Why I'm becoming a vegetarian

[Populus Romanus]

Couldn't resist.



Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.

I don't get these kinds of arguments.

You could justify pretty much anything by appealing to nature.

[Hax]

Couldn't resist.

Try harder next time.

Is it so hard to be decent, yes?

[Louis VI the Fat]

If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

Indeed.

And why would meat taste so good if we were not meant to eat it? Nectar tastes good to insects. Bamboo leaves are tasty to pandas. Dung tastes good to dung beetles.

Likewise, porkchops taste good to humans because they are the intrument the pig uses to induce us to eat him. Because, not only have we evolved to like meat, our meat has evolved to be liked by us, as much as flowering plants and bees have co-evolved together.
Pigs have evolved to taste good to man. Non-tasty pigs are extinct, didn't make the evolutionary cut. Simply because, contrary perhaps to first intuition, man has driven to (the brink of) extinction large animals unfit for human consumption, whereas animals who could evolve themselves to be tasty and nutritious to humans are thriving.



Edit: Populus is fourteen.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Such as rats in NY?

[Xiahou]

Such as rats in NY?

Even in NY, you'd be pressed to call them "large" animals...

[jirisys]

Such as rats in NY?

Frenetic reproductive cycles withstand our ignoring their meat.

~Jirisys ()

[Populus Romanus]

Edit: Populus is fourteen.

No I am not.

[jirisys]

No I am not.

Two years more does not make your debating arguments and techniques astoundingly better.

Even my childish-ish attitude cannot be compared to some of the fellow orgahs here.

~Jirisys (NYC Rats should morphologically be considered a larger breed than that of the Miniature Schnauzer)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Soylent Green.

In the light of other current stories about a significant world shortage of food in a few years, what are the arguments against utilising all that spare protein? A voluntary euthanasia program would solve many of the first world's problems with debt and old age (largely spent senile and unhappy) and the subsequent processing of the meat product would provide a highly efficient protein supplement to cereals.

I don't see a downside myself (and I'm being serious).

[Greyblades]

a) we dont need it as we have enough food to feed the world twice over if it was properly distributed
b) as much as the directors might want us to believe there is no way anyone would manage to pull off giving human based food to the populus without the population of the world trying to lynch mob them once they found out (and they will find out).
c) it is extremely inefficient, you'd have to spend a mountain of soylent green to feed a person long enough for them to die naturally and when you do you'll end up with enough raw materials to maybe feed another person for a month.

[Subotan]

I wonder who it was that opened a thread with the statement "Animals are stupid. Really stupid."

Just because they're inferior doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated badly.

It is why we should treat animals with respect, but it is not to say that we should stop eating them. For this, proofs or indications of high mental capabilities would be in order. Even if such capabilities turned out to be the case, we could turn to chickens and crustaceans (yum), or create stupid breeds.

Why is it necessary to treat them with respect, yet this respect does not carry over into not eating them?

You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products.

Aha! Finally someone noticed that I was very careful not to mention C.'s gender. Well, you're correct in that C. is a she, and she studies philosophy, but I have none of the intentions you assume I have. I'm good friends with C., and I'm very happy for it to stay that way - dating within the social circle at university always turns out badly. Regardless, this is something I am doing for myself, not C.

...And we've just reached the ultimate limit of what I'm prepared to discuss about my personal life on the .Org.

Well, the problem there of course is that the assumption was wrong. Other humans are not "less than human," but are in fact "human." Animals, on the other hand, are "less than human," as your own opening post so eloquently pointed out.

Ajax

This presents the opposite problem to Viking's statement - if they're less than human enough to justify eating them, why can't we just be cruel to them?

Couldn't resist.

I love Epic Meal Time, It's my favourite Youtube series! If you think that's odd, consider that what they're doing is no worse than what a small American diner will serve in meat to their customers every day - they're just being creative with it.

Humans are born and bred to kill. And to eat what they kill. To do otherwise is to insult mother nature. Which makes me laugh, because vegetarians are always the ones who claim to "love nature" and all that.

Oh dear, looks like we have someone who is nostalgic for the state of nature.

Indeed.And why would meat taste so good if we were not meant to eat it? Nectar tastes good to insects. Bamboo leaves are tasty to pandas. Dung tastes good to dung beetles.

Does this mean that since we find heroin pleasurable, we are meant to abuse it?

[Samurai Waki]

Humans are not born and bred to kill. Many of our adaptations to meat eating came about because we were unable to hunt effectively on our own. we would have been scavengers up until tool making, some ancient ancestor probably found out how to ambush prey with a sharpened stick and hunting took off from there. The killer instinct may have evolved because of our newly acquired abilities in obtaining meat, long periods of hunt and deprivation.

Though civilization didn't develop because we were excellent killers, on the contrary it's because we're excellent farmers. Grains have been the largest driving force in our development as a species.

[Greyblades]

It should be noted the grains werent prized as much for providing food but for making alcohol.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There is a downside to cannibalism for regular meal supply: disease. Yes, humans contain exactly all humans need in (sometimes more so than others) well balanced proportions -- but humans also contain more risky stuff like enzymes and accumulated toxins (in fatty tissue and organs) as well as pathogens.

One way to see how this is a problem even if you eat your humans well done, is the BSE saga. Essentially it turned out to be about cows eating parts of other cows mixed in their food.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Humans are not born and bred to kill. Many of our adaptations to meat eating came about because we were unable to hunt effectively on our own.

One technique persists: steal it from the real predators. That's how people still hunt in parts of Africa: stare down a few lions, take a hind leg and retreat into the distance before the lions call your bluff.

[Viking]

Just because they're inferior doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated badly.

Don't take things out of their context.

Why is it necessary to treat them with respect, yet this respect does not carry over into not eating them?

They react to pain stimuli, and given that they could possibly could experience pain in a similar fashion to humans, it would be unwise from a moral perspective to not treat them with respect. To kill them for their meat is a moral question of a different nature.

Of course, killing is brutal. Whether or not animals experience great pain before they die, I don't know as I have yet to be butchered at a slaughterhouse. Yet causing pain at one point for a specific purpose is different from mistreating animals purposelessly over time. One could draw a parallel to giving someone really painful medical treatment in order to save his/her live. The difference here lies in the purpose, obviously.

What still makes this parallel relevant, is the fact that possibly animals do not understand the concept of purpose, or intent. Perhaps they do not understand that the pain they feel at death, if any, is a part of their murder. In this case, it is irrelevant to them whether the pain they feel is part of medical treatment or part of their murder: they live in the present only (more or less), and feel pain right now - and that's it.

The only potential cruel part here, is then the pain. If it does not matter to the animals what the cause of the pain is, then it can in various ways be justified to kill them for their meat. The simplest and most generic way is to say that to cause pain to an animal for any other intent than malice is compatible with respectful treatment. Another way is to say that they will experiences pain sooner or later in life anyway, such that by murdering them - we save them from this pain, be it from future illness, a stressful death from a heart attack or brutal treatment by a predator (important as always, of course: living in the present only, depriving them of a longer life does not really count).

[ajaxfetish]

This presents the opposite problem to Viking's statement - if they're less than human enough to justify eating them, why can't we just be cruel to them?

Eating them has positives to balance the harm: both for our diet, and in many cases, for their reproductive success. Cruelty has no positives to balance it, plus it is likely to cause more harm to the humans inflicting the cruelty as well (I consider torture more morally repugnant and harmful to both victim and perpetrator than I do execution, for instance).

Ajax

[ReluctantSamurai]

I think it's quite amusing that the methods for justifying a vegetarian diet hasn't changed in the 35 yrs. since I was in college. Same argument...different day...bigger pile

Trying to put some moral high ground spin on things is weak, IMHO. AFAIAC, we, as humans are not any better than any other creature on this good earth, and in fact, we are the only species capable of completely obliterating the planet. I fail to see where technology makes us any better.

My advice (to borrow from a famous Nike commercial) is to JUST DO IT! If it makes you feel better all around...more power to you. Just stop trying to put a moral twist on something that every other species on this planet gives absolutely no thought to...how to eat. I was a strict vegetarian for many years and I was in quite good health throughout. Nowadays, I enjoy an occasional steak lathered in onions and mushrooms, or grilled chicken and ribs, but my diet is still basically vegetarian.

[GoreBag]

Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.

I'll be back to post again in two years or so.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.

I'll be back to post again in two years or so.

Awesomeness. Epic.

You are my god.

[jirisys]

Epic Meal Time rules. Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.

I'll be back to post again in two years or so.

Two years is just enough so the org doesn't explode on your epic posts.

~Jirisys ()

[Subotan]

Don't take things out of their context.

Huh?

They react to pain stimuli, and given that they could possibly could experience pain in a similar fashion to humans, it would be unwise from a moral perspective to not treat them with respect. To kill them for their meat is a moral question of a different nature.

Of course, killing is brutal. Whether or not animals experience great pain before they die, I don't know as I have yet to be butchered at a slaughterhouse. Yet causing pain at one point for a specific purpose is different from mistreating animals purposelessly over time. One could draw a parallel to giving someone really painful medical treatment in order to save his/her live. The difference here lies in the purpose, obviously.

Killing animals in the slaughterhouse is not in itself morally wrong - my point is that the suffering that animals feel from being killed (I.e. the forced end of life, even if we discount the fact that they might feel pain) outweighs any pleasure which we may derive as people from the consumption of their meat.

What still makes this parallel relevant, is the fact that possibly animals do not understand the concept of purpose, or intent. Perhaps they do not understand that the pain they feel at death, if any, is a part of their murder. In this case, it is irrelevant to them whether the pain they feel is part of medical treatment or part of their murder: they live in the present only (more or less), and feel pain right now - and that's it.

Even if they could consent, it would still be wrong - we don't allow voluntary cannibalism after all. Also, killing animals isn't murder.

The only potential cruel part here, is then the pain. If it does not matter to the animals what the cause of the pain is, then it can in various ways be justified to kill them for their meat. The simplest and most generic way is to say that to cause pain to an animal for any other intent than malice is compatible with respectful treatment. Another way is to say that they will experiences pain sooner or later in life anyway, such that by murdering them - we save them from this pain, be it from future illness, a stressful death from a heart attack or brutal treatment by a predator (important as always, of course: living in the present only, depriving them of a longer life does not really count)

I don't see how much killing animals for meat to eat for pleasure is that different to cruel behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that people who eat meat are in any way equivalent to dog kickers, but that there are certainly enough parallels to make me feel uncomfortable between eating an animal that has been killed far away for pleasure, and killing animal in itself for pleasure.

Eating them has positives to balance the harm: both for our diet, and in many cases, for their reproductive success. Cruelty has no positives to balance it, plus it is likely to cause more harm to the humans inflicting the cruelty as well (I consider torture more morally repugnant and harmful to both victim and perpetrator than I do execution, for instance).

Ajax

The diet argument is no longer relevant, given that there are plenty of alternatives and even substitutes. Besides, the animals are only being allowed to reproduce so long as they continue to produce meat that will satisfy human tastes - if pork suddenly went out of fashion, then lots of pigs would be slaughtered for no other purpose than for matters of taste.

Trying to put some moral high ground spin on things is weak, IMHO. AFAIAC, we, as humans are not any better than any other creature on this good earth, and in fact, we are the only species capable of completely obliterating the planet. I fail to see where technology makes us any better.

That we have the tech to do so makes us better. If we actually did so, that would of course be bad, but the skills which we possess are unique and make us fundamentally superior.

Epic Meal Time rules.

I said as much.

Vegetarians are lame and untrustworthy.

...And meat-eaters are vicious and malevolent.

See, mud-slinging works both ways :3

Awesomeness. Epic.

You are my god.

Two years is just enough so the org doesn't explode on your epic posts.

~Jirisys ()

So, thoughtful posts from people you disagree with, or even those who you do agree with are lame, but knuckle-dragging, Manichean statements are "epic"? Tsk.

[Fisherking]

@ Subotan

You speak of technology. Our technology shows us that plants are living sensing beings that have likes and dislikes and become emotionally upset as well as sensing physical pain.

Technologically we have shown that even sub atomic particle perceive outside influences.

So, how do you think it is more ethical and humane to eat plants than it is to eat animals? Is it only because you belong to the order of animals, rather than plants?

How is it more ethical to murder one rather than the other?

The shamen and tribal elders have always said that everything is alive, even the stones of the earth.

Technology is showing that to be true.

You can choose to eat or you can choose to break your self down into your components. It is no more right and correct to forgo meat than it is to forgo vegetables.

To say otherwise is just to delude your self with hypocrisy.

[Viking]

Huh?

You asked whether one would like to end up on the wrong side of history when it comes to the mental state of animals - and of the two of us, given your intro; you'd be the most likely one to do that. (the parallel to slavery is the following, from 1834:

• Subotan: Slaves are stupid. Really stupid. [...] But we should not keep them as slaves. They should be allowed to use their stupidity as they like.
• Viking: Not so sure that all forms of slaves are stupid - but we should treat them with respect. Look, here's news article in the paper where the author describes how he observed slaves reading a book. Maybe not all of them are so stupid after all.

Killing animals in the slaughterhouse is not in itself morally wrong - my point is that the suffering that animals feel from being killed (I.e. the forced end of life, even if we discount the fact that they might feel pain) outweighs any pleasure which we may derive as people from the consumption of their meat.

Now you are using utilitarianism, which demands that this weighing of consequences actually makes sence (it doesn't, that is my viewpoint).

Even if they could consent, it would still be wrong - we don't allow voluntary cannibalism after all. Also, killing animals isn't murder.

In this particular debate, it absolutely makes sense to label this particular killing as murder - it is both deliberate and planned. If we for a second say that animals (more or less!) only live in the present, then we have established a great gap between humans and animals (of course, I still object to putting all animals into one category). It is with this gap that one can justify their murder, and it is because of this gap a references to voluntary suicide, cannibalism etc. fails without further elaboration. With this gap, humans and animals are simply not in the same moral category.

I don't see how much killing animals for meat to eat for pleasure is that different to cruel behaviour. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that people who eat meat are in any way equivalent to dog kickers, but that there are certainly enough parallels to make me feel uncomfortable between eating an animal that has been killed far away for pleasure, and killing animal in itself for pleasure.

Well, as I've said: with this particular assumption, pain is pain for the animal - it doesn't matter why. It is not cruelty because we are not interested in causing the animal pain - it may appear as a side effect of our goal, which is to eat them. I know that this particular line of reasoning has some problems. For instance, if we cannot be certain that the death will come almost in an instant (such as with hunting, were a poor shot from time to time leaves a wounded animal running around in the wild), the argumentation becomes considerably weaker. Yet on the other hand, if we can be very certain that either death or lack of consciousness leading to death is quick, then we are near the point where we can produce the QED stamp.

If we combine the previous line of reasoning with the one where the pain that the animal could experience had it not been killed, then one can also cover the eventuality of hunting much easier. If the animal was not killed, it could die of protracted illness, a brutal assault by a predator or a similar painful death. One thing is clear: the animal is going to die, and it could well be that the majority of species X are going to die a painfull natural death, such that hunting them down could for most of them be an easier way out.

[ajaxfetish]

The diet argument is no longer relevant, given that there are plenty of alternatives and even substitutes. Besides, the animals are only being allowed to reproduce so long as they continue to produce meat that will satisfy human tastes - if pork suddenly went out of fashion, then lots of pigs would be slaughtered for no other purpose than for matters of taste.

Two problems with your first response, so cavalierly dismissing the contribution of meat to the human diet. First, I question whether the alternatives are as efficient. Second, the presence of alternatives does not neutralize the benefit. Chopping down trees to build houses benefits humanity, even though alternatives such as stone, concrete, etc. exist. We get a benefit from eating meat (even if those calories and nutrients could have come from elsewhere), while we do not benefit from cruelty to an animal. (edit: in other words, is there some alternative or substitute we could turn to to replace the benefit we get from cruelty to animals? No, because there's no benefit to be replaced)

As for your second, if I'm interpreting it correctly, you're saying pigs don't really benefit from human cultivation, because the possibility exists that we'll stop cultivating them. First of all, that doesn't even make sense unless the cultivation benefits them in the first place. Second, it's similar to saying that Canada doesn't really benefit from having an allied and friendly superpower across its only land border, because America could decide to attack Canada. Just because there exists the possibility that the current situation may someday change, that doesn't mean that the current situation should be dismissed out of hand. (edit: and considering that humans have kept domesticated pigs for thousands of years, and that pork, ham, and bacon are all popular and traditional foods in my area, I don't think the chances of the change you suggest are very strong)

Ajax