Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you didn't address my question, clever way to avoid it while attempting to "put me in my place"...

I was not trying to slip out of anything. What I was doing was not falling into the trap of acting like the question was relevant. Like I said, it doesn't matter what anyone else does (especially when they're in a completely different situation!).

[/quote]
so do we eat artificial food that may cause disease and sickness for humans down the road?
[/quote]

Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick...disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth...

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.

currently we legalize abortion, instead of fetuses getting eaten, they are merely discarded as biological waste...animals and plants however are consumed for human survival...i don't want to hijack this thread, but if you believe abortion should be a woman's choice, then so should eating meat, otherwise i see that slightly hypocritical...

Firstly, you assume things about me which you do not know. Secondly, this is a red herring. We are not talking about abortion. We are not talking about me. We are talking about meat and how it gets on one's plate.

[quote[
the catalyst to the whole mass meat market by the way is human overpopulation...my recommondation is to not reproduce so you don't have to worry about proper nutrition for a growing child
[/quote]

As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.

and to support local farming...i work directly with american farmers in my job, and it is sad to see them lose their farms because the general population buys their produce that is grown in other countries...

I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic.

 

[the_truth]

Morality and abstract philosophy go together like bread and butter, the answer to this question is, whatever is good for you is good and hopefully, if like me, you agree with liberty, all you must do is merely not buy animal food products, otherwise it is not immoral.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Who said anything about making people sick? I've already addressed the health myths about being vegan/vegetarian many times. Vegetarians are usually healthier than omnivores!
Food from industrial animal agriculture makes people sick...disease, antibiotics, synthetic growth hormones, milk puss, etc.

There is nothing "natural" about the way animal food is produced. It does not benefit anyone. There is no "food chain" with animals filling their niches. It's just one species (homo sapiens) creating animals for their consumption. If nature is your concern, animal agriculture only disrupts the natural environment.


As I've already stated numerous times, a child does not need to eat meat, nor even animal products. Milk, for one, is the most unhealth, unnatural (you said that you value nature) thing to feed a child. No other species eats another animal's milk (unless fed such by humans), let alone milk filled with bovine growth hormone or the puss of udder infections.


I agree with you that we should support local farming, but I think that that is getting of the topic. [/B]

i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

nutrition wise, a little bit of meat is quite beneficial as I mentioned before for those with low iron...if I have a doctor recommending to me to increase my meat consumption because that is the fastest and best way to increase and absorb my iron levels, then I am going to listen to him, which by the way is what I have actually been advised in a doctor visit several years ago...

taken from this link:

Meat: a healthy option

Eating meat also aids the absorption of iron from vegetables and cereals. 'One of the benefits of eating meat is that when you eat a proper balanced diet it can help iron absorb into the body. A lot of things have iron in them but you need to get it out and into the body.

i think the basic rule of thumb is, everything in moderation...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if you have dangerously low iron levels, that does put you in an atypical category, but it's still one that can be overcome. For example, taking iron supplements with meals will easily give you what you need (although you don't want to overdose). Very little iron is actually needed in the body. Also, just because meat enhances iron intake doesn't mean that meat is necessary to get enough iron.

http://vegsoc.wellington.net.nz/veg_iron.htm

It's a common misconception that vegetarians will have problems with iron deficiency and anaemia. However, while iron stores may be lower, there is no evidence that vegetarians are any more likely to develop anaemia than the rest of the population.

http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/janfeb97/iron.html

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4777

 

[pace]

Originally posted by Kerrie
i have to respect your stance on this Dan, as you don't seem the typical vegetarian/vegan follower who does so out of meeting the societal expectations...that's why i asked what your views of abortion were, as i see it just the same as killing an animal...many believe in pro-choice, but are vegetarians, thus i have to assume they are "following a fad"...

Following a 'fad' or not, they've decided to stop eating animals, and stop supporting a side of society that's killing.

Originally posted by Kerrie
I see this question as a personal choice though,

In some manner yes, in some manner no. Killing is our buisness.

Originally posted by Kerrie
i don't question the natural balance of nature, it seems that all the plants and the natural order of the food chain is to the benefit of all of life on earth... [/B]

Sorta, yeah. And since we're part of the animals, no reason trying to put ourself on the top of some food-chain, except over plants and so on.
Hopefully the evolution principle, in the end, does more good towards animals, than as a misuse for bad morals.

[ Oi, saw this link on your homepage Galatea http://www.amys.com/, and that's easy -premade vegan food for us lazy boys too! ]

 

[Dissident Dan]

What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
What would be the reasons for eating meat?

What I can think of:

1) It's yummy
2) Possibly: having lots of allergies that restrict you from getting proper nutrients from readily available plant sources. (However, I think that this is highly unlikely, firstly because a person would have to have a crapload of allergies, and secondly because multivitamins should be able to make up for any such condition.)

as the link i provided states, meat helps the nutrients from vegetables absorb easier into the body...multi-vitamins are well known to not have this ability and just pass on though without being used by the body...

the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat), lots of steamed and raw vegetables, and too many processed carbs...the fish i do buy mostly is farm raised do to the price (you would think fish would be inexpensive in oregon, but it's not really, but then again i am not contributing to upsetting the natural balance of the wild salmon that is highly prized here in oregon, the vegetables i try to buy are mostly from the united states...

gluttony is big here in america, unfortunately it has given eating a little meat a bad name...

 

[Dissident Dan]

OK, it helps some nutrients be absorbed better. But if you would absorb adequate amounts anyway, that's not really an issue. There are also plant foods that increase the absorbtion of nutrients from other plants. If you were to find yourself lacking nutrients in any way, it would only be a matter of dietary planning to fix the problem. And if you are significantly concerned with nutrition, you will probably plan, anyway.

I am aware that most of the conten of multivitamins is not usually absorbed, but taking them will meals enhances absorbtion, and that's why I said, "with meals." However, I was not meaning for multivitamins to be a main source of nutrients, only a back-up.

I think that any dietary benefit that most people will see in meat (although people with certain problems [iron deficiency, for example] may be more affected) is not too great. There are negative effects of meat, too, that really counter-balance this fact. While meat may provide the quickest solution, it comes with its own detriments that I've mentioned before.

So, one might say that a benefit to meat is that "it makes it easier". But I do not find that a convincing argument, especially in light of the fact meat has its own problems and the seriousness of the way in which meat is obtained.

I must say that it caught my eye that you said, "the meat i do eat is mostly fish with some chicken & turkey (about 3 times a week for all meat)". I am glad to hear that your meat intake is relatively small compared to the typical American diet.

Most people like to say, "I only eat chicken and/or fish," as if that makes the situation better. This does not improve the situation in the eyes of a vegetarian. In fact, I would rather a person eat beef instead of poultry or fish, as there is more meat to the cow, meaning that fewer animals must suffer to produce the same amount of meat.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A lot of people like to defend omnivorism by claiming health concerns or that it's "natural" or part of the "food chain".

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them? If someone was to prove to you that eating (certain) animal products is not natural (or that the natural/unnatural distinction doesn't matter), would you still eat them?

Even if all such qualms were satisfied, would you still eat these things just because you find them tasty? If so, did you really even care about these other things in the first place?

 

[Kerrie]

I wonder if this is really the primary concern, or just a rationalization. If someone was to prove to you that avoiding animal products is not only adequate, but healthier, would you still eat them?

this issue is already a reality with the mad cow disease that was discovered-but this is due to the attrocious environment cows are subjected to that finally caught up to us...it has definitely deterred me from buying beef, and i was never much into pork...if it was proven unhealthy to eat any kind of meat, i would mostly likely stop...and now i pose a question to you dan, which i have not heard an answer to:

if it was proven that plants could "feel" pain in being harvested, would it deter you as well? i feel this is just as much a valid question as the one you posed...

 

[Dissident Dan]

The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

 

[Kerrie]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
The thing about the plants feeling pain is that moving to eating animals wouldn't help anything, in fact, it would just increase the number of plants harmed, because you have to feed the animals. So, it would sadden me for plants to feel pain, but it would not cause me to eat meat because of the fact that I mentioned above. If there was equal suffering in either case, it wouldn't matter whether plants or animals.

But that is not here nor there. Plants do not feel pain, and animals do. Therefore, we have an ethical obligation regarding our treatment of animals, but not of plants. The fact that we can easily survive without animal food should be enough to convince.

you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

So – what’s the answer? Well, recent research indicates that plants do have a stress response, which is used when a leaf is cut, for example. They release a chemical called ethylene (also known as ethene, a simple hydrocarbon: C2H4). Ethylene is released as a gas, all over the surface of the plant, and indeed its release is not only triggered by damage, but also decay. So a rotting plant releases lots of ethylene too.

taken from:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you cannot make the absolute claim that plants do not feel pain, there is no proof of either, but it is a living being is it not? it dies when it is killed true? i am not saying that if plants feel pain we should eat meat instead, what i am saying is that you cannot justify not eating meat because of the pain and suffering it endures in the killing process if we do not know for sure that plants feel anything...

taken from:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/bio/plants/otherplant/b01052d.html

Merely being alive does not indicate ability to feel pain. As that very article mentions, bacteria do the same thing that plants do. Do you content that bacteria feel pain? Merely repairing does not mean that an organism feels. All that article does is describe a particular repair mechanism, and we all already knew that any organism has repair mechanisms.

The fact is that plants do not have nerves. As nerves are necessary for pain, plants do not feel pain. Also, you can think about it evolutionarily. Animals have feelings because they can act on them, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. However, a plant is stationary, so the existence of feelings provides no evolutionary advantage for them.

And, even if plants did feel pain, not eating meat would still reduce the total amount of entities suffering. So, independent of plants' capability for feeling, it is better to not eat meat. I've already made this argument before, on physicsforums, but it seems to be unheeded.

 

[Kerrie]

perhaps plants cannot feel pain through nerves such as the animal world, but the article did mention a stress response when a leaf is cut from the plant, thus leading me to believe there is an amount of negative reaction to being injured...i don't understand why you cannot take the devil advocate's perspective in this in answering my question-if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

this conversation reminds me of track 69 on Tool's Undertow:

"And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber.
And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself.
And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.
And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil.
One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.
And terror possesed me then.
And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"
And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots!
You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust."
And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared,
"Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul!
Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!"
Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.



Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on...



This is necessary"

 

[Dissident Dan]

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

Life may feed on life, but we don't have to feed on sentient creatures. Maynard was just having a knee-jerk reaction.

Stress is not pain. If that article indicates experiencing pain, then by the same reasoning, a self-repairing robot would experience pain.

 

[Kerrie]

I cannot say that I would condone eating meat if plants were to feel pain, because I wouldn't. I've already said why. When you think through it, it would still be worse to eat meat.

you still didn't answer my question dan:

if it were proven that plants experience pain/stress when being injured/cut/harvested, how would it affect your vegetarian views?...

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

pain is a personal interpretation as well, as different beings experience it differently...

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Kerrie
you still didn't answer my question dan:

the question was not asking if you would eat meat, but how would it affect your current views on eating plants?

The question was, "how would it affect your vegetarian views?"

And, I answered, saying that I would still find it wrong to eat meat. As far as it would affect my views on eating plants, it would cause me to think that some plants my be just as important as some animals, for their own sake. It would probably lead me to look for someway of scientists creating pain-less, unconscious plants. It would make me sad to know that what I am eating was once a living, feeling being.

But I will say no more about this question. I do not want the conversation to become side-tracked. The fact is that plants don't feel pain, and animals do. There is no nutritional need for meat (or even other animal products). Any material contained within animals that is necessary for human consumption is available from non-animal organisms or inanimate objects. It may be easier to gain some things from animals, but I hardly consider that an excuse.

 

[Be Happy!]

Should We Eat Meat

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.

Knowing this, how we treat animals- who are like us- defines the morality of our species. Will we "evolve in consciousness" and as Albert Schweister says, "expand our circle of compassion"? or will we forever make excuses to eat the flesh of another who values his/her life as much as we ours.

This one question will lead us to the very heart of our humanity.

 

[FZ+]

Despite all the arguements posed here, the bottom line is, can animals suffer?

Animal Behaviorists share a resounding yes...not only can they suffer, but they share with us a wide range of emotional capacity.

Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

 

[physicsisphirst]

Originally posted by Robert Zaleski
I'm for eating Vegans. There docile and dim-witted, so they'll be easy to capture and butcher. Just think of it, all your vitamins, minerals and proteins in one tasty morsel.

i think this concept is even written into some constitution or other:

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created edible ..."

actually, i have always maintained that humans can never be at the apex of the food chain without resorting to cannabilism.

only a small step for man ... and a giant plunge for mankind ...

 

[Be Happy!]

Originally posted by FZ+
Not that easy. The bottom line is - is their suffering something of comparative significance? A computer can suffer - it registers damage, and it acts in certain ways to deal with it. Yet to talk about computer rights is something that is ludicrous.

The question as to whether animal life is, in our perspectives, closer to that of our lives, or closer to that of a computer, is an altogether harder, more subjective question.

Descartes believed that animals were mere automatons and this thinking justified all sorts of horrendous experimentation. Animals were nailed to a cross and cut open while they screamed and writhed in pain. But followers of Descartes thought that these reactions were just automatic, as a machine would react to an external stimuli.

But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/ )

Animals value their lives, they run from pain, they love their young, and have even showed capacity for compassion beyond species…yet they are born into a world where they are seen as objects by many for human use and therefore exploited with disregard for their interests and well-being.

How we treat these sentient beings, who have been denigrated to become our modern day slaves, will once again be the test of our morality.

 

[FZ+]

But I think most people, especially people with animal companions, will agree that animals are like us. All animals’ brains experience chemical reactions, like ours, which lead to a wide array of emotions.

You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal. But in human society, anthrocentrism is exceedingly strong. Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness. Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.

 

[MacTech]

Originally posted by physicskid
Should we eat meat?

Benefits of becoming a vegetarian:

• Freedom for all farm animals!
• Eating less unhealthy food
• No need to cut any animal bodies or organs=> more convienient & less mess
• Eating more healthy food!
• No more interference with the animals' life and death.
• Increase in animal population!
• More animals to conduct researches on.
• No more artificially caused extinction of any animals!
• and many more!

Freedom for all farm animals eh? Freedom is just a constructed word that we like to think we have and really we have no freedom at all on earth.

Eating less unhealthy food eh? Probably since meats contain tons of fats and of course a supply of other things our bodies need.

No more interference with the animals' life and death? Who says that? I mean seriously humans are part of the natural order and we are taking steps to be the survival of the fittest in this world, the death of something is going to happen no matter what you do to stop us eating them. Mb you shouldn't be driving a car as well and increasing CO2 levels or the fact that your house is probably in a habitat that once was dominant to animals. No the fact is that Earth is a close system and for one animal to survive another must be moved or destroyed.

More animals to conduct researches on? What! So you are exchanging the curlily that you state about farm animals and rather have them researched on. Woah.

Increase in animal population, personally I would like some proof on this and from my view infact there would be less animals in those domesticated animals that we use for food. Unless you are going to clear cut the rest of the rain forest and give the remaining population of say cows free rain so we don't interfere with their life and death cycles. Tho you just destroyed most the of the animals on Earth if you did that.

Ok to the meat of the question, should we or should we not eat meat at all? Probably not since yes it is pretty unhealthy but, but meat is also the best source of most of the natural things we need to keep living. The only reason that we are questioning this source is that the evolutionary way our science works is allowing us to figure out other ways of sustaining life without meat. I personally thing that a cut down on meat products is needed but not a total conversion of a race that has for thousands of years survived on both, plus how would you suggest we implement this? I think that this is really a decadent dream of first worlds and not of all the people of the world. Also I disagree with your meat is the cause or will cause massive population growth, I think it is the growth of agriculture/irrigation of the Mesopotamia region (~8000BC) and that farming itself is the cause of massive growth in population not of meat.

 

[Be Happy!]

Originally posted by FZ+
You see, I don't agree with that. I mean, I personally agree that animals are no different - that we are a type of animal.

Hi!
I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?

Religions for instance usually involve a radical difference between man and animal. Whole branches of philosophy dealing with consciousness take it as given that humans are conscious, and animals either are not conscious, or have a "lesser" form of consciousness

Actually at the heart of most religions (not always in the practice of them) compassion to animals is of utmost imporatance...

"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature on two wings, but they are people like unto you."
--The Koran, sacred scripture of Islam

"Then I will make a covenant on behalf of Israel with the wild beasts, the birds of the air, and the things that creep on the earth, and I will break bow and sword and weapon of war and sweep them off the earth, so that all living creatures may lie down without fear"
--Hosea 2:18

"O men! you can take life easily but, remember, none of you can give life! So, have mercy, have compassion! And, never forget, that compassion makes the world noble and beautiful."
--Buddha

Taking a non-materialist idea of consciousness, we do have a problem in determining whether something is sentient.

What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.

 

[elwestrand]

I was born and raised as a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. I have had meat before. When I was in boot camp I basically needed to eat it, very little alternative. I can't think of anything truly more discusting. The smell of meat makes me sick. I believe eating meat makes one intellectually and spiritually dull. That is not to say that you can't be very bright and eat meat, it means that if you gave it up you might be even more bright. A greater precentage of geniuses were vegetarian than in the general population.

Anyways, meat does compromise health. Everyone is thinking "protien, protien," (because the meat industry is huge and has been spoon feeling society propaganda for decades into believing giving it up is bad for health) I did a survey once. There are individuals out there who believe that it is impossible to survive without meat. Protien is very much overrated, infact, most Americans consume so much that it damages their kidneys. I heard this. According to most people, I can't exist. ! Meat has an acidic PH. The body requires an alcaline o0ne, avout 7.4 I think. Otherwise it dies. Therefore, the body must counteract the acids in meat by releasing bases form the bones. The result is a loss of calcius, so while meat contains calcium, calcium is lost. Eskimoes, whose diet consists of blubber pretty much, have the word's highest instances of osteoperosis. It is proven that vegans have stronger bones than meat eaters. I heard.

Also, I think your ideal diet depends on your bloodtype. I am A positive, perfectly suited for vegetarianism.

"What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people."

Can life be determined biologically? Life is expressed very differently between a plant or an animal. Why should we expenct consciousness or "sentience" to be expressed or exhibited in exactly the same way? The mammal has a hesrt, its life depends on its function. A plant has not heart. It is alive nonetheless. Thereofre, the presence of a heart is not the presence of life. The mammal has a brain, by which it has mind. The plant does not. What argument is there that the plant has no mind?

Most vegan fundamentalists I've known refuse to believe that plants are sentient-- obviously, because they think they are so "compassionate." The vegans I've known believed plants are just automations-- like a growing sugar crystal I guess. I believe plants are sentient, I know they are. I once did experiments that proved (to me) that they are.

 

[LAacoustics]

A friend told me about this thread on this forum and I had to check it out. It has sparked in me a wide range of feelings, from glee to indignance to utter disbelief. My apologies in advance for a long post, but I want to respond to a number of points I have read here:

1. The fallacy of plant pain

Plants do not feel pain. Pain is a subjective negative response that is the interpretation of a stimulus as "uncomfortable." Plants have no brains or nervous systems and are therefore not capable of interpreting anything as bad, uncomfortable, or painful. Pain is, in fact, an evolutionary factor. Those animals whose bodies are in imminent danger of damage feel a sensation that the brain interprets as painful, and the animal will move quickly away from the stimulus. The being is thus able to live longer. Plants are not mobile. The ability to feel pain would therefore serve no purpose from an evolutionary point of view. it would, in fact, be detrimental. The ability to react to a stimulus is by no means the same as feeling pain or suffering.

2. Hypothetical situations

"What would you do if it were proven that plants could feel pain?" The question is so ludicrous as to defy answering. We're talking about ethics in our world, not in some imaginary other world where plants feel pain (in which case they wouldn't be plants anyway.) Hypothetical questions such as this have no place in a discussion about ethics.

3. Switching to a vegetarian diet causes: a) Increase in animal population, b) More animals to conduct researches on, and c) No more artificially caused extinction of any animals.

a) Let's assume that any significant conversion of the population to vegetarianism would take a number of years to occur. In this time the animal population would DECREASE, not increase, because demand for farmed animals would decrease. Human consumption of wild animals is insignificant compared to consumption of farmed animals.

b) It's not often we hear about medical research being performed on cows, chickens, and pigs (although it does occur.) Most research is done on animals that are not used for food, and therefore the two sets of animals would not affect each other in terms of supply and demand.

c) There are hundreds of different ways that humans contribute to extinction of species, but eating is not one of them. If anything, eating animals perpetuates the species because they are bred for consumption.

4. Quotes from the Bible are reasonable evidence that something is true.

Give me a break!

5. Computers can suffer

Are you kidding me? Computers do exactly what they're told to do and nothing more. A computer does not spontaneously take steps to avoid its own destruction except when directly instructed to do so. A computer cannot sense fear or pain. A computer can be rebuilt or replaced by another computer that is identical in every measurable respect. Conscious beings instinctively protect their own lives, and (with the possible exception of newborn identical twins) are all unique in form and character.

6. The nature of the question

There are several questions implied when one asks, "should we eat meat?" There is an evoluntionary question as to whether humans are "designed" to eat meat. This is not an ethical question, but an historical one. Humans started eating meat in small amounts as much as 4 million years ago, and in larger amounts about 2 million years ago. Obviously there has been plenty of time for our bodies to evolve certain mechanisms for digesting meat. One study showed that diets consisting of small amunts of meat are healthier than those with no meat at all. (In my opinion all studies are suspect, and are generally biased by whomever is paying for them.) There is no doubt, however, that a person does not require meat to live a long and healthy life. About 80% of the population of India is Hindu and most of them don't eat meat. If we take a conservative estimate and say that half of the population of India doesn't eat meat, that means that about 500 million Indians are vegetarian, almost twice the population of the United States.

There are two ethical questions, and one pure philosophical question involved as well. The philosophical question is whether humans are more valuable than other animals. Is it ok to eat meat simply because we are "more important?" I would say that there is a significant probabiliy that humans are no more important than any other animal. does the fact that we have more developed brains and technology intrinsically give us the right to plunder other species? I don't see why it should, considering that most of what we've done with our brains and technology has lead to the continuing destruction of our planet. With the recent resurgence of Islaamic fundamentalism it seems that even our great human societies are at risk of disitegrating. Thus far I have not seen any evidence that our intellect makes us intrinsically any more important than other species. Humans will be gone long before life is extinguished from this planet.

The ethical questions being discussed are, I believe, more important than all of the other issues combined. The two ethical questions at hand are a) whether animals are capable of suffering, and b) whether it is ethical to subject a being who is capable of suffering to an environment that is likely to cause pain and trauma.

It is obvious to me and to anyone who owns a dog that animals are not only capable of feeling pain, but a wide range of feelings. There are also a number of research papers on the subject, but I don't see why these are even necessary as the answer is so immediately apparent in the actions and reactions of any labrador retriever.

As for question b, it seems to me that the answer is plainly "no." Even if there is only a 10% chance that animals might be able to suffer, it is not worth the damage to my moral well being to take that risk. I know that I do not need to use animals in any part of my life to live happily and healthily, so for me there is no ethical justification for intentionally causing animals to suffer.

Another important issue involving the eating of meat is the environment. Animal agriculture is one of the top 3 polluters in the world. A single pig farm can produce as much waste material as a medium sized city, but they have no waste treatment facilities. It goes directly into the groundwater. Most of the clearing of rainforests is for the creation of grazing land. The air quality in central California is as bad as in the city of Los Angeles now, due to the animal agriculture. It takes about 2,500 gallons of water and 10 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. Farmed fish eat more than half of fish caught from the ocean. The current trend of animal agriculture is untenable. It will completely destroy the global ecosystem if it continues in its current direction.

It follows then that given that animal farming in a global free market economy intrinsically causes ecological destruction, poor health (apparently), and animal suffering (and it does), the use of animals for food or any other purpose is morally and rationally unjustifiable.

 

[XcuddleXcoreX]

With regard to sentience, let's dismiss sentimentality and conjecture and work only with documented and observable scientific facts. Animals are sentient. Their sentience can be defined in terms of biological, chemical, and otherwise physiological traits. Animals, or specifically those animals one would argue are sentient, share the same biological components with us that maintain our own sentience, e.g. nociceptors and complex brains capable of self-awareness. All of this can be explained, in great length- which I doubt is necessary, in purely biological terms. Consciousness and sentience are not subjective or metaphysical concepts, not insofar as they relate to this discussion anyway; they are observable characteristics of animal life. EEG scans can prove conclusively, if common sense were not enough, that animals feel pain- both physical and psychological. This much is documented and unquestionable.

The question, "should we eat meat?", is a matter of ethical subjectivity, as all morality is, and is therefore worth discussing at length. Debating animals' sentience is a defensive rationalization, and it defies basic scientific knowledge: that animals are sentient creatures.

So we're left with ethics. If we are to decide that unnecessarily killing (innocent) humans is wrong- something I'm certain we all agree on, then let's analyze why this is so. We can identify with the human capacity to feel pain or fear. We're familiar with our own species' reaction to noxious stimuli. We can then reasonably project our own reactions onto others of our own species. I know that I dislike pain and I know that other humans dislike pain. I have then decided that to cause pain unnecessarily is immoral. This judgement is subjective, but it is logical.

Studies conducted by animal behavioralists and data derived from the brain scans of animals can prove conclusively that animals have that same capacity to feel pain and fear, and they similarly make an effort to avoid it. They value their lives just as jealously as you or I. There is nothing more basic and universal than the animal (and this includes we dear homosapiens) want to be free of pain.

If any of us decide we want to be compassionate people and we want to ascribe moral qualities to actions and perceptions then we have already decided against pure, "logical" materialism. Science shows us precisely how similar we are to other animals; ethics then allows us to make the choice to extend them our compassion. By refusing to extend our compassion to animals we are negating the validity of our unique ability to compose complex ethical systems. We are instead choosing to revel in a "might makes right" philosophy, which one can hardly debate is ethically sound.

Once you understand that animals share with us all the properties that we hold dear (the want to be free of pain, etc) then I see no reason why extending them our compassion should even be questioned. They want to be free just as we do. If mercy trumps tyranny, then there is only one solution:

Veganism.

 

[elwestrand]

My reasons for being a vegetarian at least have nothing to do with ethics.

Yeah, the vegans I've encountered usually do not believe that plants are sentient, obviously. They cite a lack of "scientific proof" but common sense tells you that if they were to believe plats as sentient beings, it would destroy their views of themself as a totally non-violent, compassionate entity. I'm glad to see you're not one. Instead of "sentimentally" believing plants to be consious, their basis for not believing it is ultimately sentimental. There is evidence that plants are sentient, can remember and such, althouigh no everyone regards it as "scientific" there is no scientific evidence to support that plants are purely mechanisms. Not that I know of.

In answer to the other guy, I agree with you. Plants do not feel pain, certainly not as an animal does. They have no nervous system, but of course they also don't have many of the organs that an animal does and also don't survive on oxygen- but they still have metabolism, immue system (I am sure), etc. It is uninportant whether a being feels pain. A truly compassionate peson does not protect life because it feels pain, it does it because it is alive. In this sense, consciousness or self awareness don't even matter. On the otherhand, if plants do not "feel pain," then why or how have they developed so many mechanisms from keeping them from being eaten: poison, thorns, cactus stickers... The thorns on cactus are apparently intended to cause an animal pain if it tries to eat it. How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

It should not affect a vegitarian to know that plants are sentient beings. Many plants survive BY being partially eaten. That is why they produce fruits, so that animals will eat the fruits and spred the seeds through their excrement (also prodicing fertilizer. Nature is beautiful, planned) Evolution and reductionism are solipsistic.


Most of the scientists I have met do not believe animals are sentient (except for higher primates). In psychology, I was taught that humans below the age of three or so are no self aware and have no capacity for remembering. This is false. It is a theory you know.

I do not view "self-awareness" as differnet form consciousness.

 

[LAacoustics]

How can plants evolve such a mechanism without having any insight into animal feelings-- if a plant is eaten, how does it pass on the genetic information necissary to evolve a defense mechanism in the species? How do other plaants know of the danger? Do they just randomly , accidentally develop poison and thorns and through natural selection those varieties survive? Did the venus fly trap "accidentally" develop into a carnivorous plant? Did it accidentally guess that there are such things as flys? It has no brain, no senses, how do the orchids know what their particular insect looks like or that it even exists at all?

I think you need to read a little Darwin. The process of evolution is not a conscious one. It is simply a matter of those plant species that acquired fewer genetic mutations such as thorns, poison, efficient seed spreading mechanisms etc. did not survive. Often, being eaten is part of the survival mechanism, as it is with fruit trees. Not only is the existence of plants with survival mechanisms not proof; it isn't even evidence that plants can feel pain.

 

[arivero]

living forms

My sister once meditated that vegans very frequently eat living beings, or kill by themselves when cooking. Meat, at the end, is already dead beyond any possibility of recovering. Not the same with fungus, seeds, grains etc.

 

[elwestrand]

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel. I have posed questions, why do you refuse to wonder? Philosophy is not persuasion, nor it is even knowing, it is wondering.

Regardless,as I have said, my vegetarianism has nothing to do with ethics, killing or compassion. I do not believe it is wrong to kill to eat. Infact, I believe it is wrong to kill for sport. The meat has been dead for some time, and it has begun to decompose at the cellular level. That is why it is acidic.

 

[Dissident Dan]

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system. Netiher computers nor plants have either of these.

Animals certainly do. Any legitimate reason you have to believe that humans do, you also have to believe that other animal species do. Any doubts that people are raising as to animals' sentience is an epistemological argument--the classic "How can we be sure/know??" Reducing the argument to this shows the absurdity of the position. These same people operate on the belief that they can know about the world by treating other humans respect and even just by taking the effort to post on this message board.

Through observation of behavior, degree of similarity in structure, and evolutionary reasoning, we can see that other animal species are sentient, as are humans, and that plants and computers are not.

The anti-anti-meat arguments are all borne out fo a combination of desire to continue the unethical practice of eating meat and fear that one is incorrect. It is a rationalization technique that one employs in order to avoid the feelings associated with being incorrect.


Being alive is not the basis for ethics applying to an object, it is being sentient. Bacteria, plants, fungi, etc. all are alive, which only means that they grow and reproduce--nothing significant ethically, while most animal species have sentience (I do not conjecture that sponges are sentient).

The reasoning is really very simple, and I know that most people here on both sides of the argument can understand it, it's just that many people aren't being intellectually honest with themselves and are rationalizing their prejudices.

What is the proof or evidence that plants are_not sentient? How can you know? Have to been a plant? It is pointlerss to go further. Darwin wrote Origin of species in the late nineteenth century, within it is an entire chapter about problems with his theory, is there not? He remarked how proposterous it seemed to him, that the human eye ball could have evolved. Never take a theory as gospel.

Just because we don't know the entire history of evolution does not mean that it is not true. For the sake of argument, I will give in the the idea that there is a chance that no form of evolutionary theory is true. Well, it's still the best thing that we have to go by. Using a small chance of incorrectness is no reason to go against the odds. For over a century, science has upheld evolution. It's best to assume that it's true because that's the way the evidence points.

Also, not eating meat is giving animals the benefit of the doubt, which is the correct option, for the suffering that they endure if sentient is far greater than any of us can imagine, while any disadvantage you incur for not eating meat is incredibly slim and is counter-acted by health and environmental benefits.

We know that plants are not sentient not only through evolutionary reasoning, but through the facts that they do not respond as one would expect sentient beings to do, and more importantly, they lack brains.

Every time someone tries to argue against animal sentience, they try to argue against evolution or our very ability to have knoweldge, and ask us to deny our strongest evidence. The evidence is humongously in favor of non-human animal sentience-as much in favor of non-human animal sentience as in favor of human animal sentience.

 

[elwestrand]

Well, I do not deny that non-human animals are not sentient. I believe, in fact, that consciousness and "self-awareness" are exactly the same. But the persence of a complext neurological system, or any at all, is not the CAUSE for consciousness. Infact, this cannot be proven empiracally, scientifically, so there is no "scientific" reasoning that plants or even inanimate object do not have minds. The only reasoning for or against anything is based on postulates. In this case the postulate is that a brain is required to have a mind. But that is not the axiom that I am working from. You are also using different definitions for life than I am. I mentioned, animals require hearts to live and in the anarobic entity, there is no heart, but it is alive. So why should the absence of a brain imply no mind? In the plant structure, I am sure, following a very in-depth study, we could find some principle which performs basically the same principal of a heart in animals. The Chlorophyll provides the same function as stomache and intestines. Yet the Chlorophyll is very different from the asnimal digestive system. So too is a plant's reseratory system very different, and it is hard to recognize that all of these things serve the same functions. If it were "proven" that plants are sentient, a lot of religions would probably go down the toilet. No, I take that back because the discovery of the helioconcentric solar system didn't impact Christianity. Anyways, are we not conditioned since childhood to not believe that plants are just "there"? How many children, with no knowledge, would deny thgat plants "think"? Okay, how many adults who deny the same thing are merely those children who have carried over and adapted their convicion to fit inside a new system of "proving it"? There is emotional security in this. Vegans almost must be against plant sentience.

In his book, written in the early 20th century, Willian J Sidis, Undoubtedly one of the most intelligent humans to walk the earth, "the Animate and the inanimate," about thermodynamics, wrote that life didn't originate. It simply always existed, even before the formation of the solar system, in the nebulae, and before that. In different forms that would be almost impossible for us to even regognize. He was a rabid athiest. Now, we are indeed observing, scientifically, that life does not materialize from inanimate matter. This has not been observed happening in labs, as much as we try to make it happen. Thus we just keep modifying the theory of evolution, the security blanket of science. "It must be very very rare" The only thing evolving in the threory is the theory itself. In his day, nothing was known about genes. Darwin could only look at tow very different birds in the Galapagos and say they are different species. But they aren't. All the breeds of dogs, from the tiniest to the ST bernard, are the same species. They can all impregnate each other. Their difference is due to selective breeding, but no new spiecies ever devolops. This is a scientific observation. Maybe it will change one day, I don't know. It takes imagination to go anywhere in thought. Darwin had imagination, he was a good scientist... He was such a good scientist that given the knowledge we have today, I doubt he would believe in his own threoy anymore. Scientists who cling to their world views as their life and blood, lack the imagination that progress demands. As for science holding the theory up, it was my impression that it depends on which scientist you talk to. On paper, Science may appear cohesive, but in real life, I think that scientists are very diverse in what they consider sceince.

Look up Clive Baxter. You will probably deride it all, but here is evidence in plant sentience. He even helped win a court trial by enabling a plant to testify through his polygraph.

There are also my own experiments. I postulated that A seedling knows which direction to grow its root, by sencing gravity. That alone proves plant sentience. In animals, senses do not work without neuological systems. Plants have many senses. It is not a biological principle that the root, and nto the stem, grows down, or that it follows light. Anyways, my experiment proves otherwise.
So I planted some Mung beans and places a fine nylon net over the soil (the kind that Oranges come in), then I inverted the pot and hung it. The roots should grown down right? (even though to survive they should grown up) . I cheated though, I telepathically communicated to the seeds, telling them how to grown. I hope you will overlook this bit of unprofessionalism. The results were supprising. Each seed reacted differently, as an individual. One started to grow down, then immediately turned and grew upwards. The second seed grew horrizontally. The third seed was the slowest to grow and it just grew down. Even more supprising, I thin planted a seed normally, not inverting the pot. (this seed was among one that I telepathically told to grow up). This seed grew its root up from the start, completely oblivious to gravity, It grew for about three forths of an inch, then it immediately turned, made a hook and started growing downward! But it didn't get very far. It soon died.

If you were offered a million dollars to provide a convincing explanation that plants are sentient, even if you disbelieve it, what would you say? If you can do this and not believe it, you are a very good logician.

As a side-note, Since you believe that animals are sentient, yet that that sentience is due to certian physical mechanisms, then where does sentience stop or begin? At the insect level? Also, are protozoa sentient?

 

[FZ+]

I'm just confused here...you say you agree that animals are no different from us, but you open your post saying that you don't agree with what I say. So, do you agree that animals are like us or not?

I agree. But most people don't. That is the point.

What exactly is the problem with determing sentience? It is has been determined biologically and is not based on the whims of people.

And I think many people disagree with this too. Just ask Chalmers.

FZ, you normally post very sane and thoughtful things, but the notion that a computer is somehow sentient is preposterous. When we are talking about sentience, we are talking about feeling and consciousness. Computers do not have these. They are just calculating machines--electric abicuses. There things that are associated with sentience (and indeed, are what create sentience) are the brain and the rest of the nervous system.

Heh, yes, I was just trying to do a devil's advocate. But the rub is that animals have varying degrees of complexity in their nervous systems. And at the lower level, they do resemble a computer. So at what stage do we label it as pain, and at what stage do we not?

 

[elwestrand]

An article on memory in plants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ist_uids=14535888&dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000

I don't understand any of the scientific jargon, but you can clearly see that there is more to a plant that what we see: cellulose and water.

Back when I used to join high iq societies, I encountered a lot of people who do believe that humans ARE automations. They don't consider consciousness as anything more than a boichemical sensation, and feelings as also simple biochemical states in the brain, none of it meaning anything and that there is no purpose to existence of life at all-- it is just an absurdly and chaotic thing. Existentialists who believe as such are almost always "chemically imbalanced," suffer depression and basically survive off of prozack and other drugs.

To me, denying that plants are sentient, or denying that inanimate objects are sentient is just a step in that direction. I guess I'm just emotionally attached to this. But I am not a scientist. The native Americans believed that everything is sentient and in quantum physics also, there are theories that all energy is sentient. Infact, the theory of evolution would work better if it included this, I think.