Some thoughts on the ethics of meat eating...

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?

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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtaKY-xwh1k

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :)

---

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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" :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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...

http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress....ng-chicken.jpg

@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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

......

Quote:

---

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.

I'm simply trying to show the reason I brought it up, because it seemed like you missed the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

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?

---

But but, what about my canine teeth?

Gorillas have much bigger canine teeth than yours, and don't eat meat. Canines in primates evolve as weapons for intra-sexual competition.

I'll be plain and simple irrespective of how inconsiderate it will be.

I like eating meat more than I care about how it is 'farmed'. This doesn't mean I don't care. In fact my view is pretty much everyone's view for people who eat meat.

I'm interested in conversations like this more so for why people have given up meat, rather than why meat eaters should give up.

My question is: if animals were never 'farmed' in bulk in cruel and disgusting ways, would you vegetarians still be eating meat? If you say no, then it stands to reason why it was easy for you to give up meat, and yet not for me and others. And then, I wish to know your real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I'll be plain and simple irrespective of how inconsiderate it will be.

I like eating meat more than I care about how it is 'farmed'. This doesn't mean I don't care. In fact my view is pretty much everyone's view for people who eat meat.

I'm interested in conversations like this more so for why people have given up meat, rather than why meat eaters should give up.

My question is: if animals were never 'farmed' in bulk in cruel and disgusting ways, would you vegetarians still be eating meat? If you say no, then it stands to reason why it was easy for you to give up meat, and yet not for me and others. And then, I wish to know your real reason.

---

If the situation in animal production was significantly less horrifying, I would still be eating meat. I know there are alternatives, but I needed a general and quick response when I really saw how bad it was. It was easier than I imagined it would be and I have experienced no repercussions to my health or energy levels, so it kind of stuck.

Admittedly, I've adopted, experimentally, a fresh food lifestyle for 3 weeks, which more or less contained no dairy, bread etc, or meat (except fresh fish), and I felt incredibly lucid, awake, and full of energy. Aside from the fact that I really desired meat, it wasn't practical enough for me: constant shopping to keep stuff fresh, needed to consume far more to take in enough calories, when out and about, there wasn't much I could buy on the go that fitted that lifestyle, and it was expensive.

Was an amazing experience though. Truly. I guess what I'm getting at, is that if I could get over the problems I outlined, then I wouldn't give up meat for meat's sake. It'd have to be dairy and bread etc too.... for it then gives me something positive to keep me in that lifestyle. Giving up meat for the sake of conscience isn't enough for me.... unless I knew it could, or had some potential to, evoke a change. I don't see it as the answer; I don't see it having any potential to make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I'm interested in conversations like this more so for why people have given up meat, rather than why meat eaters should give up.

---

I actually quite agree. I actually don't believe everyone should be a vegetarian. It is a personal choice. I heard one study that showed vegetarians who choose to not eat meat for an ethical reason are more likely to stick with it than those who do it for health reasons. However, I think both the globe and our health could benefit if everyone at least reduced their meat consumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

My question is: if animals were never 'farmed' in bulk in cruel and disgusting ways, would you vegetarians still be eating meat? If you say no, then it stands to reason why it was easy for you to give up meat, and yet not for me and others. And then, I wish to know your real reason.

---

Although there are several factors that I feel support my reasons for being vegetarian, my main motivation is a personal ethical one. I don't want to inflict suffering or death on any being or creature unnecessarily. So even if animals were not 'farmed' in bulk, I still would not eat meat. And yes, it was fairly easy for me to give up meat. I've never really 'craved' meat. I agree that others may have a harder time giving up meat than I did. My responses aren't aimed at converting meat eaters - I just wish to support and motivate those who choose to give it up or may be considering it.

Just one minor point: when anyone does something for health reasons, I suspect the benefit cannot be strongly felt subjectively, but strongly observed objectively. That is, generally, people do not feel any different, and so feel little motivation irrespective of what the tests show. Strangely, when I undertook a fresh food lifestyle, as outlined above, there were clear subjective differences... The best way for me to characterise, and summarise, the experience would be for someone to compare how it feels after a bad nights sleep with little sleeping hours to that well rested state that tends to elude us. It was remarkable.

The only problem is that I feel like attributing that to not consuming dairy and grains than to meat. I'll have to try it again sometime, say, without meat. Or a diet just without meat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Photolysis

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.

---

Well that's hardly suprising considering the electrolytic state of that water as it spreads throughout the body will be highly unbalanced compared to how it normally would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

@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 agree as I was thinking about eskimos this morning before I read your post. Im not saying that we should or must eat meat; I just pointed out in my initial post that it sure looks like nature designed us to be veggies from an anatomical viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

The only problem is that I feel like attributing that to not consuming dairy and grains than to meat. I'll have to try it again sometime, say, without meat. Or a diet just without meat.

---

If you don't eat dairy or grains, that leaves just fruits/vegetables and meat. Are those the only things you eat?

I feel much better if I do eat grains, as long as they are not bleached. Bleached grains (bleached wheat flour, refined sugar, bleached rice) are poison to my system, and I think they are poison to most people's systems. But good grains make me feel healthier and more energetic.

Quote:

---

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'll go for the very basic and simple explanation: plant food isn't widely available during the winter months...hmm *looks around, desperate for food* 'Oh hello, fellow animal....that's quite a breast you have there. Mind if I take a nibble? ....You do? Too bloody late'. NOMNOMNOM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you don't eat dairy or grains, that leaves just fruits/vegetables and meat. Are those the only things you eat?

I feel much better if I do eat grains, as long as they are not bleached. Bleached grains (bleached wheat flour, refined sugar, bleached rice) are poison to my system, and I think they are poison to most people's systems. But good grains make me feel healthier and more energetic.

---

I don't now. But it was a 3 week experiment....I still consumed legumes and nuts for added protein. I was eating a lot of bananas and avocados mostly, and sashimi.

This effect I felt wasn't some sort of: 'oh yeah, I think I feel better, healthier'. It was an unusually clear mind, much better short-term memory, and I was full of motivation. I dare say I even spoke faster.

I'm quite sure grains make me feel sluggish (have to test - but the point was a fresh food lifestyle, no processing allowed)....and I have minor difficulties digesting milk products (get stomach cramp).

As a new vegetarian I will express my reasons:

I imagine a world without slaughter houses and I ask myself: Would I personally kill a cow/chicken/rabbit/lamb/fish,etc for the purpose of eating it?

My answer: No.

Why? I feel compassion towards these animals because they are alive just like me. I don't have that predator instinct. I don't NEED that predator instinct because we have evolved enough as a species and a culture to be conscious enough to make choices like this.

I do not go so far as to weigh their intelligence levels in order to justify my choice to be a vegetarian. That concept doesn't really make sense to me. Why eat something I consider to be "stupid"? That is on par with "why eat something when it's last emotion was pure terror"? (See the phrase "You are what you eat")

I was a meat eater with a guilty conscience for a really long time before I became fully veg.

I sleep better now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I'll go for the very basic and simple explanation: plant food isn't widely available during the winter months...hmm *looks around, desperate for food* 'Oh hello, fellow animal....that's quite a breast you have there. Mind if I take a nibble? ....You do? Too bloody late'. NOMNOMNOM.

---

That works as a good explanation for a lot of places, but the situation is nonexistent in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mishalaneous

As a new vegetarian I will express my reasons:

I imagine a world without slaughter houses and I ask myself: Would I personally kill a cow/chicken/rabbit/lamb/fish,etc for the purpose of eating it?

My answer: No.

Why? I feel compassion towards these animals because they are alive just like me. I don't have that predator instinct. I don't NEED that predator instinct because we have evolved enough as a species and a culture to be conscious enough to make choices like this.

I do not go so far as to weigh their intelligence levels in order to justify my choice to be a vegetarian. That concept doesn't really make sense to me. Why eat something I consider to be "stupid"? That is on par with "why eat something when it's last emotion was pure terror"? (See the phrase "You are what you eat")

I was a meat eater with a guilty conscience for a really long time before I became fully veg.

I sleep better now.

---

Haha true.... if that were the case, I know a few humans we should be consuming due to their stupidity instead of animals.

If I stopped eating meat today, and because of it all slaughter houses were shutdown tomorrow, I would totally do it. But that isn't the case. Since my choice won't have any effect there is no reason I should quit. I enjoy eating meat, I get a lot of amino acids out of meat that are difficult and expensive to get elsewhere, and I don't have to limit my restaurant choices. I completely agree that the cruelty that goes on in slaughter houses is wrong, but my choices won't change anything so I might as well keep things simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

If I stopped eating meat today, and because of it all slaughter houses were shutdown tomorrow, I would totally do it. But that isn't the case. Since my choice won't have any effect there is no reason I should quit. I enjoy eating meat, I get a lot of amino acids out of meat that are difficult and expensive to get elsewhere, and I don't have to limit my restaurant choices. I completely agree that the cruelty that goes on in slaughter houses is wrong, but my choices won't change anything so I might as well keep things simple.

---

However you are still partially responsible. If you find yourself with a group of people who happen to be beating a complete stranger, does the fact that your stopping won't end the violence mean that you shouldn't stop, since it won't make much difference?

Your choice does have a direct effect, even if you don't see it immediately. It has a number of effects actually but I'm too lazy to write them all out. Most obvious though is that if you don't eat those animals, less animals will be killed. Several hundred less chickens will be killed.

And if you enjoy eating meat that's fine too in my opinion. But eat less of it and buy free range. Buying free range might have even more of an effect. It's true that people will likely never stop eating meat as a whole, but it would be very possible for us to get all of our meat from free range animals. This would dramatically reduce the amount of suffering involved. I dunno if you've looked at the number of chickens who live their entire lives in cages just so we can eat them. Something like 8 billion a year.

I think the problem is that some people see this statistically, and others see it by a sort of case by case basis. Some see that saving 1 chicken is almost equivalent to saving 1 human - important. However, others see that saving 1 chicken is equivalent to saving 1 dollar when you're a millionaire - unimportant. So the question is, why do some people value the life of unseen, individual animals of an extremely large colony and others don't?

Relating it to the money analogy, such a millionaire wouldn't care about a few dollars.... until he's almost broke, then he will. And the corresponding people won't care about organisms of which there are an apparently endless supply of (whether real or imagined). I truly think people are seeing things, like chickens, in this way.

They see them as objects for their use rather than as sentient creatures that have experiences.

I'm too drunk to write an intellectual response, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Most obvious though is that if you don't eat those animals, less animals will be killed. Several hundred less chickens will be killed.

---

Is complete bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

I'm too drunk to write an intellectual response, but...

Is complete bullshit.

---

Supply and demand. If less people are buying meat there's gonna be less demand for it. Even if it doesn't make a very visible difference, it still changes things. If people all around the world all started eating the amount of meat we eat in america, the amount of animals killed would drastically increase. This is even starting to happen as china and india build stronger economies. Conversely, if people in america started eating less meat the amount produced will go down. You don't even have to stop eating meat to create change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StonedApe

Supply and demand. If less people are buying meat there's gonna be less demand for it. Even if it doesn't make a very visible difference, it still changes things. If people all around the world all started eating the amount of meat we eat in america, the amount of animals killed would drastically increase. This is even starting to happen as china and india build stronger economies. Conversely, if people in america started eating less meat the amount produced will go down. You don't even have to stop eating meat to create change.

---

Just because you and random Joe#2571231254 will stop eating meat, that won't be less demand. There will always be more and more demand.

Also, lol at your focus on america. So you want other countries to eat less meat, but not america... what an idea.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...schinameat.PNG
You sir, have no idea what you're talking about.... You just lost all credibility with that post....

Jesus, what happened in the 1980s in China? ;o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I think the problem is that some people see this statistically, and others see it by a sort of case by case basis. Some see that saving 1 chicken is almost equivalent to saving 1 human - important. However, others see that saving 1 chicken is equivalent to saving 1 dollar when you're a millionaire - unimportant. So the question is, why do some people value the life of unseen, individual animals of an extremely large colony and others don't?

Relating it to the money analogy, such a millionaire wouldn't care about a few dollars.... until he's almost broke, then he will. And the corresponding people won't care about organisms of which there are an apparently endless supply of (whether real or imagined). I truly think people are seeing things, like chickens, in this way.

---

I think this is a great point. Eating meat or not eating meat is indicative of a larger philosophical difference. To further elaborate on what you said, I think it can be broken down into two different beliefs. First, whether a person either values the lives (or suffering) of domesticated animals or not. Second, a person can believe either that individual choices are meaningful or that they make little difference in the larger scheme of things.

On the first point, in his book I Am A Strange Loop, Douglas R. Hofstader explains humans' treatment of rights (to both humans and animals) as an ever-widening circle of consciousness. Years ago, this included only wealthy, white, male, property owners. A wealthy, white male in the 1800's only viewed other wealthy, white men as similar to himself and thus worthy of rights. Women, other ethnicities, and people of lower class were considered inferior and valued less. Gradually, with the advancement of civil rights that circle expanded to include women, all ethnic groups, and all income groups. Most people would agree that all humans - regardless of social status, gender, or race - are equally deserving of rights and their lives and suffering should all be equally valued. As society progress, the circle continues to expand, now to LGBT rights and even animal rights. Most people at least include dogs, cats, and other such pets in the circle and would agree that these animals should not be caused needless suffering and that their lives should be valued. Some people's circles extend further to perhaps include all mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish. Most people would at least end the circle at insects. Even vegetarians, who value lives and won't kill a fish for food, won't think twice about swatting a mosquito just out of annoyance. If you are a Jainist or Buddhist monk, your circle might extend to all living creatures including insects and animals. For instance, the Dalai Lama speaks of casually watching mosquitoes bite his arm. Whether you believe the lives of individual animals depends on where you draw this line.

As for the second point, whether someones value individual decisions or not may partly be based on what culture or religion one is raised in. Also, this may depend on how someone views statistics. In 2009, the number of animals slaughtered for the average American meat-eater was 198, which is about 15,000 animals per American per lifetime. A person who values individual choice and individual animal's lives will view the 15,000 animals saved by abstaining for meat as statistically significant. Someone who does not value individual choice, would view the 15,000 as statistically insignificant compared to the amount of animals slaughtered total. In 2009, 33.3 million cows alone were killed for consumption by Americans. In addition to this, between sociological and biological forces, the media, government, etc, it is sometimes hard to see where individual choice even comes into play, let alone the question of free will. However, if we concede that our individual choices have little to no impact on the world around this and follow this point to the logical conclusion, this can lead to hedonistic or nihilistic philosophies.

Also, another point I see brought up around the vegetarianism debate is whether or not humans are evolved or designed to eat meat. Although interesting, I find this point irrelevant to the ethics of meat eating. As Richard Dawkins said, is doesn't equal ought. Just because humans have evolved to do something, doesn't mean they should . Ethics is study of how sentient beings should act based on reason, categorical imperatives, divine law, or utility - not how genetics designed us to act.

So the real question is not whether we should or should not eat meat - but why should individual animals lives be valued and do individual choices make an impact to human society and the world at large?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LikesToTrip

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/i...schinameat.PNG
You sir, have no idea what you're talking about.... You just lost all credibility with that post....

---

What do you mean? That backs up what I said? What of any of the things I've said have you shown to be wrong? If more people eat meat there is more demand for meat(exactly what the graph shows), if less people eat meat there is less demand. It's really simple. If you stop eating meat then the demand will be less than what it would be if you don't. Less demand, less slaughter. On top of this, whether it effects the demand or not doesn't change the fact that you currently are in part responsible for maintaining that system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Just because you and random Joe#2571231254 will stop eating meat, that won't be less demand. There will always be more and more demand.

Also, lol at your focus on america. So you want other countries to eat less meat, but not america... what an idea.

---

There is less demand than if we did. This is about as basic as economics gets.

And I said that americans should eat less meat. I was just pointing out that india and china have started eating much more meat in the past few years due to the increase in the level of wealth there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

If you are a Jainist or Buddhist monk, your circle might extend to all living creatures including insects and animals. For instance, the Dalai Lama speaks of casually watching mosquitoes bite his arm. Whether you believe the lives of individual animals depends on where you draw this line.

---

He actually is somewhat vague on this subject. I've heard him say the opposite. I think it depends on who asks the question and in what context.

It just depends on the threshold for change in demand. I'm quite intoxicated, so forgive me for my poor explanation. If Zoe stopped eating meat, whilst that'd literally be less demand from the consumer, that does not translate at a 1:1 ratio with less demand from the 'retailer' or outlet. That is to say, unless the outlet demands less, then the amount of slaughter will be unaffected. Thus, it depends on what the outlet's definition of a 'substantial decrease in purchases' is, that is... what they class as a threshold to alter demand.

If there was no middle man, the outlet, and it was like this: Farm ----> Consumer, and the farm only killed to provide directly for consumer, rather than some outlet expected figure range, then yeah... eating less would affect slaughter rate. But it's not that simple. You'd need a lot of people, buying their meat from the same store, to give up eating meat to reduce slaughter. Basically, the power lays in the outlets to reduce slaughter, and this can only be 'helped' if a sufficient amount of customers stop buying from one store.

Not sure if i'm being clear....

I've a rant

I NEED protein with every meal. But Texas isn't exactly vegan friendly. My vegan friend skips a lot of meals. Or when she does eat out and about in the real world, theres no protein in the meal. I'm finding this to be true of every vegan and vegetarian I've personally met. They end up in a real world situation where they're hungry, but there's no vegetable protein. So they either don't eat or just eat carbs.

There have been times when I went without a meal or without protein, and the result was I got so dizzy my heart was racing. For health reasons, I don't want to skip a meal or go without protein.

I cook MORE vegetarian meals than my vegan friend. Not to mention I eat more beans and vegetarian protein. But I'm still struggling finding the time to prepare every meal. (not to mention I just dont know how to cook) I'm not the only one. Lots of vegans and vegetarians are struggling in a time constraint world, or like me, they don't really know how to cook! So a lot of them eat highly processed vegetable textured protein.

But I find that stuff to be complete crap.

I've always been slightly anemic. But now I'm worried its no longer slight. I've completely cut out red meat, more than halved the amount of chicken, doubled vegetable protein and dark leafy greens, and I'm showing more and more iron deficiency signs. I'm no expert on this, but so far I've been told women need a higher intake of iron? And that vegetable sources of iron are harder to absorb?Does that mean its easier for men to be vegetarian and be healthy?

All the moral arguments against the raising of animals for meat is valid.

But, I also want to be healthy, and thats not coming by so easy.

Honestly - as far as eating meat goes... I don't think it's wrong by itself. It's the food chain... The grass eats the light, the bugs eat the grass, the birds eat the bugs, the cats eat the birds...
Humans eat the cow that eats the grass that eats the light. It's not the most wonderful aspect of nature, but it is still nature.

Then there's the condition that our livestock is kept in. It's easy to blame corporations for things like this. But we also need to think about how it's also the consumer's fault in a way. We, as consumers, want to pay low prices for the products we consume. In order to bring us lower prices and compete in the market - companies need to cut costs. The best way to cut costs in livestock is to get as many animals in as little space, feeding them as little food as possible. Basically, to give the animals the cheapest living conditions. This is similar to what we're seeing with outsourcing. People want to get mad when they lose all the jobs to another country, but they don't want to spend money on products made in the U.S.A when products from other countries are cheaper. I guess we could all switch to organic foods, but we won't, especially in this economy... Families don't have the money to make that change...

This kind of reminds me of a quote from The Matrix...

Quote:

---

I'd like to share a revelation I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet

---

We consume not only the resources around us, but we consider other life forms resources, and we manipulate them to meet our needs.
And it's kind of true... Other species' tend to find balance and die out and evolve with the earth. But humans have something different... Intelligence - Our intelligence allows us to convert the earths elements into things like metal, plastic, concrete, etc... As we erect cities, we destroy the natural environments that once stood there. And as we multiply, our cities get bigger, and cover different parts of the earth. If we ever make it to space travel, we will infect new planets and spread all throughout them as well. I honestly believe that if humans are unsuccessful in travelling to and settling on new planets, then overpopulation and polution will not only be the death of the human race, but of the entire planet.

This is not a trait of humans alone. This is something that happens when a life form becomes intelligent. The ability to know how to control the environment ultimately leads to the destruction of the environment for the gain of the species.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/gal...0358c70976.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

It just depends on the threshold for change in demand. I'm quite intoxicated, so forgive me for my poor explanation. If Zoe stopped eating meat, whilst that'd literally be less demand from the consumer, that does not translate at a 1:1 ratio with less demand from the 'retailer' or outlet. That is to say, unless the outlet demands less, then the amount of slaughter will be unaffected. Thus, it depends on what the outlet's definition of a 'substantial decrease in purchases' is, that is... what they class as a threshold to alter demand.

If there was no middle man, the outlet, and it was like this: Farm ----> Consumer, and the farm only killed to provide directly for consumer, rather than some outlet expected figure range, then yeah... eating less would affect slaughter rate. But it's not that simple. You'd need a lot of people, buying their meat from the same store, to give up eating meat to reduce slaughter. Basically, the power lays in the outlets to reduce slaughter, and this can only be 'helped' if a sufficient amount of customers stop buying from one store.

Not sure if i'm being clear....

---

There's truth to this, but every economic decision you make has an impact, even if it's relatively small. This is coupled with the fact that this impact builds over time. I don't know if the numbers someone else posted in this thread are accurate, but they said that by not eating meat you reduce the number of animals killed by 198 per year. This alone may not have a very strong impact on the amount of beef that the local grocery store buys, but over your entire lifetime this adds up to about 15,000 animals. This is multiplied by the number of vegetarians. This obviously has some effect on the market, even if it's canceled out by all the people in china who now have money and can afford beef. If all the vegetarians in the world ate meat as well the demand would be higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreiHundert

And it's kind of true... Other species' tend to find balance and die out and evolve with the earth. But humans have something different... Intelligence - Our intelligence allows us to convert the earths elements into things like metal, plastic, concrete, etc... As we erect cities, we destroy the natural environments that once stood there. And as we multiply, our cities get bigger, and cover different parts of the earth. If we ever make it to space travel, we will infect new planets and spread all throughout them as well. I honestly believe that if humans are unsuccessful in travelling to and settling on new planets, then overpopulation and polution will not only be the death of the human race, but of the entire planet.

This is not a trait of humans alone. This is something that happens when a life form becomes intelligent. The ability to know how to control the environment ultimately leads to the destruction of the environment for the gain of the species.

---

I disagree. It's not intelligence that leads to this but a loss of connection with nature. This to me is what spirituality is, a deeply felt connection with the universe. People lose their sense of the interconnectedness of things and abuse the environment. This is not intelligent behaviour. This is greed, this is power. This is the stupidity of modern man perpetuated by destructive and corrupt governments. If a person really thinks about the world around them and the effects of what they are doing they will realize that it is not beneficial to the species in the long run to abuse the environment that we are completely dependent on. Doing what feels good in the moment without consideration for what will happen in the future is not intelligent behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RationalMystic

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.

---

I would just like to point out that pigs (and cephalopods) are also very intelligent. Yet pork is one of the most consumed meats in the world. I don't think intelligence has much to do with it. Maybe that could be the case with chimpanzees, but I imagine pigs were just easy to domesticate. Leave out some table scraps and a trap, and poof! You got yourself a couple of pigs.

I know pigs are smart, I owned one. But I still eat them. They're so damn tasty. If dolphin meat was in my tuna cans, I'd still eat that too. I wouldn't go out and specifically purchase dolphin meat though--not that I could. Nor would I want to eat animals whose numbers were dwindling. Generally an animal's intelligence doesn't have an effect on me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

It just depends on the threshold for change in demand. I'm quite intoxicated, so forgive me for my poor explanation. If Zoe stopped eating meat, whilst that'd literally be less demand from the consumer, that does not translate at a 1:1 ratio with less demand from the 'retailer' or outlet. That is to say, unless the outlet demands less, then the amount of slaughter will be unaffected. Thus, it depends on what the outlet's definition of a 'substantial decrease in purchases' is, that is... what they class as a threshold to alter demand.

If there was no middle man, the outlet, and it was like this: Farm ----> Consumer, and the farm only killed to provide directly for consumer, rather than some outlet expected figure range, then yeah... eating less would affect slaughter rate. But it's not that simple. You'd need a lot of people, buying their meat from the same store, to give up eating meat to reduce slaughter. Basically, the power lays in the outlets to reduce slaughter, and this can only be 'helped' if a sufficient amount of customers stop buying from one store.

Not sure if i'm being clear....

---

This makes sense, and I can see why this would be a deterrent to some people in becoming a vegetarian. Conversely, collective choices are made of individual choices. If a significant amount of people did stop eating meat, then this would result in a decrease in slaughter. The first step in that reduction is an individual making the choice not to eat meat. Personally, even if my vegetarianism did not reduce the amount of animals slaughtered at all, I would still abstain from meat. I don't want to participate in a system I disagree with morally. Killing sentient beings would weigh heavy on my conscience and hinder me from cultivating compassion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I've a rant

I NEED protein with every meal. But Texas isn't exactly vegan friendly. My vegan friend skips a lot of meals. Or when she does eat out and about in the real world, theres no protein in the meal. I'm finding this to be true of every vegan and vegetarian I've personally met. They end up in a real world situation where they're hungry, but there's no vegetable protein. So they either don't eat or just eat carbs.

There have been times when I went without a meal or without protein, and the result was I got so dizzy my heart was racing. For health reasons, I don't want to skip a meal or go without protein.

---

I understand this. I am hypoglycemic, and if a skip a meal or go too long without receiving adequate nutrition, then I get extremely dizzy and cranky, and can end up passing out. When I was vegan and extremely busy, I did have a problem finding food out in the world. This is one of the main reasons I gave up veganism and went back to just vegetarian. However, being vegetarian, with a little planning, I don't have a problem getting adequate nutrition and eating every meal, even when I am on the go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

I cook MORE vegetarian meals than my vegan friend. Not to mention I eat more beans and vegetarian protein. But I'm still struggling finding the time to prepare every meal. (not to mention I just dont know how to cook) I'm not the only one. Lots of vegans and vegetarians are struggling in a time constraint world, or like me, they don't really know how to cook! So a lot of them eat highly processed vegetable textured protein.

But I find that stuff to be complete crap.

I've always been slightly anemic. But now I'm worried its no longer slight. I've completely cut out red meat, more than halved the amount of chicken, doubled vegetable protein and dark leafy greens, and I'm showing more and more iron deficiency signs. I'm no expert on this, but so far I've been told women need a higher intake of iron? And that vegetable sources of iron are harder to absorb?Does that mean its easier for men to be vegetarian and be healthy?

All the moral arguments against the raising of animals for meat is valid.

But, I also want to be healthy, and thats not coming by so easy.

---

Being vegetarian, (or just eating healthy and reducing your meat intake) is time consuming and does require a lot of cooking. One thing I would suggest incorporating into your diet is green smoothies. Throwing the veggies into the blender makes the nutrients and fibers more easily digestible. Also, if you are struggling with iron intake, why not take an iron supplement? You also mentioned protein and TVP - are you eating only vegetables for added protein, or are you incorporating tofu, nuts, and other protein sources? Do you think TVP is crap because it is so processed or you just don't like the taste? If the taste or texture is the issue, you might not be preparing it right. You can PM me if you want detailed instructions on how to prepare the TVP (I use it to make delicious vegetarian enchiladas, tacos, and chili), or if you need any vegetarian recipes or cooking tips or questions in general. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hermine_hesse

This makes sense, and I can see why this would be a deterrent to some people in becoming a vegetarian. Conversely, collective choices are made of individual choices. If a significant amount of people did stop eating meat, then this would result in a decrease in slaughter. The first step in that reduction is an individual making the choice not to eat meat. Personally, even if my vegetarianism did not reduce the amount of animals slaughtered at all, I would still abstain from meat. I don't want to participate in a system I disagree with morally. Killing sentient beings would weigh heavy on my conscience and hinder me from cultivating compassion.

---

Yeah, so the question then is not whether your individual abstinence will make any difference, which is the typical argument for many things. The reality is, at least with this issue, it will not make a difference. It will not reduce slaughter in any fashion. However, if this is the only reason why someone is not abstaining, then they should try to accept that no difference alone will be made, but that if everyone who said that decided to abstain, a real change would occur. I think a large problem with these sorts of things is that people feel individual and detached and view the world as individualised rather than viewing it holistically... and unless such people feel part of the whole, an increase in consensus change won't come about.

The moral aspect interests me - at what point did you develop this morality, and are your immediate family meat eaters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

Yeah, so the question then is not whether your individual abstinence will make any difference, which is the typical argument for many things. The reality is, at least with this issue, it will not make a difference. It will not reduce slaughter in any fashion. However, if this is the only reason why someone is not abstaining, then they should try to accept that no difference alone will be made, but that if everyone who said that decided to abstain, a real change would occur. I think a large problem with these sorts of things is that people feel individual and detached and view the world as individualised rather than viewing it holistically... and unless such people feel part of the whole, an increase in consensus change won't come about.

The moral aspect interests me - at what point did you develop this morality, and are your immediate family meat eaters?

---

Yes, all of my immediate family are meat eaters. I live in Louisiana, so food is very much apart of the culture here. Most people around where I live don't even understand the concept of vegetarianism. The reaction I usually get is "What?! You don't eat meat?! So, do you just eat seafood?" (Imagine that said in a country accent) Luckily, my girlfriend (who I live with and isn't vegetarian) is very supportive and will eat vegetarian meals when I cook them.

I first became vegetarian when I was 17. I gave up meat mainly based on the treatment of animals in factory farms, plus the environmental reasons I stated earlier. I stayed vegetarian for about four years, but gave it up after actually visiting a factory farm and it not being as horrific as I expected. Although I agree that many of the treatment of animals is inhumane, much of it is not as bad as PETA makes it out to be. At this point, I went back to eating meat, and continued to do so for about five years, with a few bouts of vegetarianism. During the past two years, I made some major lifestyle changes and have had more time to reflect on my ethics and viewpoints regarding the world in general. During this time, I rededicated myself to meditation, lucid dreaming, and studying Tibetan Buddhism. I devoted myself to practicing compassion, ahimsa, and avoiding the ten non-virtues. Knowing that I was capable of being a vegetarian, I felt I could not justify eating meat when it was something unnecessary for my health or well being. (I realized this also meant I would have to give up buying leather and other animals based goods, which has actually proved more of a challenge to me). I actually began to feel guilty when I ate meat. At this point, I actually went vegan for about four months. Veganism was much harder to maintain, and I let that go when I took a second job during the holidays. Vegetarianism is very much a personal, religious decision for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlezoe

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.

---

If half of the meat-eating world stopped eating meat, meat production would reduce by approximately half. That's how supply and demand works.

No one "buys a share of meat" for each vegetarian out there. I don't go out and purchase MORE steaks every time someone I know becomes a vegetarian. That's an absurd thing to do!

Last night I made for myself steak, asperagus, cheese bread, and mac 'n cheese. I had my steak extra rare (rip off the horns and serve it up!).

On the note of whether or not vegetarianism/veganism makes any difference, I find that supply and demand possibly isn't the biggest deal. One person not eating meat is probably not going to cause any real difference. The producers of the meat can't see that one person no longer buying their products, so they will not react by slaughtering less.

However, I think it is sort of like a protest. It's a way to advocate animal rights and it is a way to educate others. For example, I had no idea that humans were anatomically built as a herbivore, and personally I think that changes my perspective on things. And I learned that solely because a person had decided to be vegan and to advocate these views. I don't think it is that much about making a change here and now, (although the eventual improvement depends on us also aiming for an immediate change) but more about showing people that this is a way that we can go.

We'll never reach change without pioneers. I think this particular issue is a daunting one, and one that probably won't be changed any time soon, which is of course pretty horrible. But maybe some time in the future, who knows? Maybe we'll all be vegan and it'll be perfectly reasonable when the time comes.

I'm not far off becoming vegetarian... just need to find a collection of delicious, really delicious, vegetarian dishes I can rely on. I know I feel better, mentally and physically. And the fact we're anatomically built as a herbivore is something to go on. I'll try it out again.

Thing is with veganism:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...as-a-vegan.jpg

From what I see, eating meat doesn't seem very moral, if you add where it comes from and how it died to the equation.

I don't think the small number of people not eating meat will change anything, but some might view as more of a personal thing and don't want to include themselves in what they consider wrong. For that I applaud them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

If half of the meat-eating world stopped eating meat, meat production would reduce by approximately half. That's how supply and demand works.

No one "buys a share of meat" for each vegetarian out there. I don't go out and purchase MORE steaks every time someone I know becomes a vegetarian. That's an absurd thing to do!

---

Children is born every day, a lot of them. They grow up over time and the family will need to buy more meat than before. They'll buy the vegatarians' share ;D

Honestly believing that half the world or hell, even 1/3 of the world would stop eating meat... really naive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Children is born every day, a lot of them. They grow up over time and the family will need to buy more meat than before. They'll buy the vegatarians' share ;D

Honestly believing that half the world or hell, even 1/3 of the world would stop eating meat... really naive.

---

Implying that if one person stops eating food, people will start having more children to eat their share of meat?

I don't think it is naive to think that it could happen sometime in the future. If your sole argument against something is that the future of a vision is bleak, then I don't think that's a very good argument. You could have applied that same argument against pretty much damn everything throughout history and you'd have been advocating a zero-progress-ever stance. Abolishing slavery? Holy fuck, do you have any idea how much society relies on slavery? Completely unrealistic that we'll ever abolish that, so why even try. EDIT: Someone else will just enslave your share of blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maeni

Implying that if one person stops eating food, people will start having more children to eat their share of meat?

---

This sentence was enough for me to know that you don't even understand my argument ;)

Okay sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by littlezoe

Children is born every day, a lot of them. They grow up over time and the family will need to buy more meat than before. They'll buy the vegatarians' share ;D

---

OK. So let's just do nothing at all and let everything go terrible. Why should I recycle if I know other people won't? Why should I use less electricity if I know other people won't? Why should I do anything at all? Why? Because I don't rationalize reasons to drain our only planet of its resources. I'd rather not be "that guy" who ruins it for everyone else. (If meat consumption continues down it's current path, it'll be just a few decades before ALL of the land in China and India are required for farmland. They're even running out of water for their livestock.)

Plus, population growth in post-industrial societies balances out with the death rate over time. Our most advanced societies are approaching equilibrium, and they're able to actually make logical decisions about it.

I don't see what's so hard about splitting a 12 ounce steak with someone else, and then just eating more vegetables. You're already reducing your meat consumption by half, you STILL get to eat a steak, and it's healthier to eat a smaller portion of meat than vegetables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

I'm not far off becoming vegetarian... just need to find a collection of delicious, really delicious, vegetarian dishes I can rely on. I know I feel better, mentally and physically. And the fact we're anatomically built as a herbivore is something to go on. I'll try it out again.

Thing is with veganism:

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets...as-a-vegan.jpg

---

The reason we use byproducts for so many things, is because farms need to sell byproducts.

That may be the case. Though this doesn't change the fact that a vegan cannot be a vegan if he/she buys/uses anything listed above, no?

It appears veganism, based on your insight, is then dependent on the success of widespread vegetarianism.

Also, it is possible (albeit extremely difficult and perhaps costly) to avoid buying all of those products and be a true vegan. There is unrefined sugar, vegan clothing, cruelty-free cosmetics and beauty products, vegan detergents, etc. You could probably find vegan replacements for most of these products at a good Whole Foods.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolfwood

That may be the case. Though this doesn't change the fact that a vegan cannot be a vegan if he/she buys/uses anything listed above, no?

---

True. Though I tend not to see it as black and white. They're making an effort to protecting animals, the environment, other people. Eating less meat and using less products is better, and I suppose abstaining at all is best, though it isn't practical (especially on a college kid college debt budget). So for now, less is better. I'd rather have everyone eating less meat and treating animals right, raising them in a sustainable way, than eating no meat at all. But I haven't honestly decided whether or not it's alright to create consciousness for the sole purpose of destroying it for its flesh. I mean, in the end we all die. That's the current system. But what if it wasn't?

Yeah, I'm just saying that because farms have these 'other bits' to sell, then irrespective of how many people were vegans, it would not reduce the amount of the above 'other bits' supply. Why? Because the animals are being slaughtered for those who eat meat. Thus, it is dependent on widespread vegetarianism. You see, less is better as a vegetarian as it could be argued that less eating of meat causes some reduction in animal slaughter. However, it is only this reduction, that will (based on what you said before) reduce the amount of 'other bits' sold. Less use of animal-based products won't reduce animal slaughter: it requires less animal slaughter from a decent level of vegetarianism. That is to say, the assumption is that the amount of animal products is strictly modulated by the 'spare bits' that come from the level of meat-eating. Therefore, only that which reduces meat-eating (vegetarianism) can reduce the 'spare bits'.

Understandably, if anyone is being a vegan purely for their own conscience, then this is irrelevant. Well, no, you can sleep well at night with no guilt on you, but the reality is that the animals are still being slaughtered in the same number. Surely the reality matters more than one's conscience in such matters? And so I still hold: what is the purpose if you cannot bring about any change whatsoever? At least vegetarianism can.

Being a vegan shouldn't just be a shift of guilt from one's conscience.

(edit: lol repeated myself about 4 times, but meh).

Not to mention, while all the meat is used as meat, we have a surplus of other bits. We put chickens in landfills sometimes, or churn them up into fertilizer (while letting the shit run off into water supplies). It's nuts.

Even after that thread I made yesterday, I can't bring myself to feel anything bad about eating meat. In fact, meat feels good to eat. I can't argue with reinforcement. I can't change how I feel directly. So I abstain because I think it's wrong for a bunch of reasons, not because I feel bad.

Also, what about eggs? They take way more energy to produce per pound than beef (so, bad for the environment), and they condone the abuse and slaughter of chickens and chicks.

I can't work out - do you eat meat or not?

I just think that choosing to not do something because it feels wrong to the individual is not virtuous, if it does not bring about a global change. That is, feeling no guilt because one does not partake in something is not good for the cause - it's avoidant behaviour.

Those who do care wouldn't simply avoid consumption of meat products or use of animal products, they would attempt to change the actual affairs/methods in an active way. This is virtuous for it extends beyond one's conscience to empathasing with the suffering of the animals. Do you see what I'm getting at? I'm not sure I am myself hehe. I know one can tenably argue that avoidant behaviour with vegetarianism can work, but such behaviour with veganism does nothing but satisfy one's conscience. And there's no great inherent virtue in that.

I eat, as an upper limit, a serving of meat every other week. Like if I'm at a restaurant with a shit menu for vegetarians. Or if someone offers leftovers. I've replaced milk for delicious dark chocolate almond milk, and I hardly eat eggs. Cheese is the hardest for me to give up, though I've been using less. Goddamnit Wisconsin.

I see what you're saying. And I am a vegetarian who wants to change the world. I just don't find any use in feeling guilty after/during meat consumption. "You already fucking bought it, so you better eat it and enjoy it, for all the shit making it did." I think we feel similarly about guilt and conscience, but coming at it from different angles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Abra

I've replaced milk for delicious dark chocolate almond milk.

---

Never heard of that. Sounds amazingly delicious.

I only read the OP but I agree it probably has something to do with Tradition, because it was a lot harder a long time ago to be able to make it through winter and life on only vegetation.

But I also think that if your arguing that we shouldn't judge from intelligence then we shouldn't really judge plants from animals either, in my PO