Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

WWould the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think.

i think you are correct about this - it would be a very different future if people refused to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

while each of loseyourname's points have some validity ('excess' of animals, bankrupt agrifarmers, failing commodities markets etc), they are neither insurmountable nor catastrophic: the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same; people learn to acquire new skills as they did when computers 'took' jobs away from people; and there are plenty of other commodity markets.

when slavery was terminated in US, there were financial consequences (as well as 'excess' people - since slaves really weren't thought of as people), but the future was dramatically changed.
when gandhi's efforts eventually caused the british to leave india, there were serious financial consequences as well as vicious fighting between the muslims and hindus (one of the 'excuses' the british had argued for keeping control of india), but the future was dramatically changed.

vegetarianism has been a growing movement (one of the fastest growing movements according to the Toronto Star in an article in the mid 90s, from what i recall) over the past 30 years. it will certainly be interesting to see how the future is dramatically changed when people refuse to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

in friendship,
prad

 

[OneEye]

How do you decide which consequences are good and which are bad?

Man is that a good question!

Probably one of the three-or-so most important question anyone can ask.

This question is too big for this thread. I am trying to put a few fence posts around it in "Three thoughts on morality."

Boy, what a great question!

 

[OneEye]

that was an interesting effort trying to show i am an ethical veg.

Okay, that was a lot less painful than I expected.

I commend your restraint. You have certainly demonstrated character which is a cut above the sort usually found in a forum - and certainly above what I expected.

Of course, I stand by what I have said - but I commend the judgment of these matters to the readership of the thread (if anyone cares). Still, I am happy that you passed over an opportunity for small behavior (almost completely - a few snipes aside) and chose, instead, to be positive and constructive. This speaks well of you.

By the way, the particular deontological view (which is only one of an infinite set of possible deontological views, BTW) which you propose is an ethical argument. You seem to have a peculiar definition of "ethical".

since neither of us eat bugs, does that make us ethical non-bugavarians?

Yes, almost certainly. I admit to some sentimentalist projection on my part when it comes to sparing the lives of earthworms and spiders. But any argument against killing (say,) spiders must by necessity be either arbitrary or ethical. Mine is ethical. With a few exceptions, I do not believe that I have the right to kill what I do not eat. But this has to do with my particular ethical basis, which (as I have said before) is rooted in a religious position.

you have been dealt with and very substantially with several posts

If you are referring this to your posts, then you can only say this because you do not know how to process logic. Which, as I have already said, you have certainly demonstrated in a most glaring and poignant fashion.

The only question is whether you will take this opportunity to learn this crucial skill.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Okay, that was a lot less painful than I expected.

I commend your restraint. You have certainly demonstrated character which is a cut above the sort usually found in a forum - and certainly above what I expected.

well thank you oneeye. i happen to like much of your character too - i have commented more than once that you are a pleasant and polite fellow. this doesn't excuse some of the things you post, but it does make it more palatable to read them.

Of course, I stand by what I have said - but I commend the judgment of these matters to the readership of the thread (if anyone cares).

i think you have correctly realized that essentially you and i are talking to each other. there really isn't any great audience watching with great anticipation at who scores the next point in our great debate LOL.

you insist that i am an ethical vegetarian without giving any consideration to what i might have to say about it. surely i should know my own reasons for being a vegetarian a bit better than you.

i admire and advocate ethical vegetarianism - but i am really not an ethical vegetarian. (i may just work a bit harder at it though as a result of some of the thought-provoking comments made by learningphysics, dooga, cogito, sangeeta and most recently sheepdog).

similarly, i also happen to admire and advocate christianity (i'll give you the links to posts if you want) - but i am not a christian. interestingly enough, even though i tend to be agnostic (i really like huxley), i have, because of my posts, been accused of being a christian (by certain irate people who think they have their 'opposition' all figured out).

if you really want to know my views, why don't you just ask me, instead of telling me?

Yes, almost certainly. I admit to some sentimentalist projection on my part when it comes to sparing the lives of earthworms and spiders.

i have found that they don't work well when they are squished. i think it takes kindness (that you no doubt possess) to show consideration towards those who are weaker than ourselves. (if you want, i'll tell you the rest of the st francis quote that you noted 'as evidence' you were compiling against me).

If you are referring this to your posts, then you can only say this because you do not know how to process logic. Which, as I have already said, you have certainly demonstrated in a most glaring and poignant fashion.

if it makes you happy to take one last parting shot broadcasting your superior grasp of logic, enjoy.

the purpose of these forums is to discuss topics of mutual interest. we express our views, make friends and when in the appropriate frame of mind, we can even treat ourselves to learning something about each other. hopefully, both of us will find benefit in and be of benefit to, this thread and the physicsforums.

 

[shrumeo]

But consider this. Would the future look differently if people actively chose to refuse meat eating in overwhelming numbers, than it will look if we continue to choose to eat meat as we are? It certainly would be very different in very many ways, I think. Which future do you choose? You decide.

If they stopped eating it before we became Homo sapiens then, yes, the present would be quite different.

Think about the Ice Ages. What were humans eating mostly in the north?
What do current humans that live way up north eat mostly? Meat and fat from deer, whales, seals, etc.

omnivore is a large group - but not really large enough to include humans (see post #900) unless you really stretch things a lot and introduce hoove arguments which is really quite a feet.

So "omnivore" is a large enough group to include dogs but not humans.
You really are rewriting all the textbooks now.

Secondly, why is a "natural" diet necessarily good or desirable?

Why is anything that is good or desirable to you also good and desirable for me?

Thirdly, the changes in the way that we get food have changed what nutrients we get on what types of diets. A vegan jungle ape might get all the B12 it needs from the dirt...but we don't eat dirt-covered food anymore. We sterilize it (at least plant food, anyway!). Today, we live in a situation vastly different from the situation our prehistoric ancestors found themselves in. None of us will come close to replicating their diet, and it hasn't been established that it would be beneficial to do so.

Yeah, there was a population in India that got all their B12 from dirt, so it seems that a vegan should eat a little dirt once and a while.

Our diet is quite different from our ancestors. It now comes complete with pesticides, hormones, and a few re-arranged genes. Maybe 10,000 years from now, archeologists will look back and say "I'm glad we aren't still eating that garbage."

 

[OneEye]

if it makes you happy to take one last parting shot broadcasting your superior grasp of logic, enjoy.

the purpose of these forums is to discuss topics of mutual interest. we express our views, make friends and when in the appropriate frame of mind, we can even treat ourselves to learning something about each other. hopefully, both of us will find benefit in and be of benefit to, this thread and the physicsforums.

Well, thanks for giving me the newbie's information packet.

I apologize if you felt slighted by my evaluation of your logical processes. I honestly intended no harm by it.

I don't mind just goofing around and gassing on a forum. That's fine. Not usually really interesting to me, but I've been known to so engage over the years.

However, if someone is making substantial claims, I expect them to pony up with solid fact and rationale. Over the years, I have refined my method so that my posts are thorough and solid. I do not, as you assert, make broad claims without rationale. As you saw when I demonstrated that you are an ethical vegetarian, I do my research, condense my facts, connect them together coherently, and build a tight case.

I admit that some of my reasoning takes a little more grinding to get than the forum format usually expects. But I have not made a substantial claim (e.g., "Everyone admits that the 3-point syllogism is cogent.") without solid grounds for saying so. So, rather than simply asserting that I make broad and insubstantial complaints, it would certainly be more respectful if you said, for instance, "I don't know why you say this," or, "You don't seem to have grounds to make this statemnt." You seem unwilling to take this tack with me - which is your business, but which I find more than a little tedious - especially when you won't ask questions, but rather just assume that I am careless. Since I take the time to work my case up with dilligence and respect, I would hope that you would take the time to read and consider with dilligence and respect.

In any case, I have about one more post on this subject, and then I am done with it.

But I would like to see a thorough response to my pro-meat rationale.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I apologize if you felt slighted by my evaluation of your logical processes. I honestly intended no harm by it.

that is nice of you, but i don't feel slighted at all. thank you nevertheless for the kind acknowledgment.

As you saw when I demonstrated that you are an ethical vegetarian, I do my research, condense my facts, connect them together coherently, and build a tight case.

you demonstrated no such thing. you may have grounds for concluding that i am 'ethical' (by virtue of my posts) and you already know that i am veg. however, you have no argument for concluding that i am an 'ethical vegetarian' as you have defined it. furthermore, you are so convinced by your own reasoning that you seem unable to understand me when i say I'm veg for nutritional reasons. however, if it pleases you to think otherwise, by all means flatter me.

I admit that some of my reasoning takes a little more grinding to get than the forum format usually expects. But I have not made a substantial claim (e.g., "Everyone admits that the 3-point syllogism is cogent.") without solid grounds for saying so.

your 3 pt sillygism doesn't take any grinding to understand because it isn't really cogent at all.

here it is again in it's original form:

1. It is moral for an animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).

in this form it is either incogent (if your animal is non-human) or tautology (if your animal is human) as shown in post #786.

you admitted later that you meant "any animal" instead of "an animal". so now the thing gains cogency, but becomes a wonderful self-serving absurdity:

1. It is moral for any animal to eat meat (if it desires to).
2. Humans are animals.
-------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is moral for humans to eat meat (if they desire to).[/i]

you first make it ok for the entire animal kingdom to eat meat, then turn humans into animals and therefore make it ok for them to eat meat. why bother with such effort? why not simply jump to your consequent without the extraneous fanfare? far better simply to say "i like the taste of meat, therefore i will eat it" than to engage in this sort of tripe (pun intended) :rofl:

also, as cogito pointed out in post #865 about your 'improved' version:

This argument implies that it is permissible for humans to kill and eat other humans if they desire to. (since humans are composed of meat).

then after you provided him with "an update", he went on to point out to you in post #883 that:

all you have established is that humans are rational and autonomous enough to act in accord with moral principles, while the rest of the animal world is not, then (pardon the pun) it seems you've been barking up the wrong tree.

he asked you an important question at the end of that post. (i asked it again on his behalf in post #951). so i'll state cogito's question once again:

Originally Posted by cogito
What is at issue, it seems to me, is whether the capacity animals have to suffer, and their rudimentary forms of self-consciousness and rationality are sufficient for the possession of rights. Your run-of-the-mill adult cow is by all measure capable of suffering, self-consciousness, and rational thought to an extent which far exceeds that of the newborn infant or the profoundly develpmentally disabled human. If we are disposed to take these latter entities are possessors of rights, then consistency demands we extend rights to the former entities as well. If the reply to this consistency argument is that the psychological capacities mentioned are not criterial of moral considerability, then, praytell, what is? (post #883)

In any case, I have about one more post on this subject, and then I am done with it.

perhaps you could focus your efforts on what you say is going to be your last post in answering this rather important question that cogito asks. (then i hope you continue participating in this thread since i really do appreciate your sense of ethics though admittedly not your logic).

 

[physicsisphirst]

So "omnivore" is a large enough group to include dogs but not humans.
You really are rewriting all the textbooks now.

but shrumeo, i am not rewriting anything (though it might be interesting one day to look at who influences the writing of textbooks).

dogs, as russ correctly pointed out, have been classified in carnivora (nomenclaturistically at any rate). however, they have ample physiological characteristics enabling them to do very nicely with veggies. hence, dogs are seen as being omnivores.

similarly, humans do very nicely with veggies but fall miserably short when it comes to having physiological characteristics for handling meat. hence, they are not omnivores.

look at the mills article (and others in post #900). it shows on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

that the human anatomy lines up with that of the herbivores.

here is the Mills link again:
http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

welcome back, btw!

 

[OneEye]

perhaps you could focus your efforts on what you say is going to be your last post in answering this rather important question that cogito asks. (then i hope you continue participating in this thread since i really do appreciate your sense of ethics though admittedly not your logic).

Sorry, but I'm not going to play this silly time-wasting game.

I answered the ethical point in my longer post (#970). I also answered the cannibalism point in the same post.

Further, your treatment of the three-point syllogism (differentiating between "an" and "any") is nonsense - a pointless ruse. To begin with, you are probably the only person in the world who would take "an animal" to mean anything other than "any animal". Second, you admit that, when correctly interpreted (i.e., using "any animal"), this is a true and valid syllogism - although you do so in an insulting fashion ("why bother with such effort? why not simply jump to your consequent without the extraneous fanfare?").

You seem to be uninterested in thoughtful discussion. Very well. Far be it from me to force it on you.

 

[OneEye]

look at the mills article (and others in post #900). it shows on the criteria of
oral cavity
stomach and small intestine
colon
facial muscles
jaw type
jaw joint location
jaw motion
jaw muscles
mouth opening vs headsize
teeth (incisors, canines, molars)
chewing
saliva
stomach type
stomach acidity
stomach capacity
length of intestine
liver
kidney
nails

Wonder how many of these characteristics are identical to those of chimpanzees?

 

[sheepdog]

i think you are correct about this - it would be a very different future if people refused to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

Quite true. You have made some very good points.

But also you can look at it this way. When people actively refuse to do something they could do, and that could be pleasurable, it implies that each individual has undergone a transformation of consciousness. No one forced them. They chose to do this in spite of any short-term rewards. So that's the end result. But how do you get there? The process in getting there is what makes the scenarios loseyourname has postulated extremely unlikely I think. People won't choose to stop eating meat to the expense of their overall well-being. So that end result must arise from proceeding in a new direction deliberately for the purpose of avoiding problems, not for creating problems.

It is that new consciousness, that new view of our relationship to other-than-self, that is the real payoff. Anyone can not eat meat for all kinds of reasons. But in a world in which most people purposely refuse to eat meat there is much more going on than what is being eaten. Ultimately vegetarianism is one small manifestation of who and what we are, and what our children become.

 

[loseyourname]

while each of loseyourname's points have some validity ('excess' of animals, bankrupt agrifarmers, failing commodities markets etc), they are neither insurmountable nor catastrophic: the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same; people learn to acquire new skills as they did when computers 'took' jobs away from people; and there are plenty of other commodity markets.

I'd say the people losing their livelihoods and the animals that can't survive in the wild and the ecosystems disrupted by them would not agree that these consequences should be so flippantly dismissed.

when slavery was terminated in US, there were financial consequences (as well as 'excess' people - since slaves really weren't thought of as people), but the future was dramatically changed.
when gandhi's efforts eventually caused the british to leave india, there were serious financial consequences as well as vicious fighting between the muslims and hindus (one of the 'excuses' the british had argued for keeping control of india), but the future was dramatically changed.

There were humans at stake in these cases that justified the consequences. Perhaps you think it is worth it to go through the overhaul of our agrarian economy and the disruption to rural ecosystems for the sake of the animals at stake (are you sure you're not an ethical vegetarian?), but clearly not everyone here agrees. Drawing parallels to instances of human genocide or oppression does not help your case unless you make the claim that animals have the same rights.

the meat (and dairy) industry destroys the environment (water depletion, deforestation, excrement pollution etc - specifics available upon request) to a greater extent than the lack of the same

Yes, please do so. Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that). Look, I'm with you on the harm to the environment wrought by many farming operations, whether they be vegetable or meat - in fact, I made the ecological argument for vegetarianism six months ago in this thread. That is, however, only an argument for cleaning up the act. There is nothing intrinsic in the act of farming meat products that demands that it be more harmful to the environment than vegetable farming. I believe it was Aquamarine who brought up many counterpoints to your argument to this effect, counterpoints that I don't think you ever answered.

vegetarianism has been a growing movement (one of the fastest growing movements according to the Toronto Star in an article in the mid 90s, from what i recall) over the past 30 years. it will certainly be interesting to see how the future is dramatically changed when people refuse to eat meat in overwhelming numbers.

I don't see how it would be dramatically changed at all, once we get past the initial shock. Meat farmers will go out of business and other farmers will get richer. People will find a different way to indulge their cravings and be just as unhealthy. All the land in Texas that is useless for any purpose other than cattle ranching might turn into housing developments if people don't mind the heat too much. Same world, different menus.

 

[sheepdog]

futurism

I don't see how it would be dramatically changed at all, once we get past the initial shock. Meat farmers will go out of business and other farmers will get richer. People will find a different way to indulge their cravings and be just as unhealthy. All the land in Texas that is useless for any purpose other than cattle ranching might turn into housing developments if people don't mind the heat too much. Same world, different menus.

I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

 

[JPD]

I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

The difficulty comes in quantifying the effectiveness of improvements and being able to claim that it was your actions that contributed to them. Of course the future is filled with possibilities - that is why it is called the future.

 

[derek1]

Hi everyone. This is an interesting discussion going on. I think you may be interested in some of the things I have witnessed. I have been inside many factory farms and witnessed the cruelty first-hand. I have taken photographs and video and posted them on the following websites.

http://www.EggCruelty.com

http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp

Some of the footage I've taken has also been incorporated in a video called Meet Your Meat, which is viewable from the following website:

http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

I believe visiting the above sites is necessary to really understand the issue, so everyone is on the same page, and understands what we're talking about when we talk about factory farms.

I have enjoyed reading some of the posts on this site, but I think the issue at hand is quite simple. While there are rare exceptions to the rule such as eating road kill, generally speaking, a vegan diet causes far less suffering than a diet that includes meat and other animal products.

Another way of looking at it is examining the fundamental rule of ethics, the golden rule: treat others as you would want to be treated. I wouldn't want to be confined for most of my life in a tiny cage or crowded into a warehouse. I wouldn't want to be mutilated. I would't want to be separated from my family or witness members of my family in pain. I wouldn't want to have my throat sliced open. I wouldn't want to be burned alive in a scalding tank. And I certainly wouldn't want anyone, human or non-human, to experience these things. Yet these are all common occurrences in factory farms and slaughterhouses. So how can we justify paying someone else to do this for us by eating meat and other animal products? I have seen many such justifications posted on this forum. I understand that it is a natural reaction to defend something that one is participating in. In fact, I initially made excuses for my behavior before I became a vegetarian. But in order to truly make this world a better place, we need to stop making excuses and justifications, particularly when such justifications are causing others to suffer immensely and needlessly. The suffering is just too extreme for us to continue to turn a blind eye.

May love and mercy guide us all.

Derek

 

[physicsisphirst]

Drawing parallels to instances of human genocide or oppression does not help your case unless you make the claim that animals have the same rights.

drawing parallels is for showing that we've been through changes like this in the past. the point is that whenever the oppressed are freed from their oppressors, the latter may have to undergo some major modifications. (the comparison has nothing to do with animal rights though if you want to look more into it see post #748 on p50)

I believe it was Aquamarine who brought up many counterpoints to your argument [veg farming vs meat farming] to this effect, counterpoints that I don't think you ever answered.

i don't recall any of this, but i may have overlooked some posts. please give me the page and post numbers where he counterpointed me and i'll see what i can do, if you'd like.

Yes, please do so. Demonstrate that the existence of the meat and dairy industry is more harmful than the abrupt ending of these industries (hint: since we don't know what will happen exactly, you can't do that).

this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.

since you are already aware of the usual ecological arguments such as pollution, water depletion, deforestation, i won't go into that right now (you seem to be more interested in the feasibility of an alternate future anyway, i think), but these are things that would be dramatically changed. you seem to be convinced that they would be replaced by equally worse - what is your justification for this belief?

It is that new consciousness, that new view of our relationship to other-than-self, that is the real payoff. Anyone can not eat meat for all kinds of reasons. But in a world in which most people purposely refuse to eat meat there is much more going on than what is being eaten. Ultimately vegetarianism is one small manifestation of who and what we are, and what our children become.

beautifully expressed, sheepdog! it is indeed a different consciousness.
as you say, greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is (isn't that the everpresent law of inertia :rofl: )

i think one of the reasons it is difficult for some people (myself included) to acquire this consciousness is that you have to become 'aware' before it happens, but usually we don't make the effort to become 'aware' till we have some consciousness to begin with. however, for me at least, getting informed of the realities at least helps the 'awareness' which can later bring about the 'new consciousness'.

Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them.

as the ancient saying goes, "turtle make progress only when it sticks its neck out." the discoveries and achievements throughout history seem to have come from people willing to make the effort to envision and try things beyond the status quo (and interestingly enough, most of these visionaries were always nagged with the recurring cry "it will never work").

 

[ranjana]

Derek,
What you've shared is very compelling. It's difficult to argue with eye witness accounts. What are some of the common excuses/justifications you've heard from people who continue to eat meat and animal products even after they learn of the atrocities and suffering?

Ranjana

 

[physicsisphirst]

Hi everyone. This is an interesting discussion going on. I think you may be interested in some of the things I have witnessed. I have been inside many factory farms and witnessed the cruelty first-hand. I have taken photographs and video and posted them on the following websites.

http://www.EggCruelty.com

http://www.MercyForAnimals.org/WeaverBros/overview.asp

Some of the footage I've taken has also been incorporated in a video called Meet Your Meat, which is viewable from the following website:

http://www.MeetYourMeat.com

I believe visiting the above sites is necessary to really understand the issue, so everyone is on the same page, and understands what we're talking about when we talk about factory farms.

i think this is a very important point. some people just do not want to know (or even acknowledge after they learn), what happens in the meat industry. cruelty is easy to deny when hidden behind cellophane packaging. i think it was the McCartney's who said that if slaughterhouses had glass walls, we would all become vegetarian. if people would spend more time at the sites you mention (rather than avoiding them), they would get informed about what does happen and what they do support.

I have enjoyed reading some of the posts on this site, but I think the issue at hand is quite simple. While there are rare exceptions to the rule such as eating road kill, generally speaking, a vegan diet causes far less suffering than a diet that includes meat and other animal products.

some people try to deny this in remarkable ways (eg animals aren't really aware of their suffering or humans will suffer more if we don't keep doing what we are doing). however, when it comes to factory farms, the issue really is pretty simple, isn't it?

as dooga asked in an earlier post (#901):

Even the majority of meat-eaters say cruelty to animals cannot be justified because of human pleasure, and if you don't agree with animal cruelty, how can you support eating meat?

shouldn't this question be asked before every trip to the supermarket?

 

[loseyourname]

I believe you are mistaken. Quite the opposite outcome would arise. However, without the experiment we will never know, will we? Without the experiment we go on "being just as unhealthy" on the same old menu.

Well, I don't think we have to go on being "just as unhealthy." In fact, I'm not unhealthy at all. Many people are not. I just think its a function of eating a better diet and exercising more, not of eliminating meat.

The greatest obstacle to a better world is those who would keep it the way it is, those who believe it can only be worse. Here is a perfect case in point. Perhaps they're right. Perhaps this is as good as it can possibly get and anyone is a fool to try and improve it. Personally I think the future is filled with possibilities, many of them brighter than the present and I'm willing to stick my neck out a little for them. Forgoing meat seems the least I can do.

Whoa there, Dr. King. Nobody is saying the world shoudn't change and things will never be any better than they are now. I think the future is just as bright as you do. I just don't think eliminating meat from the diet of the human race will do a whole lot to bring a better future about. What exactly do you hope to accomplish on the world scale by doing so that cannot be accomplished in another way?

 

[loseyourname]

drawing parallels is for showing that we've been through changes like this in the past. the point is that whenever the oppressed are freed from their oppressors, the latter may have to undergo some major modifications. (the comparison has nothing to do with animal rights though if you want to look more into it see post #748 on p50)

Okay see, there you go again. You cannot be oppressed unless you have rights. I contend that we have not been through changes like this in the past. In the past, we freed oppressed people from those who would take away their rights. Here we would be releasing farm animals. It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights.

i don't recall any of this, but i may have overlooked some posts. please give me the page and post numbers where he counterpointed me and i'll see what i can do, if you'd like.

The thread moves fast. You probably missed it. It isn't that important to me, so I'm not going to go looking for it right now. If this continues, then maybe I will.

this is the old "we don't know what will happen so let's use that as a justification for what is happening" argument.
while it is true that you don't know just what will happen, we do know what won't happen and that's a pretty good starting point.
we didn't know what would happen if hitler hadn't been stopped, but it seemed a good idea to stop him so that the things he was doing to damage humanity didn't happen anymore.

There you go again, friendly Prad. You're comparing the use of animal products to the Jewish holocaust. Stopping Hitler and stopping the manufacture of meat products is not the same thing unless you grant animal rights. You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

since you are already aware of the usual ecological arguments such as pollution, water depletion, deforestation, i won't go into that right now (you seem to be more interested in the feasibility of an alternate future anyway, i think), but these are things that would be dramatically changed. you seem to be convinced that they would be replaced by equally worse - what is your justification for this belief?

That isn't quite my stance. My stance is only that the ecological problems with the meat industry can be cleaned up without eliminating the meat industry. To draw an analogy here, the production of electricity is very damaging to the environment, but we don't do away with electricity. We simply impose regulations on providers and do our best to minimize the impact. This isn't currently done very well with the meat industry and it it were, the impact would be much less.

 

[derek1]

Derek,
What you've shared is very compelling. It's difficult to argue with eye witness accounts. What are some of the common excuses/justifications you've heard from people who continue to eat meat and animal products even after they learn of the atrocities and suffering?

Ranjana

I've heard so many excuses that I would be typing for hours if I listed them all. I've heard everything from religious justifications to claims of how "natural" it is to eat meat, but I have yet to hear a valid reason to cause others to suffer unnecessarily. I believe that most people know that it is wrong to cause others, human or non-human, to suffer unnecessarily, but they are not ready to change their own lifestyle, or they are afraid of what people will think of them if they choose to become vegetarian, so they make excuses instead.

I also think this is a case of non-critical thinking and the comfort of being in the majority. Most of us have been taught by parents, teachers, and others that eating meat is Ok and been told that animals should be viewed as property instead of beings that should be respected. When one doesn't want to make a change, it is easy for people to repeat what society reinforces, knowing that the majority of society will nod their heads in agreement. This is not surprising. In almost every case of systematic oppression, the majority went along with it. The oppression became a part of the oppressors' "common-wisdom" and even their "morality". This is exactly what is happening today with our society's treatment of animals.

Things will not change until we change our hearts to respect everyone, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or species.

Derek

 

[sheepdog]

No other way

What exactly do you hope to accomplish on the world scale by doing so that cannot be accomplished in another way?

There is no other way. Any "other way", as you call it, is in fact only more of the same. This is an either-or situation. Either we are vegetarians, or we are not.

The reason you don't agree with what I have just said is because to see it would require a complete paradigm shift. The only real other way lies outside of your grasp. So you will not understand what I have said. What you call the "other way" does not touch upon what we are talking about here. What you call the "other way" does not change anything. What you call "other way" continues the present dominant paradigm. It is the continuation of the same, with trivial variation.

What can be accomplished on a world scale by a real paradigm shift, you ask? Well, it seems to me that physics gives us some good examples. Einstein's relativity was one of those moments of paradigm shift when a totally new direction emerged, previously hidden and completely unknown. Either-or situation. Either there is relativity or there is not. It is like that.

 

[physicsisphirst]

The thread moves fast. You probably missed it. It isn't that important to me, so I'm not going to go looking for it right now. If this continues, then maybe I will.

ok thanks. i know i was away for several weeks more than once.

It is not the same thing to me and I don't how you can say that is unless you grant animal rights ...

You're using this analogy for emotional impact, completely disregarding the fact that it is a very bad analogy.

and there you go, loseyourname - you come to the same 'convenient' conclusion that russ did in post #723: the old "let's call the argument emotional and thereby disqualify it in our own minds" trick.

i am not making the slightest appeal to emotion by bringing in oppression of humans by humans, so please, please don't get emotional at all!

the point is specifically this:
1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

(hmmmm ... it sounds like people A are getting rather emotional about it all.)

anyway, it is quite true that people A did lose much of what they controlled and even endured hardship (in some cases). they had to adapt.

this sort of thing happens in history on a regular basis - the key point is that people adapt - they do things differently (some of them may even experience a paradigm shift!)

now if you want to deal with the separate issue of animal rights (which has nothing to do with the very unemotional point i was making - that people adapt to circumstances), we can do so. however, you should consider 2 things:

1) some AR philosophies don't presume inherent animals' rights (eg singer, sapontzis) - but they don't accept what is done to animals either
2) animals don't need to have rights in order to suffer (ie feel pain etc)

if it is suffering that we wish to minimize, then it is perfectly reasonable to do away with say factory-farmed meat consumption based on our acceptance that animals do suffer regardless of whether you want to acknowledge their rights or not.

 

[physicsisphirst]

I also think this is a case of non-critical thinking and the comfort of being in the majority. Most of us have been taught by parents, teachers, and others that eating meat is Ok and been told that animals should be viewed as property instead of beings that should be respected.

this is an excellent point, derek!

going along with the majority and maintaining status quo is a difficult issue to overcome - there's that 'safety' in numbers. it is that paradigm shift that sheepdog so eloquently explains in post #1002.

this is why what you do, derek, is so important.
you not only challenge the tradition, but through your investigations and revelations you challenge our very concept of humanity.

 

[OneEye]

Eat Meat for Health

When I quit smoking (almost ten years ago), I put on about 55 pounds - and was never able to permanently take it off.

In the ensuing years, apart from the weight gain, I also noticed the following symptoms: Decreased circulation, thin skin, slow healing, daily acid reflux, and hypoglycemia.

My wife was trying the Atkins diet, and getting some good results with weight loss. So, suspecting that many of my symptoms were sugar-related, I went on the Atkins diet as well.

Not only did I lose weight, but all of the above symptoms were also alleviated or completely eradicated. I had thought that I had problems with excess fats in my diet, but it turns out to have all been a sugar/high carbohydrate problem!

Some people report some negative health effects from the Atkins diet - like bad breath, diarrhea, etc. I have experienced none of these effects. I always had high cholesterol; I have yet to have this checked under Atkins. But I guarantee you that my high triglycerides are reduced!

Bottom line: Atkins has been very good for me - a real health boon.

Some people might do better on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Not me. With my sugar-related difficulties, a low-carb, high protein diet is the way to go!

 

[OneEye]

Ranch Cruelty

Most people don't live in a ranching area. I do, so I have the opportunity to investigate the "cruel oppression" of cows and pigs which goes on out here.

The cows and pigs which I have personally observed are not mistreated or treated inhumanely. They are kept well fed and, when penned, are no worse off than a dog in a suburban yard. The calves are kept out of the harsh weather, bottle and bucket fed, and released on the range when big enough. The food supply is more than adequate, and they are generally free from pain, disease, or threat of predation. Cushy life!

Cows in the feed lot are also protected from risk, and are less crowded than children in school. The powerful and pungent smell from the feed lot is not bovine waste, but is cattle feed - silage - which stinks like ammonia to you and me, but which the cows relish, and which they readily digest.

Pigs do smell bad, but that's because they are pigs. Hog farmers care for piglets and pigs in very clean, humane ways - because mistreating animals is costly. One sickly or ill-favored cow or pig can damage a rancher's reputation, which ends up losing them money.

With a few notable exceptions, farm animals are subjected to no worse surgical procedures than the average housepet experiences. Andf the surgical procedures which they do endure are for the good of the whole herd. One might argue that some of the surgical procedures could be performed less painfully, but they apparently do not do any long-term harm for the animals.

I tend to be tenderhearted when it comes to the treatment of animals, but I have had very few occasions to wince as I have visited with and sometimes worked with the ranchers out here.

By and large, though domestic animals have a shorter average lifespan than their wild counterparts, they are happier and healthier under human care than they would be in the wild - and so human care probably results in more "cow-years" than wild circumstances could allow.

I hope that this offers some helpful factual information to this discussion.

(P.S. Veal pens, BTW, are [in my opinion] unnecessary and inhumane. Neither my wife nor I will eat veal because of this.)

 

[OneEye]

Public apology

physicsisphirst,

You seem to be uninterested in thoughtful discussion. Very well. Far be it from me to force it on you.

Boy, was I a rude jerk!

You have my sincere apologies. I am very sorry! I was certainly impatient, and had no call to write that way.

I repent! I will endeavor to be better-mannered in the future.

 

[JPD]

this is an excellent point, derek!

going along with the majority and maintaining status quo is a difficult issue to overcome - there's that 'safety' in numbers. it is that paradigm shift that sheepdog so eloquently explains in post #1002.

this is why what you do, derek, is so important.
you not only challenge the tradition, but through your investigations and revelations you challenge our very concept of humanity.

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.

 

[physicsisphirst]

You have my sincere apologies. I am very sorry! I was certainly impatient, and had no call to write that way.

that is kind of you, oneeye. i accept your sincere apologies, with sincerity.

Yes, it must be simply marvellous to be as wonderful and amazing as you. Why, us meat eaters can't even imagine what it must be like to be so enlightened and just so fabulously supreme.

now what's this all about, jpd?
i thought you didn't do the 'conventional' thing of getting your meat at the supermarket (post #954) - possibly because you didn't agree with the very agri-practices derek reveals.

anyway, i agreed with you in my post #966 that people telling me not to eat meat probably wouldn't have made me stop (when i was eating meat in the early '70s) - just as it seems to be getting your bristles up now.

however, people learn things if they take the time to explore the realities - and that's just what derek is letting us see. after realizing what does go on in factory farms, some people do become "enlightened" (although they don't have to become "fabulously supreme" - at least not until someone such as yourself grants them that title).

 

[JPD]

that is kind of you, oneeye. i accept your sincere apologies, with sincerity.



now what's this all about, jpd?
i thought you didn't do the 'conventional' thing of getting your meat at the supermarket (post #954) - possibly because you didn't agree with the very agri-practices derek reveals.

anyway, i agreed with you in my post #966 that people telling me not to eat meat probably wouldn't have made me stop (when i was eating meat in the early '70s) - just as it seems to be getting your bristles up now.

however, people learn things if they take the time to explore the realities - and that's just what derek is letting us see. after realizing what does go on in factory farms, some people do become "enlightened" (although they don't have to become "fabulously supreme" - at least not until someone such as yourself grants them that title).

I found it rather gushing, that's all.

 

[loseyourname]

There is no other way. Any "other way", as you call it, is in fact only more of the same. This is an either-or situation. Either we are vegetarians, or we are not.

Being vegetarian isn't what's at issue to me. The ethicals issues are ecosystem disruption and animal suffering. If you say there is no way to alleviate some of the problems we have here except by going vegetarian, then I cannot talk to you. You've already made up your mind and it's clear that you won't listen to anything else.

What can be accomplished on a world scale by a real paradigm shift, you ask? Well, it seems to me that physics gives us some good examples. Einstein's relativity was one of those moments of paradigm shift when a totally new direction emerged, previously hidden and completely unknown. Either-or situation. Either there is relativity or there is not. It is like that.

If's that all your speaking, then I guess the issue becomes "either it's right to eat meat or it's not." Well, jeez Einstein, isn't that the point. Clearly there are reasons that you think it is wrong. What are these reasons? I agree wholeheartedly that there are some issues involved in the way meat farming (heck, most farming, not just meat-farming) is conducted, but I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in the act of eating meat. Apparently you do. If you think it is intrinsically wrong, that's a personal conviction of yours. I can't argue with your personal conviction. I'm not sure why you would be involved in a discussion like this to begin with if that is the case.

 

[loseyourname]

and there you go, loseyourname - you come to the same 'convenient' conclusion that russ did in post #723: the old "let's call the argument emotional and thereby disqualify it in our own minds" trick.

There's a rule of thumb at play here. I don't remember its name, but whenever a person appeals to an analogy with Hitler, he generally doesn't have much of a case. I don't know if that's the case here, but I do know it's always best to present the best analogy available. You are not doing that. You are presenting the one with the most emotional impact. Everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, so you make an analogy with Hitler, hoping to elicit that same feeling. It isn't going to work. You're going to have to make an actual case.

the point is specifically this:
1. people A oppressed people B
2. when people A were forced to stop oppressing people B they whined about it using excuses like
a) people B don't deserve rights because they are stupid, sub-human etc
b) we will lose money
c) we will lose money
d) it is traditional for us to oppress people B (they don't put it quite like that, of course)
e) it will be the end of civilization

Now I'll tell you why this is a bad analogy. The word "people." A person is an entity with rights. Animals do not have rights. They cannot be considered "people" unless you grant them rights. We cannot get any further until you acknowledge this and make a more honest analogy that is not an appeal to pity.

now if you want to deal with the separate issue of animal rights (which has nothing to do with the very unemotional point i was making - that people adapt to circumstances), we can do so. however, you should consider 2 things:

1) some AR philosophies don't presume inherent animals' rights (eg singer, sapontzis) - but they don't accept what is done to animals either
2) animals don't need to have rights in order to suffer (ie feel pain etc)

if it is suffering that we wish to minimize, then it is perfectly reasonable to do away with say factory-farmed meat consumption based on our acceptance that animals do suffer regardless of whether you want to acknowledge their rights or not.

First off, they must have the capacity to suffer and the right to not needlessly suffer before this discussion can even begin. I'll grant you this for most feed animals. Then we can discuss how to minimize their suffering. You seem to think that the only way to do this is to eliminate the consumption of any and all meat products. I do not. There are perfectly humane ways to kill an animal that do not involve any suffering and do not impact an ecosystem any more than vegetable farming. If you won't grant these as an alternative, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are also granting animals the right not to be killed. I'm not granting this right, so it seems we're at a bit of an impasse here and I doubt we will get through it.

 

[derek1]

Bottom line: Atkins has been very good for me - a real health boon.

Some people might do better on a low-fat, high-carb diet. Not me. With my sugar-related difficulties, a low-carb, high protein diet is the way to go!

Hi OneEye. I'm glad that your health appears to be improving, however there are a lot of health risks with the Atkins diet. You and others may find the following website helpful:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

It is very well-referenced (I believe there are over 400 references) and well written.

I do agree that high sugar diets can be very detrimental to your health. However, I am concerned about the long-term implications of extremely high protein, low carb diets over the long term. But if you find that a high protein diet works for you, you may want to consider a high protein vegetarian diet. I know there is a diet called the Soy Zone which may be worth checking out.

Wishing you the best of health,
Derek

 

[sheepdog]

Do the experiment

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in the act of eating meat.

Exactly. Therein lies the paradigm shift. I agree. We have nothing to talk about.

In fact, the reasons for not eating meat do not matter. Reasons are only a model for the real world. Models are arbitrary. Do the experiment. Shift the paradigm. What is the outcome? That's what counts.

 

[derek1]

If anyone is interested in learning more about the issues regarding vegetarianism (animal, environmental, and health), visit:

http://www.ChooseVegetarian.com.

It is very well-referenced. It also has recipes and tips for making the switch.