Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »On reflection, my answer is overly long. I think our morality is bound to our humanity, and is not universal. I think we are quite blind to many of our own prejudices. For instance, why is the Panda more worthy of protection than the mosquito?
I am comfortable including meat in my diet, due to the dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain, and being human.
So are you saying that because something can be done and has been done, it should continue to be done?
No, that's not what I am saying. We are far less brutal than we were, and our sensibilities are ever finer. Being human however, how do you know that you have come to a universal "should"?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »On reflection, my answer is overly long. I think our morality is bound to our humanity, and is not universal. I think we are quite blind to many of our own prejudices. For instance, why is the Panda more worthy of protection than the mosquito?
I am comfortable including meat in my diet, due to the dumb luck of being at the top of the food chain, and being human.
So are you saying that because something can be done and has been done, it should continue to be done?
No, that's not what I am saying. We are far less brutal than we were, and our sensibilities are ever finer. Being human however, how do you know that you have come to a universal "should"?
I don't think I've said anything about a universal "should."
I'm saying when we're talking about whether or not it is okay to do something to another individual, arguments like "top of the food chain/superior status" or "I'm human, they aren't" don't really persuade me. I don't find them convincing when we apply arguments like that to human/human interactions and I don't accept them for human/animal interactions.0 -
I'm not talking about it being all right to eat meat because I happen to be stronger or superior. I'm talking about how I am by necessity bound by my humanness in the way I view and live in my world. Not that I won't take on an ethical conversation.
I found the "should" in your question, @janejellyroll . I'm alert to that word because it does project expected behavior on others. So you aren't attributing any sort of universality to your personal mores. All right. You do believe this:
"whether or not it is okay to do something to another individual"
So I take it from this you have extended "individual" to any other living creature?0 -
Indeed, to a certain extent, the construction of race as a concept comes out of justifying chattel slavery.janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »buzz28camaro wrote: »
I didn't imply you were saying the act was right, but you are implying sentiment was - that some humans are animals and should only have rights similar to those of animals. Unfortunately, you're more concerned with being accused of being racist than avoiding actually spouting racist stuff.
Your whole analogies continue to be problematic as I see you slipped rape in there as well for things that happen in the animal kingdom.
My analogies are not problematic. If you want to take everything I say out of context to try and make some point, then, please, continue to do so. I don't think you realize how analogies work. Not to mention nowhere did I come close to saying humans should have rights similar to animals. Again, you are taking what I said completely out of context. I said that humans are animals. That is a statement of fact, not some derogatory statement that you think I'm trying to insinuate about a particular group of humans.
I understand how they work. The problem is, you don't see how they do. They connect things. You're cool with connecting slavery to making a point about veganism. That's pretty demeaning way to handle a unique stain on human history. It will seriously not convince anyone of anything - people in your echo chamber will think it is ok, and other people will think you know you're demeaning that part of human history by trying to compare steak dinner to it.
I just want to point out that using the slavery=animal exploitation analogy is incredibly controversial even within the vegan community with many vegans rejecting it. So for anyone reading this thread and thinking this is how all vegans consider it . . . no, it isn't.
Thank you. I did not mean all vegans when I used the term echo chamber, but I see now it could be taken that way. I'm aware that a number of vegans and vegetarians disagree strongly with many of the more problematic arguments against eating animals such as comparing it to slavery, rape, human infanticide, etc. My own personal stance (even though I'm not even vegetarian) is that being vegan is not a moral necessity, but it is a moral good - similar to say human acts of charity: I wouldn't expect anyone to give up all their worldly possessions to others, but someone that does so, I consider as someone doing good. I think people that view vegan as a moral necessity are the ones more likely to make analogies that tend to be problematic because they start with the assumption of morality.
I was pretty sure you didn't mean it that way, but I hate people thinking that all vegans think that way . . . so I wanted to make sure.
I do think these conversations get out-of-hand a lot of times because people do start them thinking everyone shares certain base assumptions. But when it comes to discussions of morality, we can't assume everyone is working from the same assumptions.
I do think humans are unique among animals (although new findings about the inner lives of animals like dolphins or whales could certainly challenge that) and I can understand how people can conclude that we have an obligation to avoid harming other humans unnecessarily but that obligation doesn't carry over to other animals (I wouldn't agree with that argument, but I do understand it). When that is where someone is coming from, it's counter-productive to compare how we treat animals to slavery (and it's incredibly tone-deaf to the terrible historical realities of how black people have been talked about and demeaned over the years.
It would be nice if people remembered (or learned if they don't know) that members of every race have been enslaved at some point in history and that slavery continues today.
That's true, but the analogy used by some vegans is based specifically on arguments in favor of chattel slavery which has a particular context in the US. While people of all races and ethnicities have been slaves, not all of them have been compared to animals to justify that slavery -- and that historical reality is why I think comparing animal exploitation to slavery can be so harmful.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.
I'm not at all offended, I was just curious as to what personal diet of a person living in the Mediterranean region, you are familiar with. This comment makes no sense to me. The diet is characteristic of the people that live in the region. I've come across alot of people making up their own Mediterranean diet--one recipe had soy sauce as an ingredient.
The clarification was an effort to prevent the comments from MFP members living the Med region that often follow mention of the Mediterranean Diet claiming it does not reflect their diet. Kind of amusing that the disclaimer elicited objection for the opposite reason, but I don't care what any person living in the Med region eats. It's irrelevant to my post.
You may not care--but lurkers do, and there are alot of them. That's why I asked, and I'm not surprised with the answer.
Lurkers care what people in the Med region eat? A bit off point, but thanks for sharing that.
Not off point at all. The Mediterranean diet includes meat--in small quantities, and therefore is part of the discussion. Many people are becoming interested in it, because of studies on health and longevity. However, there is a lot of confusion on what it is exactly. Some think that you just pour olive oil on everything. That is why when people are making up their own Mediterranean diet, and don't want to discuss what it is--it is very on point.0 -
I'm not talking about it being all right to eat meat because I happen to be stronger or superior. I'm talking about how I am by necessity bound by my humanness in the way I view and live in my world. Not that I won't take on an ethical conversation.
I found the "should" in your question, @janejellyroll . I'm alert to that word because it does project expected behavior on others. So you aren't attributing any sort of universality to your personal mores. All right. You do believe this:
"whether or not it is okay to do something to another individual"
So I take it from this you have extended "individual" to any other living creature?
I said we were talking about whether it was okay to do something to another individual -- there wasn't a "should" in there. As part of this conversation, one of us (or both of us) could be arguing that there is no "universal should."
I do extend "individual" to any other living creature -- is there a word I could use to include humans and animals that you would prefer?
Do you reject the notion of projecting expected behavior on others for human/human interactions as well?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »In most studies I've seen either a Vegetarian or Mediterranean diet is usually associated with best overall health. I eat meat and more than the Med Diet recommends but I do tend to think of it (Mediterranean Diet*) as the best for health, generally speaking.
*I am speaking of the defined Mediterranean Diet not of the personal diet(s) of anyone living in a Mediterranean region.
I object to the starred part.
Well sorry to offend but the post is still 100% true.
I'm not at all offended, I was just curious as to what personal diet of a person living in the Mediterranean region, you are familiar with. This comment makes no sense to me. The diet is characteristic of the people that live in the region. I've come across alot of people making up their own Mediterranean diet--one recipe had soy sauce as an ingredient.
The clarification was an effort to prevent the comments from MFP members living the Med region that often follow mention of the Mediterranean Diet claiming it does not reflect their diet. Kind of amusing that the disclaimer elicited objection for the opposite reason, but I don't care what any person living in the Med region eats. It's irrelevant to my post.
You may not care--but lurkers do, and there are alot of them. That's why I asked, and I'm not surprised with the answer.
Lurkers care what people in the Med region eat? A bit off point, but thanks for sharing that.
Not off point at all. The Mediterranean diet includes meat--in small quantities, and therefore is part of the discussion. Many people are becoming interested in it, because of studies on health and longevity. However, there is a lot of confusion on what it is exactly. Some think that you just pour olive oil on everything. That is why when people are making up their own Mediterranean diet, and don't want to discuss what it is--it is very on point.
Or would be on point if someone were doing that.0 -
I don't know how to be more explicit that I am quoting you, @janejellyroll . I'll try again:
- emphasis mineSo are you saying that because something can be done and has been done, it should continue to be done?
I believe we are closer in philosophy than you imagine. You are thoughtful, and so am I. Don't presume we are sitting on opposite sides of the fence.
I've confirmed that you are extending "individual" to include all other living creatures. I'm fine with your word usage. Do you include in "individuals", insects?
I don't reject applying "should's" to one another, but I try and keep the list short, as in "do no harm", "protect the young" and "reverence life".0 -
I don't know how to be more explicit that I am quoting you, @janejellyroll . I'll try again:
- emphasis mineSo are you saying that because something can be done and has been done, it should continue to be done?
I believe we are closer in philosophy than you imagine. You are thoughtful, and so am I. Don't presume we are sitting on opposite sides of the fence.
I've confirmed that you are extending "individual" to include all other living creatures. I'm fine with your word usage. Do you include in "individuals", insects?
I don't reject applying "should's" to one another, but I try and keep the list short, as in "do no harm", "protect the young" and "reverence life".
Thank you -- that's a different portion that you quoted earlier, so it makes more sense now.
I was asking if you were talking about a "should." Maybe a better way to ask is "Are you arguing that it is ethical because it can be done and it has been done"? I don't think you are, but when your reasons stated for eating meat make it sound like you may be.
I'm not presuming we're sitting on opposite sides of the fence and I'm not sure what I said that would have given you that impression. If I thought I knew what you thought, I wouldn't be asking questions.
Would I describe insects as individuals? Yes, I would. It doesn't follow that I think all individuals are identical. There can be a lot of variation between individuals.
If "Do no harm" and "protect the young" and "reverence life" are your "shoulds," how do you reconcile those with choosing to eat meat? By "one another," do you mean "humans" are the "anothers"?0 -
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?0 -
I do enjoy a thorough round of socratic reasoning. If only more debates were this strong.
So even though you strive to treat all individuals well and deserving of a long life, some individuals are less worthy than others? I am thinking specifically of the mosquito that carries the Zika virus.Would I describe insects as individuals? Yes, I would. It doesn't follow that I think all individuals are identical. There can be a lot of variation between individuals.If "Do no harm" and "protect the young" and "reverence life" are your "shoulds," how do you reconcile those with choosing to eat meat? By "one another," do you mean "humans" are the "anothers"?
I apply these first to humankind, and where possible extend compassion and kindness to animals. As I have a biological requirement to eat meat, eat meat I will. But I can do so humanely and with kindness. On discussion with my granddaughter on this very subject, I do also hope that the whole animal is used, so that it's unknown sacrifice is reverenced. I have no compassion for mosquitoes.0 -
I do enjoy a thorough round of socratic reasoning. If only more debates were this strong.
So even though you strive to treat all individuals well and deserving of a long life, some individuals are less worthy than others? I am thinking specifically of the mosquito that carries the Zika virus.Would I describe insects as individuals? Yes, I would. It doesn't follow that I think all individuals are identical. There can be a lot of variation between individuals.If "Do no harm" and "protect the young" and "reverence life" are your "shoulds," how do you reconcile those with choosing to eat meat? By "one another," do you mean "humans" are the "anothers"?
I apply these first to humankind, and where possible extend compassion and kindness to animals. As I have a biological requirement to eat meat, eat meat I will. But I can do so humanely and with kindness. On discussion with my granddaughter on this very subject, I do also hope that the whole animal is used, so that it's unknown sacrifice is reverenced. I have no compassion for mosquitoes.
Do I think a mosquito is "less worthy" than I am? I don't think about it in those terms. I think about it in terms of self-defense. I wouldn't kill a bear for pleasure, but I would kill a bear that was threatening me or a loved one. I'd kill another human that I thought was a threat to me or a loved one too. I don't think it contradicts the ethics of veganism for us to defend our wellbeing from insects that carry viruses (or threaten our health in other ways).
I wouldn't say I have compassion for mosquitoes because compassion is an emotion and I personally can't generate any emotion for insects. But I choose not to harm them unless I think it's a matter of self-preservation.
I am appreciating this debate too. It's nice to be able to discuss these things.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
The studies of populations seem to suggest otherwise. I don't happen to believe that there's a clear casual link to better health and not eating meat vs. a positive correlation that explain the health effects for a vegetarian population like the 7th Day Adventists discussed in the link I posted above (as I also said upthread that I think meat eater, vegetarian, and vegan are equally healthy or not depending on the specific diets followed), but there's not really any evidence that one is worse off on a sensible vegan diet.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I do enjoy a thorough round of socratic reasoning. If only more debates were this strong.
So even though you strive to treat all individuals well and deserving of a long life, some individuals are less worthy than others? I am thinking specifically of the mosquito that carries the Zika virus.Would I describe insects as individuals? Yes, I would. It doesn't follow that I think all individuals are identical. There can be a lot of variation between individuals.If "Do no harm" and "protect the young" and "reverence life" are your "shoulds," how do you reconcile those with choosing to eat meat? By "one another," do you mean "humans" are the "anothers"?
I apply these first to humankind, and where possible extend compassion and kindness to animals. As I have a biological requirement to eat meat, eat meat I will. But I can do so humanely and with kindness. On discussion with my granddaughter on this very subject, I do also hope that the whole animal is used, so that it's unknown sacrifice is reverenced. I have no compassion for mosquitoes.
Do I think a mosquito is "less worthy" than I am? I don't think about it in those terms. I think about it in terms of self-defense. I wouldn't kill a bear for pleasure, but I would kill a bear that was threatening me or a loved one. I'd kill another human that I thought was a threat to me or a loved one too. I don't think it contradicts the ethics of veganism for us to defend our wellbeing from insects that carry viruses (or threaten our health in other ways).
I wouldn't say I have compassion for mosquitoes because compassion is an emotion and I personally can't generate any emotion for insects. But I choose not to harm them unless I think it's a matter of self-preservation.
I am appreciating this debate too. It's nice to be able to discuss these things.
As humans we have a long and chequered history wiping out even entire species we perceived to be a threat. Along with the Zika-carrying mosquito, the wolf comes to mind. Sometimes we don't recognize our error until far too late.
I am reminded of a dark joke, "Scientists have determined if we wipe out these five vectors, we can stop all communicable disease in it's tracks. The five vectors are flies, mosquitoes, rats, mice, and children."
More about the wolf. Re-introducing the wolf to Yellowstone park had wide-reaching effects not anticipated. It turns out the wolf is a keystone species which helped revive not only the animals living in the park but by extension plant life as well. Even the water ran clearer. This by letting the wolf do what it does; hunt and kill.
"When wolves return to a region, they can alter the population, distribution, and behavior of their prey, which impacts the other creatures living there—plant and animal—and in doing so they change the landscape itself. The study of such trophic cascades has made clear that when one element of an ecosystem is altered, the cumulative effects of the change may not be immediately apparent, but they can be far-reaching and profound. From the smallest organisms to the largest, and all the natural forces that shape their world, everything is connected."
https://livingwithwolves.org/wolves-a-keystone-species/
What impact does our wide-ranging and changing food fashions have on our landscape? Is this perhaps just as harmful over the long haul as eating chicken?1 -
What I most dislike about vegans and vegetarians however, (from what I've seen most...so obviously not all are like this by any means) is their attitude towards those who do eat meat.
Based on what?
I find that within my extended family, much is made of my vegetarianism (pescatarianism) without any input from me. It could just be my sisters as they tend toward fussing over people, but the cacophony of "OK, I'll be sure to make something without meat for you!" starts to get a little grating. No special measures are necessary. It's one meal; I can navigate the menu fine to feed myself. I would prefer the less said about it the better.
I don't judge them eating meat. It's a free country, after all.
Also, I don't agree that people who don't eat meat suffer nutritionally.
1 -
I do have symptoms of IBS and I can say that there are more plant-based foods that give me issues than there are animal-based. Secondly, I do need to limit my carb consumption for medical reasons, which means I would probably need to eat excessive amounts of nuts, seeds, or oils to get in enough calories without eating a lot of carbs. I also mentioned earlier that based on my current vitamin b12 level, I would probably be fairly deficient if I was not eating meat. Now I know this is probably not the kind of proof you're looking for. But IMO it's enough evidence to suggest that a vegan diet would leave me deficient in one or more nutrients and/or make it extremely difficult to find enough foods to eat for digestive and medical reasons.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
What is that thinking based on though? Is there data to support that?0 -
I already mentioned that I know some people do perfectly fine or even better on a vegan diet. However, when you start throwing health issues into the mix, on an individual level it gets complicated.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think we're probably using the word "thrive" for different meanings. I think it is certainly possible that I could eat a vegan diet without causing major harm (though I'm not sure about that if it means for the rest of my life). But would my health be in the best state it can be if I did that? Or would the inclusion of animal products enhance my health a bit? For the latter question, my thinking is "yes".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say that I thought everyone should eat meat. I realize that there are plenty of people who have turned to a vegan diet and have seen their health improve. But does that mean it's best for me? That's where my answer is "no". It's pretty clear to me from some of the posts even in this thread that what's best for one person is not necessarily best for someone else.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I started typing a more lengthy response and decided to erase it since it would be going into politics. But IMO I would rather devote as much effort as I can on helping other humans before trying to avoid eating animals for food. And on an important note, I personally don't believe my physical body would thrive best on a diet devoid of animal products. For you to do all that, then kudos to you. But many of us most likely cannot.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I disappeared for a couple hours, and while reading some of the new posts I'm almost falling out of my chair in laughter. I can't believe slavery and rape have been brought into this discussion.
Considering that we as a species kill so many of our own each year due to anger and carelessness (especially when it comes to automobile crashes and shootings), IMO we as humans have much more important things to be concerned about rather than killing animals for food.
One of the great things about our human brains is that we can be concerned about multiple things at a time and take multiple actions. Avoiding unnecessary animal exploitation doesn't reduce any of my ability to volunteer my time and donate money to help my fellow humans. And it doesn't increase my risk of being in an automobile crash or shooting someone else . . . I don't see the connection between those things at all.
I'm not opposed to eating meat either, but this strikes me as obviously false. We are omnivores, so can get along on a wide variety of diets and don't need meat (especially with the ability to supplement B12). Many very healthy human diets have little to no meat.
I don't think the ethical issues can be dodged claiming that we need meat for health, AND I think that for the most part we'd likely be better off (and have some environmental benefits, which are benefits for humans) if we ate less meat.
Do I act accordingly? Not lately--I eat more animal products than I think I should, even though I am not ethically convinced that eating none is the right answer. Without a hard and fast line it's quite easy to just focus on what's easier or, of course, taste preference.
I'm talking about broad human populations. I think there are exceptions who do need meat to thrive, probably, and definitely people who need to use animals in other ways (such as the medical example posted upthread, and the benefits to medicine generally), but I don't think that on an individual basis absent a health issue omnivores like humans need any specific food in our diet, including meat. We need protein, of course, but there are other sources.
Again, I eat meat and am not ethically opposed to it, but for the vast majority I think the claim that you need it is a cop out, and as janejellyroll noted if that was the real reason people would eat much less. We eat more because it's tasty (and also a convenient source of protein).
The studies of populations seem to suggest otherwise. I don't happen to believe that there's a clear casual link to better health and not eating meat vs. a positive correlation that explain the health effects for a vegetarian population like the 7th Day Adventists discussed in the link I posted above (as I also said upthread that I think meat eater, vegetarian, and vegan are equally healthy or not depending on the specific diets followed), but there's not really any evidence that one is worse off on a sensible vegan diet.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 944 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions