Will people ever stop abusing animals?

[lucksack]

Most smart people seem to (in my experience) agree that breeding, keeping in prison and killing (etc.) animals just to get food that tastes better is wrong. So will we ever stop doing it? What will the situation be in, say, a few hundred years?

Some options:
a) Everything will be about the same as now.
b) Maybe animals have more space, bigger cages, a little better food etc. but we still breed them just to kill&eat them.
c) Practically no animals have to suffer, and we don't eat animal products except in special circumstances (like if an animal dies naturally).
d) Eating meat is considered gross and most people won't even consider it except if their life depends on it.

Personally, I think that IF we abandon religions which accept it and the welfare of people continues to grow, we'll eventually grow out of animal abuse. Other than that scenario (which seems pretty likely to me), I don't think there's any chance in hell.

[BluffTHIS!]

Meat eating by humans will never stop because:

1) It's in accord with nature where other animals besides humans eat each other.

2) God gave man dominion over the animals.

3) They're very tasty if cooked properly.

[DCopper04]

[ QUOTE ]
Most smart people seem to (in my experience) agree that breeding, keeping in prison and killing (etc.) animals just to get food that tastes better is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha

[ChrisV]

It isn't just because they taste better, its because a certain amount of meat is good in our diets. A friend of mine became a vegetarian some years back and had to go back to eating meat after he couldn't overcome lethargy caused by bad nutrition.

I think raising animals for food is morally OK as long as the animals are killed humanely and are treated well while alive. I have a problem with a number of current methods, particularly intensive pig farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_pig_farming). But I also have no time for animal liberation arguments which refuse to acknowledge that people are built to eat meat, and which don't distinguish between animals based on their sentience.

I would opt for (b) out of your options. This is already happening with legislation such as Arizona Prop 204 (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/11/10/pigs-win-bigger-pens-in-arizona-ballot-fight) and will continue to happen as the world gets wealthier and people grow more aware of the intelligence of animals like pigs.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ). There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever). This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[BluffTHIS!]

lucksack,

You also ignore the fact that even if we didn't raise animals for food in what are basically factories where they live their lives cheek to jowl until slaughter time, many animal populations in the wild would lack the natural predators necessary to keep them in check, even if that's only because humans killed off those predators to a large degree. And thus such animal populations could have a deleterious effect on the eco-system if we didn't hunt and kill them for food. You only need to look at deer populations to see the truth of this.

BTW, I am eating some delicious beef jerkey as I type this post. I can't and won't give it up.

[lucksack]

BluffTHIS!,

[ QUOTE ]
Meat eating by humans will never stop because:

1) It's in accord with nature where other animals besides humans eat each other.

2) God gave man dominion over the animals.

3) They're very tasty if cooked properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) This is a flawed argument. Do you see why? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to explain it right now, but if you think about it a little, probably you'll realize it yourself)
2) Correct, according to Bible and Christians. Atheists (for example) don't have this problem though.
3) Yes, that's the reason why we feel the need to abuse animals. But it isn't really an argument about why the abuse would be justified.

Also, I didn't address the "wild animal population"-problem (but I definitely know it exists, although I don't have expert knowledge about it), since I think keeping nature somewhat balanced and the huge, intentional abuse that is going on all the time are two very different things. Personally, I believe killing some wild animals every once in a while would be necessary, but as I said earlier, I'm not an expert on the subject and I don't exactly think it's a very important or interesting thing to think about.

Btw, I'm going to eat some delicious vegan soya sauce and pasta very soon. And I'm not even a vegan/vegetarist currently (although I'm considering the switch), I just think it tastes good and is very easy to cook.

[ShakeZula06]

Regardless if it's wrong or not, humans benefit from eating animals, and animals are more or less incapable of stopping it. For that simple reason I see humans eating other animals for a long long time. I also doubt religion has much to do with it at all.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
1) This is a flawed argument. Do you see why? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to explain it right now, but if you think about it a little, probably you'll realize it yourself)

[/ QUOTE ]


I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[SitNHit]

If humans didnt eat animals then hundreds of millions of jobs would be lost, so much more poverty, could star wars, who knows. Would have a unreal effect which is why its neccessary for us to eat meat, for us personally, for business, etc.

That is why animals, plants, oceans, exist. So we can keep living. They all play a part, you will realize we don't play a part in the world existing, but every little thing plays a part in US existing.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. All arguments of natural order are inherently fallacious if you don't have an imaginary authority to back them up.

[BluffTHIS!]

madnak,

Empirical observation is all that is necessary to prove natural order*.



*Note that I am not using the term "natural order" in the sense of moral prescriptions ordained in the natural law, but rather in the sense of "the natural order" which describes how things and creatures function naturally according to their nature, which means how the majority of a class of things/creatures operates and doesn't include abherrations found among a minority, or even those things like diseases which a majority might suffer at some time but which aren't in accord with the normal fucntioning of those organisms.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ).

There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever).

This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This opinion makes me cringe.

I'm not sure I can explain it exactly, but I find it an easy decision that I'd rather kill and eat an animal (as my teeth, stomach, and taste preferences "were designed to do") than take pills everyday.

Edit: added italics to the part I didn't mean literally.

[SitNHit]

I think people go wrong when they start taking extremes. I think vegans who never eat meat are just as bad as those who hunt for fun and abuse their power over animals. To be extreme in any way is unhealthy and bad for your health and humanity.

Things are meant to be done in moderation and control. Nobody could make a case for eating 18 pounds of meat a day just as nobody can make a case for eating no meat ever.

But everybody could make a case of having one or two sources of meat per day as a good variation of taste, great for your health and also provides jobs, etc.

[Metric]

In a few hundred years, either we'll be back in the stone age in which case eating meat will be essential, or we'll have zero qualms about eating meat because we can grow it directly without growing the rest of the animal along with it. Either way, your decendants will probably eat meat, basically since their bodies are naturally designed to want to.

"Growing out of animal abuse" is mainly a function of how convenient it becomes, which is mainly a function of how filthy stinking rich out society becomes.

[SitNHit]

Not to bring God into this discussion, but for those who do believe in the Biblical God, prolly dont think the human race as it is now and gets more evil by the second, will be around for too much longer, meaning hundreds of years. I just dont think we can keep becoming more immoral and just go on and on, so if God does exist and Salvation is his plan, we are soon coming to the point where our existance wont matter much cause the majority of the world will be Godless evil people who would never aknowledge any need or person except themselves.

So to be caught on on meat and global weather, just people discover new [censored] to obsess over.

Remember most people do believe in God so thats how most people think.

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever).

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that this proves the argument that we were designed to eat meat? If you have to take a pill to make up for things you aren't getting through your altered, unnatural diet, then you clearly have the wrong diet.

Sorry, I didn't make it to the top of the food chain to eat carrots. I eat meat, I don't plan to stop, and by the way, I shoot deer, ducks, geese, pigs, rabbits etc and I eat those too. They are delicious. Nothing I shoot suffers (i'm a good shot). The fact of the matter is, a human's natural diet contains at least some meat. It has for the last 10,000 years of evolution. I don't see it as animal abuse if they are killed humanely for the purpose of food. Someone abusing a dog or something out of pure meanness or cruelty is another matter, but shooting a cow in the head at the slaughterhouse is necessary for people to eat. And sorry, if it comes down to a person or a cow, the cow is losing in my book.

[Borodog]

It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them. The world has billions of chickens and tens (hundreds?) of millions of turkeys, cows, pigs, goats, etc. precisely because we eat them.

In fact, if you want to save endangered species, the best thing you could do for them is start eating them.

Mmm . . . the cheetah is delicious today.

[evil twin]

[ QUOTE ]
But everybody could make a case of having one or two sources of meat per day as a good variation of taste, great for your health and also provides jobs, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Our hunter gatherer ancestors certainly did not get "one or two" sources of meat per day. They would have got it occasionally, once or twice a week perhaps, very much depending on where they lived of course. Daily eating of fish is much more likely than daily eating of meat.

It's only with modern agriculture that we have been able to sustain the vast herds required for large populations to have meat every single day. Furthermore modern agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of global warming. Vast tracts of forest have been removed to make way for herds which emit large quantities of methane.

I have no problem with eating meat but I have a large problem with this idea that we need it multiple times a day.

[BluffTHIS!]

Boro,

Your logic is unassailable. Please write it up as an academic paper and submit it to the Fish and Wildlife Service. However I do have a question. How/where do you propose we raise humpack whales for market? Maybe the Great Lakes would work.

[David Sklansky]

The arguments against being a vegetarian may be good ones. But they have little to do with arguments that people should stick to fish or very humanely killed birds or mammals.

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think people go wrong when they start taking extremes. I think vegans who never eat meat are just as bad as those who hunt for fun and abuse their power over animals. To be extreme in any way is unhealthy and bad for your health and humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

All hunters in industrialized countries "hunt for fun."

It's poachers that are the problem, not hunters. There's a big difference between a hunter and a poacher.

The domestication of animals, both for food and other reasons, has been a part of the world culture for thousands of years.

The only forseable change is with genetic duplication or cloning, and that still means animal "prison" and death. We'll just be that much more efficient at it.

I think most "smart people" would agree that if there were a cost-effective way to treat animals for food in a more humane manner, everyone would be all for it. But no one wants to pay $75 for a half pound of ground round either.

Besides, in the case of veal, a little cruelty goes a long way for flavor.

[David Sklansky]

"I think most "smart people" would agree that if there were a cost-effective way to treat animals for food in a more humane manner, everyone would be all for it."

What about if the humane manner meant meat was 10% more expensive (and no more expensive to the poor)?

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
"I think most "smart people" would agree that if there were a cost-effective way to treat animals for food in a more humane manner, everyone would be all for it."

What about if the humane manner meant meat was 10% more expensive (and no more expensive to the poor)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's getting to where that's close to the case. Free-range organic chicken, for example, is certainly still more expensive than normal chicken, but the gap is getting narrower. 10% would be more than well worth it for the improved quality of meat you get with "humane" meat.

[SitNHit]

I dont think its smart people that would think that, I think its those that have more sensative feelings for other life forms then themselves. Meaning, do you care about this creature who has some of the same characteristics as you suffering, some dont , some do.

Some smart people dont, some smart do.

ITs like, would it make you feel bad to see a animal suffering in pain. Some just dont care, and some would make them feel really sad.

I root for the underdog and I feel bad if animals are abused, but I will never feel bad for eating them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

Your logic is unassailable. Please write it up as an academic paper and submit it to the Fish and Wildlife Service. However I do have a question. How/where do you propose we raise humpack whales for market? Maybe the Great Lakes would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I propose just-barely-whale-sized vats. We will grow them like veal, confined so that they will be especially tender.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Free-range organic chicken, for example, is certainly still more expensive than normal chicken

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you tell me exactly what "free-range organic" chicken is? The meat farmers sure as hell can't.

[arahant]

Probably, we'll still be eating them, because meat is part of a natural human diet, and is tasty.

In a few hundred years, though, maybe all our meet will be grown in a lab. Or maybe cows will be engineered to grow GENORMOUS, providing a million pounds of beef per cow...ergo, less animal suffering. Or maybe we can just engineer out anything that approaches sentience in the cows' brains.

On that note, shouldn't we be eating whales, in order to inflict suffering on the fewest number of sentient beings? Is whale meat any good? Is it marbled, or is all the fat on the outside?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless if it's wrong or not, humans benefit from eating animals, and animals are more or less incapable of stopping it. For that simple reason I see humans eating other animals for a long long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

A similar logic applies to predation within the human species.

[Skoob]

[ QUOTE ]
What about if the humane manner meant meat was 10% more expensive (and no more expensive to the poor)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on how much more "humane" the manner would be. It would have to be "worth it" for me to cough up an extra 10%. And, who would be the judge?

That was really my point. It's subjective. The means by which the meat is delivered to our table is the most cost effective means available while being "humane" (as defined by whatever government to which you currently swear allegiance).

If the extra 10% out of my pocket bought me 30% more humane treatment (if that were even possible to measure), I'm all for it. It's gotta be +EV. I'm not paying for moo-cow suites at the Bellagio and pain-free lethal injections following a facial and a pedicure just to satisfy a few PETA reactionaries.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless if it's wrong or not, humans benefit from eating animals, and animals are more or less incapable of stopping it. For that simple reason I see humans eating other animals for a long long time.

[/ QUOTE ]

A similar logic applies to predation within the human species.

[/ QUOTE ]
People will not always be incapable of defending themselves from other humans. I'm just answering the question posed in the OP, that being:
[ QUOTE ]
Will people ever stop abusing animals?

[/ QUOTE ]
the question was not-
[ QUOTE ]
Is it right for people to abuse animals?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not making any might makes right argument here.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ). There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever). This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because people may be able to subsist on only a vegetarian diet does not mean that people are not "built" to eat meat. The evolution of our teeth and digestive systems, and to a lesser extent our eyes, specifically say otherwise.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. All arguments of natural order are inherently fallacious if you don't have an imaginary authority to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have an authority to back it up that is in no way imaginary. It's called Biology.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ). There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever). This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because people may be able to subsist on only a vegetarian diet does not mean that people are not "built" to eat meat. The evolution of our teeth and digestive systems, and to a lesser extent our eyes, specifically say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the important part is the next one: So what? We are built to rape and kill as well. We are built to do many things, and luckily one of them is to have empathy and reason. Why do you think using our teeth or our peptidases is more important than using our empathy and reason?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. All arguments of natural order are inherently fallacious if you don't have an imaginary authority to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have an authority to back it up that is in no way imaginary. It's called Biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think biology is capitalized. Usually an unimportant point, but I am getting the vibe from your posts that its relevant in your case.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ). There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever). This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because people may be able to subsist on only a vegetarian diet does not mean that people are not "built" to eat meat. The evolution of our teeth and digestive systems, and to a lesser extent our eyes, specifically say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the important part is the next one: So what? We are built to rape and kill as well. We are built to do many things, and luckily one of them is to have empathy and reason. Why do you think using our teeth or our peptidases is more important than using our empathy and reason?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that it being recommended that vegetarians take dietary supplements to prevent several severe medical conditions that result from their dietary choice is also indicative of humans being "built" to eat meat.

Empathy and reason are absolutely fine, and if you want, more important than teeth and peptidases, if they don't interfere with survival. I'm all for more humane treatment of domesticated animals, but empathy and reason are not going to replace millions of years of evolutionary biology, at least not anytime soon.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. All arguments of natural order are inherently fallacious if you don't have an imaginary authority to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have an authority to back it up that is in no way imaginary. It's called Biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think biology is capitalized. Usually an unimportant point, but I am getting the vibe from your posts that its relevant in your case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not usually a grammar nit, but its should be it's.

What was the point of this post except to insult me, based on your "vibe" from two of my posts?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
people are built to eat meat

[/ QUOTE ]

This is simply incorrect. For example The American Dietetic Association says that a properly planned vegan diet presents no significant nutritional problems (according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Health_effects) ). There are a few nutrients that you have to be a little careful about, but they can be easily taken care of by for example eating a pill or two daily (or weekly or whatever). This "problem" is definitely MUCH smaller than some people claim. And by the way, many meat eaters certainly suffer from lack of some nutrients too.

[/ QUOTE ]
Because people may be able to subsist on only a vegetarian diet does not mean that people are not "built" to eat meat. The evolution of our teeth and digestive systems, and to a lesser extent our eyes, specifically say otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but the important part is the next one: So what? We are built to rape and kill as well. We are built to do many things, and luckily one of them is to have empathy and reason. Why do you think using our teeth or our peptidases is more important than using our empathy and reason?

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that it being recommended that vegetarians take dietary supplements to prevent several severe medical conditions that result from their dietary choice is also indicative of humans being "built" to eat meat.

Empathy and reason are absolutely fine, and if you want, more important than teeth and peptidases, if they don't interfere with survival. I'm all for more humane treatment of domesticated animals, but empathy and reason are not going to replace millions of years of evolutionary biology, at least not anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are ignoring my question. I've already granted that we are built to eat meat. So what? That doesn't mean we have to. We are built to fear snakes, built to worship Gods (controversially) and built to grossly overestimate small things and underestimate large things. I don't consider any of these 'factory specs' to be advantageous or beneficial to us right now. So, I will ask again...so WHAT if we are built to eat meat? Do we still need to? Definitely not. Is it right to? Thats debatable, but the debate is helped in NO way by the fact that we are built to eat meat.

Reason HAS replaced the years of evolution. We have vitamin supplements. We are no longer strictly dependent on cows or pigs or sheep. Of course we are still reliant on them, and I'm not making the argument that we need to shift to a vegetarian society. But the idea that we are built to eat meat has nothing to do with it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only see why someone infected with the intellectually barren ideology of political correctness would not wish to accept any natural order arguments in this situation so as not to accept them in other siutations regarding freely chosen human behaviours that you would wish to cast as "made that way".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try. All arguments of natural order are inherently fallacious if you don't have an imaginary authority to back them up.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have an authority to back it up that is in no way imaginary. It's called Biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think biology is capitalized. Usually an unimportant point, but I am getting the vibe from your posts that its relevant in your case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not usually a grammar nit, but its should be it's.

What was the point of this post except to insult me, based on your "vibe" from two of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]

That you seem to be worshipping at the altar of biology and evolution, things which I personally dislike both because of their absurdity and misapplication (eugenics, your position on eating meat) and how they prop up the anti-science crowds straw man.

Sorry for the misuse of 'it's.'

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring my question. I've already granted that we are built to eat meat. So what? That doesn't mean we have to. We are built to fear snakes, built to worship Gods (controversially) and built to grossly overestimate small things and underestimate large things. I don't consider any of these 'factory specs' to be advantageous or beneficial to us right now. So, I will ask again...so WHAT if we are built to eat meat? Do we still need to? Definitely not. Is it right to? Thats debatable, but the debate is helped in NO way by the fact that we are built to eat meat.

Reason HAS replaced the years of evolution. We have vitamin supplements. We are no longer strictly dependent on cows or pigs or sheep. Of course we are still reliant on them, and I'm not making the argument that we need to shift to a vegetarian society. But the idea that we are built to eat meat has nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My first response was to lucksack on his claim that humans being built to eat meat was "simply incorrect." His claim was entirely wrong and I felt I should point that out.

I'm not well suited to philosophical debates in general, including the ethics of eating meat, although I did delve into it briefly in my response to you. Can humans survive on a vegetarian diet and supplements? Of course we can, though perhaps not entirely on a global scale (as if we're doing that now anyway). I don't however see that as a justification for not eating meat.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
That you seem to be worshipping at the altar of biology and evolution, things which I personally dislike both because of their absurdity and misapplication (eugenics, your position on eating meat) and how they prop up the anti-science crowds straw man.

Sorry for the misuse of 'it's.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't think citing biological conclusions as as points about the biological implications of eating meat is worshiping it as some all-knowing deity.

I do agree with your points as they relate to political arena of debate, but I don't think that's how I was using them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You are ignoring my question. I've already granted that we are built to eat meat. So what? That doesn't mean we have to. We are built to fear snakes, built to worship Gods (controversially) and built to grossly overestimate small things and underestimate large things. I don't consider any of these 'factory specs' to be advantageous or beneficial to us right now. So, I will ask again...so WHAT if we are built to eat meat? Do we still need to? Definitely not. Is it right to? Thats debatable, but the debate is helped in NO way by the fact that we are built to eat meat.

Reason HAS replaced the years of evolution. We have vitamin supplements. We are no longer strictly dependent on cows or pigs or sheep. Of course we are still reliant on them, and I'm not making the argument that we need to shift to a vegetarian society. But the idea that we are built to eat meat has nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My first response was to lucksack on his claim that humans being built to eat meat was "simply incorrect." His claim was entirely wrong and I felt I should point that out.

I'm not well suited to philosophical debates in general, including the ethics of eating meat, although I did delve into it briefly in my response to you. Can humans survive on a vegetarian diet and supplements? Of course we can, though perhaps not entirely on a global scale (as if we're doing that now anyway). I don't however see that as a justification for not eating meat.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, THAT isn't the justification for not eating meat. The justification for not eating meat is that it causes the unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals, some of whom almost certainly feel pain and suffering, to various degrees.

The reason 'being able to subsist on an entirely vegetarian diet' is relevant is because it nicely counters the argument that we are built to eat meat and we need it to survive. We don't need it to survive, and the archaic traits that we developed in response to an entirely different environment are not always good indicators of right behavior.

And just to be clear, I'm not a vegetarian.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That you seem to be worshipping at the altar of biology and evolution, things which I personally dislike both because of their absurdity and misapplication (eugenics, your position on eating meat) and how they prop up the anti-science crowds straw man.

Sorry for the misuse of 'it's.'

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't think citing biological conclusions as as points about the biological implications of eating meat is worshiping it as some all-knowing deity.

I do agree with your points as they relate to political arena of debate, but I don't think that's how I was using them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I misunderstood you and I apologize. The reason I reacted as I did was because it is common for people with a working knowledge of evolution and biology to try and fit biological realities into their own pet moralities or ethical frameworks. Evolution is aimless, and biology doesn't care what we eat. We are built to eat meat because that was our niche. It has no moral implications. If eating meat is wrong, but we MUST eat meat, then we have a conflict. If eating meat is wrong and we do NOT have to eat meat, we shouldn't eat meat, even if tradition says otherwise.

You weren't making any of these sorts of moralizing statements, so I misunderstood you. But it does happen, about this and other topics. Look at homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't wrong because its unnatural, and it isn't RIGHT because its natural. Its right because people can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms, so even if no human had ever done it, ever before, and no animal anywhere else had either, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
No, THAT isn't the justification for not eating meat. The justification for not eating meat is that it causes the unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals, some of whom almost certainly feel pain and suffering, to various degrees.

The reason 'being able to subsist on an entirely vegetarian diet' is relevant is because it nicely counters the argument that we are built to eat meat and we need it to survive. We don't need it to survive, and the archaic traits that we developed in response to an entirely different environment are not always good indicators of right behavior.

And just to be clear, I'm not a vegetarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess my argument to this is, a small technological advance (dietary supplements) that makes a vegetarian diet possible is not a strong enough force to counter millions of years of evolution (and modern social structures) that have ingrained an almost primal instinct to eat meat. Even many of those who recognize and acknowledge the cruelty imposed on livestock find it hard to suppress that instinct. Individually it's difficult, as a society it's damn near impossible.

As an aside, I don't know and perhaps someone can link me to an applicable source, but I have a feeling that at least some of those supplements have animal sources.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Then I misunderstood you and I apologize. The reason I reacted as I did was because it is common for people with a working knowledge of evolution and biology to try and fit biological realities into their own pet moralities or ethical frameworks. Evolution is aimless, and biology doesn't care what we eat. We are built to eat meat because that was our niche. It has no moral implications. If eating meat is wrong, but we MUST eat meat, then we have a conflict. If eating meat is wrong and we do NOT have to eat meat, we shouldn't eat meat, even if tradition says otherwise.

You weren't making any of these sorts of moralizing statements, so I misunderstood you. But it does happen, about this and other topics. Look at homosexuality. Homosexuality isn't wrong because its unnatural, and it isn't RIGHT because its natural. Its right because people can do whatever they want in their own bedrooms, so even if no human had ever done it, ever before, and no animal anywhere else had either, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No apologies necessary. I misunderstood your comment to begin with, though it did hit me shortly after your reply that you weren't just being a grammar nit as to why I capitalized biology. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

My first two posts in this thread were only to point out flaws in lucksack's reasoning as far as biology went. I never meant to debate the evolution of morals, just state the physiological reasons for humans being omnivores.

I'm not always clear with points I try to make because I generally write rather poorly, not because I'm bad with logic.

[madnak]

Vegetarians don't need supplements to have a healthy diet. Not even close. Vegans frequently take supplements because it's easier than planning meals, but plenty of them don't. Calcium, iron, and the B vitamins definitely require planning, but not supplements. There are even some cultures that have been eating vegan diets for hundreds of years.

Add milk, eggs, and other animal products and it becomes easy. Add fish and poultry and it's outright beneficial. Eating red meat is not a health issue. Moreover, while meat eating was largely responsible for our brain development, biologically we aren't "built" to eat a steak every day. Foraging and gathering represented the main source of food for developing humans. Meat was eaten mostly during festivals and special events, and made up no more than 10% of the diet.

And of course, the "it's natural" argument has no validity anyhow. "Because it's natural" is not a logical reason to take an action. Nature is also not an architect - evolution works through a process of selection, in which adaptive traits are propagated. Hominids started as vegetarians - when we started eating meat it wasn't natural either, it was an anomaly. It was an anomaly, however, that provided nutrients for a bigger and better brain, and thus it was selected for. We are the result of a series of changes that were, at one point, "not natural." Finally, if you're applying the logic of a natural order, you should apply it consistently. Our entire environment is now unnatural. It is, for example, unnatural to live in a house and use a computer. So I'll hear your case when you're lying on a heap of furs in a cave somewhere.

[djoyce003]

Everyone's philosophical debate aside. In the foreseeable future, people will not stop eating meat as we know it today. It's quite possible FAR into the future that there will be some alternative to a big juicy steak, but currently it just isn't likely. People like big juicy steaks, and aren't about to stop eating them so a cow can go on eating grass indefinitely while humans eat cabbage and oatmeal.

Most people do not believe that cows for instance suffer unnecessarily. They live in fields, or feedlots. They are taken to the slaughterhouse and instantly killed via a bullet or pick to the brain. Since they are killed as humanely as something can be killed, people don't have a problem with it. There is some moral outcry to certain types of food (veal) for instance. That is more likely to be done away with before regular beef.

I don't want any animals to suffer unnecessarily either, but in my opinion, and I'm sure I'm in the majority, if an animal has to die for me to eat, then chances are, the animal is going to die. Since everyone in the general public is protected from the nuts and bolts of how this happens, there is a sense of detachment from the actual act of killing.

As I mentioned earlier, I also hunt and fish, and enjoy eating fish I catch, deer, pigs and ducks that I shoot. They taste good, and they represent something you can't buy in the grocery store. I kill them as humanely as possible and I don't feel the least bit guilty about it because I eat them. I completely disagree with killing animals simply for the sport of it. And yes, I realize that I don't have to shoot a deer to survive, so some might consider it sport. However, I eat the deer, so that's less cows that die. There's no difference to me, between shooting a deer to eat, or buying steaks to eat, that someone else had to kill.

[MaxWeiss]

Reason 3 is the only one that matters.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It must have been taught on the same day that humor was taught to you.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone's philosophical debate aside. In the foreseeable future, people will not stop eating meat as we know it today. It's quite possible FAR into the future that there will be some alternative to a big juicy steak, but currently it just isn't likely. People like big juicy steaks, and aren't about to stop eating them so a cow can go on eating grass indefinitely while humans eat cabbage and oatmeal.

Most people do not believe that cows for instance suffer unnecessarily. They live in fields, or feedlots. They are taken to the slaughterhouse and instantly killed via a bullet or pick to the brain. Since they are killed as humanely as something can be killed, people don't have a problem with it. There is some moral outcry to certain types of food (veal) for instance. That is more likely to be done away with before regular beef.

I don't want any animals to suffer unnecessarily either, but in my opinion, and I'm sure I'm in the majority, if an animal has to die for me to eat, then chances are, the animal is going to die. Since everyone in the general public is protected from the nuts and bolts of how this happens, there is a sense of detachment from the actual act of killing.

As I mentioned earlier, I also hunt and fish, and enjoy eating fish I catch, deer, pigs and ducks that I shoot. They taste good, and they represent something you can't buy in the grocery store. I kill them as humanely as possible and I don't feel the least bit guilty about it because I eat them. I completely disagree with killing animals simply for the sport of it. And yes, I realize that I don't have to shoot a deer to survive, so some might consider it sport. However, I eat the deer, so that's less cows that die. There's no difference to me, between shooting a deer to eat, or buying steaks to eat, that someone else had to kill.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, just outlaw the killing of animals, or the eating of animals. We aren't allowed to kill humans or eat humans, so most of us don't. Of course, most of us don't want to either. I'm not trying to compare killing humans to killing animals, of course, just trying to point out that "Its not gonna happen in the near future, so don't worry about it," has no real force. If we decided it was wrong to eat meat, and made it into law, it would happen. Is this likely? Of course not. Is it impossible, and therefore unworthy of discussion? Also no.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

It must have been taught on the same day that humor was taught to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be so sure that BT! was joking.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them. The world has billions of chickens and tens (hundreds?) of millions of turkeys, cows, pigs, goats, etc. precisely because we eat them.

In fact, if you want to save endangered species, the best thing you could do for them is start eating them.

Mmm . . . the cheetah is delicious today.

[/ QUOTE ]

By far the best response in this thread.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some animals have opted out of the deal, actually. Those are the ones (like Zebras) who refuse to to breed in captivity.

Very similar species (sub-species, more specifically) have chosen vastly different paths in the past. The wolves of millenia ago who trusted humans rather than feared them evolved into the dogs of today (the many millions of them) while their suspicious cousins, today's wolves, are facing extinction all over the world. This, despite the fact that wolves are superior to dogs both mentally and physically.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some animals have opted out of the deal, actually. Those are the ones (like Zebras) who refuse to to breed in captivity.

Very similar species (sub-species, more specifically) have chosen vastly different paths in the past. The wolves of millenia ago who trusted humans rather than feared them evolved into the dogs of today (the many millions of them) while their suspicious cousins, today's wolves, are facing extinction all over the world. This, despite the fact that wolves are superior to dogs both mentally and physically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, excellent. Did the Zebra Union meet and decide on this? I think you are taking the anthropomorphizing a little too far.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Most smart people seem to (in my experience) agree that breeding, keeping in prison and killing (etc.) animals just to get food that tastes better is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing like starting off a discussion with a wildly loaded sentence. Also, why does such a large portion of the veggie population use "it seems to me" whenever they talk? Grow some balls man.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some animals have opted out of the deal, actually. Those are the ones (like Zebras) who refuse to to breed in captivity.

Very similar species (sub-species, more specifically) have chosen vastly different paths in the past. The wolves of millenia ago who trusted humans rather than feared them evolved into the dogs of today (the many millions of them) while their suspicious cousins, today's wolves, are facing extinction all over the world. This, despite the fact that wolves are superior to dogs both mentally and physically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, excellent. Did the Zebra Union meet and decide on this? I think you are taking the anthropomorphizing a little too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Probably. Debating interspecies ethics never really goes very far /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's a deal we have with animals. We protect them, feed them, care for them, give them life in far, far, far greater numbers than would otherwise exist, and in exchange, we get to eat them.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense is this a deal we have with the animals??? Do the animals know of this deal and approve?? Did we barter with them for this right?? Did they give up indoor jacuzzies and we gave up clubbing them in order to kill them?

I just don't see the validity of claiming it's a "deal" we have with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some animals have opted out of the deal, actually. Those are the ones (like Zebras) who refuse to to breed in captivity.

Very similar species (sub-species, more specifically) have chosen vastly different paths in the past. The wolves of millenia ago who trusted humans rather than feared them evolved into the dogs of today (the many millions of them) while their suspicious cousins, today's wolves, are facing extinction all over the world. This, despite the fact that wolves are superior to dogs both mentally and physically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, excellent. Did the Zebra Union meet and decide on this? I think you are taking the anthropomorphizing a little too far.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Probably. Debating interspecies ethics never really goes very far /images/graemlins/wink.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I guess.

[lucksack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most smart people seem to (in my experience) agree that breeding, keeping in prison and killing (etc.) animals just to get food that tastes better is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nothing like starting off a discussion with a wildly loaded sentence. Also, why does such a large portion of the veggie population use "it seems to me" whenever they talk? Grow some balls man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I definitely should have written "smart people who know the facts and have thought about the question a little and do have a rational opinion on it (so no opinions based on, for example, religious beliefs)" or something like that. That said, I used the "seem to", because I haven't discussed this question with very many people and I do not know about any other statistics either.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]


2) God gave man dominion over the animals.



[/ QUOTE ]

No, man gave man dominion over the (other) animals.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess my argument to this is, a small technological advance (dietary supplements) that makes a vegetarian diet possible is not a strong enough force to counter millions of years of evolution (and modern social structures) that have ingrained an almost primal instinct to eat meat.

[/ QUOTE ]
Humans do not have a natural instinct to eat meat. I was raised completely without meat, and I have no desire to eat it. My body does not miss it, and I don't have cravings for something "missing". I am completely satisfied after a vegetarian meal. I've tried meat several times and I find it decidedly unpleasant. Your "instinct" to eat meat is the same as the "instinct" that makes me dislike it. It's the same "instinct" that makes kids fall in love with McDonalds or Jesus - habits and attitudes formed as children.

As others have stated, vegetarians do not require supplementation.

As for craving meat - you may find this interesting:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214100593069532942

[djoyce003]

[ QUOTE ]


Sure, just outlaw the killing of animals, or the eating of animals. We aren't allowed to kill humans or eat humans, so most of us don't. Of course, most of us don't want to either. I'm not trying to compare killing humans to killing animals, of course, just trying to point out that "Its not gonna happen in the near future, so don't worry about it," has no real force. If we decided it was wrong to eat meat, and made it into law, it would happen. Is this likely? Of course not. Is it impossible, and therefore unworthy of discussion? Also no.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the foreseeable future it is impossible that a law would be passed outlawing the killing of animals for food purposes. When I say foreseeable I'm talking say the next 50-100 years. What congressman do you know that is considering introducing such legislation?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Humans do not have a natural instinct to eat meat. I was raised completely without meat, and I have no desire to eat it. My body does not miss it, and I don't have cravings for something "missing".

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you brought this up because it's a very important point. We've all been taking "meat tastes good" as an assumption. But it really doesn't. The development of your palate depends to a high degree on your early diet. Believe me, if you had been raised as a vegetarian you'd prefer eggplant parmesan over a juicy steak every time.

This is also something you can train - I had cravings for meat for almost 8 years, but now (at 12 years) I have completely lost all desire. I tried to eat some chicken once in South America, but after three bites I was struck with a nausea that lasted for hours.

Also, it may seem intuitive that not eating meat would remove variety from food. But that's not true. I don't have any research, but I do know that I personally have come to detect and appreciate flavors in vegetarian foods to a much stronger degree than I did before. I would even say that my level of culinary variety is greater than that of most meat eaters (I don't know about Hannibal Lecter). It is certainly plausible that the brain itself will change based on diet, allowing for a greater appreciation of foods within that particular diet. The mechanism could be very similar to a number of established mechanisms (blind people develop better hearing at the neurological level).

So whie it may be intuitive to think meat serves a purpose, I really think it doesn't. The reasons we value meat are mainly cultural.