Thread: Some thoughts on the ethics of meat eating...

If i were ever to switch to a vegetarian diet (and I have considered it), it would be purely in protest of the terrible conditions our livestock is kept and processed under. I feel similarly to Matt and Trey; you shouldn't feel bad about eating meat in general, but it's wrong to abuse livestock in the interest of profit. That and things like pink slime...so at least partly in protest of the questionable products we are being given, although that's almost entirely across the board, unless you want to up your food budget significantly.

This is necessary. This is necessary. Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life.

I think you have raised two of the best arguments for taking consideration of one's eating habits, I would only advise you not to try to push them to untenable conclusions. I essentially agree with Supernova. I think that the biggest blunder that people on my side of the debate consistently make is to try to find a way to get across the simplistic claim that it is 'wrong to eat meat'. To me, the issue rests solely upon the manner in which it is produced, and this shift in focus brings (at least) two additional requirements that the argument must fulfill. These two requirements are severity, and proportionality. (1) How severe is the problem of animal welfare in mass production of animal products, and (2) what is the proportion of mass-production to local-production that makes up the total consumption for any given population? In the case of most of us reading this thread (another hairy issue), the answers are (1) very, very bad, and (2) most. But these have to be demonstrated.

You seem to have an understanding of this, based on your second point. I'm just trying to spell out what I think are the important details.

Also, this video (the first 1:45 of it) is in response to your first point:

I have a simple response whenever this topic comes up: Fine, stop eating meat, be a vegetarian, make your immune system weaker. Just because you won't buy and eat that meat anymore, someone else will buy your share and eat it. Nobody will stop butchering the animals just because some people decide not to buy that meat anymore.

Just be realistic... you do nothing good with this.

So you don't vote then? I don't blame you. I guess you don't recycle either.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So you don't vote then? I don't blame you. I guess you don't recycle either.

Haha, actually voting and meat eating is hugely different. Just because some people stop eating meat, that won't change anything. If some people vote, that might change things (rarely).
But you are true, i don't vote, but i don't think that this should turn into a political thread

I see you can't accept it when someone is rationalistic.

This activity, right here, is not me abstaining from eating meat - this is me participating in a conversation about the implications of meat production.

In truth, there are a number of ways to go about affecting change in this situation. Simply abstaining from eating meat, by itself, is indeed a futile way to affect change in the situation. But for me, that is primarily driven by other, more emotional, more personal motives.

This conversation, however, is a more potent way to go about affecting change. Perhaps not by overtly convincing people to change their eating habits.... but I'll tell you, that participating in these conversations over the years has sharpened my knowledge of the subject and all it's nuances greatly. So, if you care to really argue the implications of the situation, rather than claim to have an easy answer that keeps all your qualms at bay, we can do that. All we're doing is talking here.

Originally Posted by littlezoe

I have a simple response whenever this topic comes up: Fine, stop eating meat, be a vegetarian, make your immune system weaker. Just because you won't buy and eat that meat anymore, someone else will buy your share and eat it. Nobody will stop butchering the animals just because some people decide not to buy that meat anymore.

Just be realistic... you do nothing good with this.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So you don't vote then? I don't blame you. I guess you don't recycle either.

Yes, you hit on a very important point there, not just to this debate but in general. That attitude is defeatist and fails to consider the big picture, that every individual counts towards a whole. It's really a question of weather or not an individual has any power or influence in their own right. For the answer, I'd recommend you look o the Holocaust. Why did Schindler and many other Germans shelter Jews? Did they think that a single person's actions were going to stop the Holocaust?

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

Now before I start this thread, I want to notify you all that I'm an vorocious meat eater and have always been a voracious meat eater. That being said this little insight has given me good reason to quit as soon as I get the time and willpower.

One of the most prevalent measures of whether an animal is worthy of not being eaten or not is their intelligence. Eg. Dolphins, primates and humans are worthy but chickens, sheep and cows are not.
Why is it though that people feel that an intelligent animal does not deserve suffering as much as a stupid one? After all pain is a very primeval sensation in animals. One justification is that intelligent animals suffer more emotionally. This is also false as all mammals possess the limbic system in their brains that enable them to feel emotions. Where do we draw the line of what can be eaten or not? Isn't it simply better to just turn vegetarian or vegan?

Another one is that through the killing and eating of animals, man is keeping the natural equilibrium running. This is also false as the vast majority of meat we eat comes from domesticsized animals that live in largly enclosed conditions with little interaction with the ecosystem. The few animals we hunt, we hunt in a completly unsubstainable way that disrupts the ecosystem more then"preserves" it.

Since we can get all of our nutrients from plants or supplements I have to come to the conclusion that the only reason why people are so resistant to veganism is because it represents a severe break from tradition.

Thoughts?

Totally agree. I am a vegetarian myself (although I do eat an occasional crawfish), and go in and out of veganism. However, I think this only addresses some of the reasons for vegetarianism. Meat eating is an environmentally unsustainable practice. Meat protein versus vegetable protein consumes more land, fossil fuels, and resources, and produces more greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane. In essence, a meat eater consumes resources twice - the grain, water, land, etc. to feed and raise the animals that they in turn eat. The average vegetarian between 300 and 400 pounds of grain per year, the average meat-eater consumes over 2000. Nearly half of the total amount of water used annually in the U.S. goes to grow feed and provide drinking water for cattle and livestock. According to some estimates, supplying the entire world with a western, meat-centered diet would deplete the planet's oil reserves within ten years.

Rational Mystic, if you find it hard to let go of your meat eating diet, why not just try reducing it at first? Even cutting your meat-eating in half certainly has a positive global effect. At first, you can try going just one day a week without meat (Meatless Mondays?). Hit me up if you need any tofu recipes

As for why more people aren't vegetarian, I think it is more than just a break with tradition. People in general, and certainly Westerners, are selfish and short-sighted. How many people do you know that don't even recycle despite that this is a minor inconvenience of putting your trash in a different bin?

Originally Posted by littlezoe

I have a simple response whenever this topic comes up: Fine, stop eating meat, be a vegetarian, make your immune system weaker. Just because you won't buy and eat that meat anymore, someone else will buy your share and eat it. Nobody will stop butchering the animals just because some people decide not to buy that meat anymore.

Just be realistic... you do nothing good with this.

This is not realistic or rational at all. Vegetarianism does not weaken your immune system. Vegetarians are, on average, much healthier. Vegetarians often have a lower risk of heart attack, lower blood pressure, lower rates of cancer and diabetes, have less sick days and live longer. And yes, just one vegetarian does have an impact. Just one person abstaining from meat throughout their lifetime will significantly reduce the consumption of water, grain, land, and fossil fuels.

Aside from which, I don't believe the OP was trying to convert the world to vegetarianism, he was simply raising a logical argument for the reduction of suffering of animals, which is completely legitimate. Personally, although health, environmental, and animal cruelty are all factors in my vegetarianism, I mostly do it as a personal religious choice to not cause needless suffering to any sentient being. It wouldn't matter to me if I was the only vegetarian on the planet, reducing suffering effects a change in my consciousness.

I eat beef because I crave it and it makes me feel right. Look at this chart and determine how much different stuff I would have to eat to match the amino acids I get from beef. It's good to also drink some milk and eat some grains and nuts, but beef is an extremely potent source of amino acids. It is the most important food there is. Fuck all cows.

Science of Meat: Proteins | Exploratorium

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

source

I haven't eaten meat for 17 years. After about 3 years I was in a position where I had to eat some beef, long story so won't go into it. I felt sick for about 36 hours and my energy levels dropped significantly for about 48 hours. Anatomically humans aren't designed to eat meat really.

Intestinal tract length

Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.

Stomach acidity

Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.

Saliva

The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.

Shape of intestines

Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly - they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.

Claws and teeth

Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.

But aren’t humans anatomically suited to be omnivores?

We don’t anatomically match up with omnivorous animals anymore than we do with carnivorous ones. Omnivores are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

I haven't eaten meat for 17 years. After about 3 years I was in a position where I had to eat some beef, long story so won't go into it. I felt sick for about 36 hours and my energy levels dropped significantly for about 48 hours. Anatomically humans aren't designed to eat meat really.

You only felt sick because you haven't eaten meat in a so long time before that. Not because humans aren't designed to eat meat...

Originally Posted by littlezoe

You only felt sick because you haven't eaten meat in a so long time before that. Not because humans aren't designed to eat meat...

But that is my point. I felt so ill because my body isn't designed to eat meat, which is corroborated by the rest of my initial post.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

But that is my point. I felt so ill because my body isn't designed to eat meat, which is corroborated by the rest of my initial post.

Nope... you just didn't eat something (meat, here) for a long time and your body wasn't used to it. If i wouldn't eat potatoes for 17 years i would surely feel sick when i would try to eat one again. It has nothing to do with "not being designed to eat meat"

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Nope... you just didn't eat something (meat, here) for a long time and your body wasn't used to it. If i wouldn't eat potatoes for 17 years i would surely feel sick when i would try to eat one again. It has nothing to do with "not being designed to eat meat"

Okay if you were to eat nothing but meat for say five years and then you switched to eating just vegetables then please explain why you would surely feel sick.

I crave meat. I love meat. I am made of meat. I was made to eat meat.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I crave meat. I love meat. I am made of meat. I was made to eat meat.

This can lead to bowel cancer.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

This can lead to bowel cancer.

Eating meat? Where do you get that? Do all of the other carnivorous animal species get bowel cancer too? Also, why are so many animals carnivorous? The law of the jungle would be vastly different if animals would just eat plants, but a very long list of them did not evolve that way.

I got a kick out of this...

@Universal Mind and mcwillis

I think you're both wrong. The issue of meat playing a role in human evolution is indisputable, but we are not bound to it. The body adapts to what it is given. Sometimes other health issues will interfere with a restricted diet, but this is an individual issue, there is nothing intrinsic to general human physiology that prevents us from adapting to what is available. There are people in India who have eaten all-plant diets for generations, and believe it or not, there are people in the arctic that have eaten all-meat diets for generations as well.

This debate will never be resolved by saying either that humans can't eat meat, or that humans must eat meat. These just distract from the only meaningful question of- under what circumstances humans should eat meat. It is, inconveniently, more complicated than any of your simplifications are making it out to be.

I am still wondering why so many animals evolved as meat eaters. Why do such animals put so much effort into hunting if they could do just as well by eating plants? Has all of the jungle madness been unnecessary?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am still wondering why so many animals evolved as meat eaters. Why do such animals put so much effort into hunting if they could do just as well by eating plants? Has all of the jungle madness been unnecessary?

I think the most basic way to put that is, that animals are made of animal-stuff, so it is already in a form that can be utilized by an animal's body. Any species that eats leaves or grass has a very convoluted and laborious digestive system. Fruit (and vegetables I suppose, but not many primates actually eat vegetables, as most vegetables are the result of domestication) are much more readily digested than leaves and grass, but they are "clumped" resources, not nearly as abundant as leaves and grass. So, each food type has advantages and disadvantages.

Meat: little digestive effort, tissue already in "animal form", but runs away and might fight back.
Fruit: little digestive effort, but seasonal, and clumped in one location which requires group defensive effort to monopolize
Leaves and grass: literally everywhere, but takes lots of digestive effort.

But the choice of which of these a species will exploit is constrained by what is called 'phylogenetic inertia', which is restrictions imposed by your evolutionary history, the way your body is set up. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think that the only primates who eat meat are chimps and humans (unless you count the fact that lots of monkeys eat insects), and meat has never been an important staple in either species, only a supplement. It is worth pointing out that gorillas, who are also very closely related to us, are complete vegetarians. So there is a lot of phylogenetic inertia for all primates including us to be herbivores, and this is still very relevant. Only recently in our evolutionary history (but long ago enough to affect our evolution from there) did we start eating meat, about 2 million years ago, presumably when we were Homo ergaster, or something like that (not scientifically agreed upon).

And we entered the carnivore guild as scavengers. We didn't start hunting until much later.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So you don't vote then? I don't blame you. I guess you don't recycle either.

Recycling most things is pretty pointless. Aluminium is one of the few cases where it is worth it because the energy savings are positive (and quite large as well). Most recycling is just a "yay I'm saving the planet now I feel all warm and fuzzy" nonsense.

Originally Posted by mcwillis

But that is my point. I felt so ill because my body isn't designed to eat meat, which is corroborated by the rest of my initial post.

You know, if you're suffering from massive dehydration, you'll feel very ill if you consume a regular amount of water as normal. Clearly our bodies aren't designed to drink water!

Hint: there are other factors at play.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Recycling most things is pretty pointless. Aluminium is one of the few cases where it is worth it because the energy savings are positive (and quite large as well). Most recycling is just a "yay I'm saving the planet now I feel all warm and fuzzy" nonsense.

......

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

In truth, there are a number of ways to go about affecting change in this situation. Simply abstaining from eating meat, by itself, is indeed a futile way to affect change in the situation. But for me, that is primarily driven by other, more emotional, more personal motives.

You brought it up, I responded. Don't like that? Don't bring it up here then.