees a buffalo wandering around on the plains, blows a hole between its eyes with his rifle and eats it. The meat allows him to survive and make it to Bismarck.

2. A certain Theodore R. is out in the Dakota badlands on a hunting expedition. He has plenty of supplies with him in case he doesn't catch anything, but as it happens, he comes across a buffalo wandering around on the plains. He blasts a bullet through its eye socket, and eats the meat.

The former is killing for food, even though the situation he has ended up in partly due to choice, whilst the latter is killing for pleasure. The key is that the former's actions are partly driven by necessity, whilst in the latter they are wholly derived from pleasure.

Of the animals born to die as food (I can give you numbers later today, but chickens outnumber humanity by 5-6 times our numbers), how many decendants do you think they'll have when humanity stops eating meat?

Zero. Well, very close to zero. So your suggested mercy is a genocide on billions of sentient beings.

And this is what we call not thinking through all consequences of your suggested actions. The fate of the animals born to die are forever linked to humanity, whatever you like it or not.

This is an argument I was already aware of, and although the strongest argument against vegetarianism. However, by saying "Oh, we are granting them the privilege of life", you're conceding an inch and potentially allowing people to take a mile. Abuse of animals could be justified along the lines of "Well, we gave them the privilege of life, we can do what we like, and they should be thankful".

i heard u should steer clear from cucumbers.

Way ahead of you. I can't stand the bloody things.

[naut]

Way ahead of you. I can't stand the bloody things.

If they're bloody, then you may be putting them in the wrong end.