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?
Replies
-
Purely from a health perspective, an omnivorous diet with a lot of variety makes it easiest to hit one's nutrition needs. The more restrictive, the more challenging it can be to meet dietary needs, particularly vitamin B12 which is absent in plants.1
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
If we are getting back to the OP's topic of which is healthier, I would have no argument that vegan or vegetarian or omnivore can be healthy, but none is a guarantee of health.
But the subject of the question I responded to was not health, it posed a question re: when we dictated that eating animals was fine. My response did not suggest that everything natural was a moral justification. The point was that we didn't dictate it was fine, some of us decided it was wrong.
Ah, I see. You're going off of ForecasterJason's use of "dictate."
Do you think, over the course of human history, moral reevaluations can be useful? I'm not talking about regarding animals specifically, but for anything.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
If we are getting back to the OP's topic of which is healthier, I would have no argument that vegan or vegetarian or omnivore can be healthy, but none is a guarantee of health.
But the subject of the question I responded to was not health, it posed a question re: when we dictated that eating animals was fine. My response did not suggest that everything natural was a moral justification. The point was that we didn't dictate it was fine, some of us decided it was wrong.
Ah, I see. You're going off of ForecasterJason's use of "dictate."
Do you think, over the course of human history, moral reevaluations can be useful? I'm not talking about regarding animals specifically, but for anything.
Sure.
It wasn't about word choice. If he'd said "decide" it would have been the same. The point was about which decision was made.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
If we are getting back to the OP's topic of which is healthier, I would have no argument that vegan or vegetarian or omnivore can be healthy, but none is a guarantee of health.
But the subject of the question I responded to was not health, it posed a question re: when we dictated that eating animals was fine. My response did not suggest that everything natural was a moral justification. The point was that we didn't dictate it was fine, some of us decided it was wrong.
Ah, I see. You're going off of ForecasterJason's use of "dictate."
Do you think, over the course of human history, moral reevaluations can be useful? I'm not talking about regarding animals specifically, but for anything.
Sure.
It wasn't about word choice. If he'd said "decide" it would have been the same. The point was about which decision was made.
Even if we don't "decide" initially that it is okay to eat animals, as soon as we become aware there is an alternative, there is a decision to be made. We may receive, as part of our overall culture, a certain way of doing things. But each of us do make a choice when we realize that a choice exists.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
As stated earlier, part of the definition of what's justifiable is relative to what society has dictated. I don't personally have any problems with it, and I would think it's fair to say that over 90% of society thinks the same way on this matter. To really answer the question I think you would have to ask why or how did we as a society dictate that it's fine.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Personally, I would say that killing animals for our food consumption is morally justifiable enough to override the exploitation aspect of it, even though we may not absolutely need to.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
How is it morally justifiable enough? What is the justification?
That's a pretty easy question to answer. We dictated it was fine because it natural, and at some point was necessary. Sure vegans/vegetarians have plenty of protein choices today but a good many of those are processed. At some point in our history we did not possess the knowledge or ability to process these foods. Humans ate what food they could find and we found animals. It wasn't about wanting to hurt animals, it was about survival.
The bigger question is when and why did some dictate that it's no longer fine.
We've decided (I don't know if "dictate" is the right word) that all sorts of "natural" and maybe even "necessary" things are not okay when we have options.
I am sure there are some "natural" human behaviors that you wouldn't find morally acceptable. The only difference between you and a vegan is that vegans are including animals in this reassessment.
Could we be wrong? I have no idea. I'm not a moral philosopher. But I don't think the fact that something is "natural" is a sufficient moral justification. And something being necessary at one point is irrelevant. The question would be "is it justifiable when it is unnecessary?" This is the point of disagreement, not whether it was necessary at one point.
And yes, beans and grains and vegetables are sometimes processed. But they're also included in many healthful diet patterns across the world.
If we are getting back to the OP's topic of which is healthier, I would have no argument that vegan or vegetarian or omnivore can be healthy, but none is a guarantee of health.
But the subject of the question I responded to was not health, it posed a question re: when we dictated that eating animals was fine. My response did not suggest that everything natural was a moral justification. The point was that we didn't dictate it was fine, some of us decided it was wrong.
Ah, I see. You're going off of ForecasterJason's use of "dictate."
Do you think, over the course of human history, moral reevaluations can be useful? I'm not talking about regarding animals specifically, but for anything.
Sure.
It wasn't about word choice. If he'd said "decide" it would have been the same. The point was about which decision was made.
Even if we don't "decide" initially that it is okay to eat animals, as soon as we become aware there is an alternative, there is a decision to be made. We may receive, as part of our overall culture, a certain way of doing things. But each of us do make a choice when we realize that a choice exists.
Yes, of course.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
It is directing the focus of the conversation. That animals overpopulate themselves sometimes is an okay argument for the idea that humans should never abstain entirely from killing animals. I believe Jane is say that "so it follows that it is okay to breed millions to billions of animals and keep them alive specifically so we can kill them" is missing a few steps in the proof.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
It is directing the focus of the conversation. That animals overpopulate themselves sometimes is an okay argument for the idea that humans should never abstain entirely from killing animals. I believe Jane is say that "so it follows that it is okay to breed millions to billions of animals and keep them alive specifically so we can kill them" is missing a few steps in the proof.
OIC But if it's okay in some conditions to kill an animal for food then what makes it wrong under other conditions? If how the animal is raised isn't the issue why does it matter how the animal came into being?0 -
It isn't about killing for food, that's the difference. If we're killing wild animals because they're overpopulating a region, that isn't killing them for food, that's killing them for environmental reasons, including the possibility they'll just flat out starve to death regardless of humans. That's why such an argument doesn't lend support to the conclusion: "it is therefore okay to breed millions of animals in captivity and kill them for our own eating pleasure."Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
It is directing the focus of the conversation. That animals overpopulate themselves sometimes is an okay argument for the idea that humans should never abstain entirely from killing animals. I believe Jane is say that "so it follows that it is okay to breed millions to billions of animals and keep them alive specifically so we can kill them" is missing a few steps in the proof.
OIC But if it's okay in some conditions to kill an animal for food then what makes it wrong under other conditions? If how the animal is raised isn't the issue why does it matter how the animal came into being?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
See, this gives me the shudders. Health reasons have been used as an excuse in the past to mass exterminate people. I read this as prioritizing some humans over other humans. As in "Animal Farm".I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons....I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others.
Do you have any moral issue with other individuals (human or otherwise) hunting and killing to eat? Like grey wolves, grizzlies, and the like? Surely the hunted in the wild suffer to some extent. What ethical reason do you use to justify this?For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild.
I'm not sure if the cattle we raise on the prairies have yet met the populations of the original buffalo. Lemme check: estimated 50 million before modern intervention. One estimate puts us to be about the same in the US (beef and dairy combined)
Of course we're supporting a much larger population of people in North America, and we've taken over a good part of the land. Maybe because of where I live I am sensitive to the needs of the land and not all land is suited to horticulture. Sensitive grasslands should be left as grazing land. Which means supporting a certain population of ruminants. If we aren't eating them, who will be? Will their suffering be less if it's by way of a "natural" predator?Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
How about maintenance of the land and the cycle of life justifies the existence of meat animals? Then is it any less cruel to breed, raise, and feed animals for our own consumption, and to ethically make use of the whole animal for our needs? Is efficiency in itself cruel?0 -
Just because I find it interesting (not intending this to justify anything humans do): https://newscientist.com/article/dn20630-zoologger-the-first-non-human-meat-farmers/
If the research panned out - I did not go looking for follow-up research - humans aren't may not be unique as meat farmers, which I did not know.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
It is directing the focus of the conversation. That animals overpopulate themselves sometimes is an okay argument for the idea that humans should never abstain entirely from killing animals. I believe Jane is say that "so it follows that it is okay to breed millions to billions of animals and keep them alive specifically so we can kill them" is missing a few steps in the proof.
That's exactly what I was saying: thank you for clarifying it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
It is directing the focus of the conversation. That animals overpopulate themselves sometimes is an okay argument for the idea that humans should never abstain entirely from killing animals. I believe Jane is say that "so it follows that it is okay to breed millions to billions of animals and keep them alive specifically so we can kill them" is missing a few steps in the proof.
OIC But if it's okay in some conditions to kill an animal for food then what makes it wrong under other conditions? If how the animal is raised isn't the issue why does it matter how the animal came into being?
I'm not arguing that it *is* okay to kill an animal for food in some circumstances. I'm saying that ruminant control isn't an excuse for meat eating as it is currently practiced in North America and we can't use it as a justification.
I'd like to talk about how we actually eat meat instead of focusing on the exception -- ruminant control. This is because ruminant control doesn't really justify any part of modern animal agriculture and I think it's more productive and interesting to focus on what is actually happening.
If someone would like to concede that modern animal agriculture isn't justifiable and focus on whether it is appropriate to hunt for population control and then eat the animals that are killed, that seems to be a very different conversation.0 -
See, this gives me the shudders. Health reasons have been used as an excuse in the past to mass exterminate people. I read this as prioritizing some humans over other humans. As in "Animal Farm".I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons....I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others.
Do you have any moral issue with other individuals (human or otherwise) hunting and killing to eat? Like grey wolves, grizzlies, and the like? Surely the hunted in the wild suffer to some extent. What ethical reason do you use to justify this?For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild.
I'm not sure if the cattle we raise on the prairies have yet met the populations of the original buffalo. Lemme check: estimated 50 million before modern intervention. One estimate puts us to be about the same in the US (beef and dairy combined)
Of course we're supporting a much larger population of people in North America, and we've taken over a good part of the land. Maybe because of where I live I am sensitive to the needs of the land and not all land is suited to horticulture. Sensitive grasslands should be left as grazing land. Which means supporting a certain population of ruminants. If we aren't eating them, who will be? Will their suffering be less if it's by way of a "natural" predator?Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
How about maintenance of the land and the cycle of life justifies the existence of meat animals? Then is it any less cruel to breed, raise, and feed animals for our own consumption, and to ethically make use of the whole animal for our needs? Is efficiency in itself cruel?
You said yourself that you prioritize humans over other individuals. Why does it make you shudder when I say I have no problem with that?
You're fine with killing for pleasure but not for the purposes of avoiding outbreaks of illness?
I don't think I can have a "moral issue" with an carnivore or omnivore hunting unless they can morally reason. I have expectations of humans because we can exercise moral reasoning. A wolf, to my knowledge, cannot.
Are you saying that the cattle being raised on the prairies are being harvested as part of a population control program? I believe that most of those cattle exist as property -- humans are responsible for their breeding, care, and feeding. Without this breeding, care, and feeding, would their population be at the same level? If we aren't eating them, most of them don't exist.0 -
@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.0
-
I checked on the cattle populations, @janejellyroll and they are only slightly higher than the original bison herds that were here.
I say without the cattle or another ruminant on the land, the land would be denuded.0 -
I'm good with whatever you choose for whatever reasons as long as you don't come at me for my choices. Nothing irks me more than Freelee the banana *kitten* who makes uneducated criticisms on people for their life choices0
-
@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.
I don't include all creatures on the same plane. Please ask me what I think instead of assuming.
I find it really poor faith that you are attributing such an extreme position to me. Yes, I would kill another human in a situation where they were -- as a result of deliberate action -- threatening my life or the life of someone else. Many people would do this -- it has absolutely nothing to do with veganism. Self-defense is frequently seen as a legitimate justification of force against another human. But don't read more into that than what is there. I never said anything about prioritizing one human or a group of humans over another. And I never said I consider all creatures to be on the "same plane."
I think I'm done with this exchange.0 -
Abriellefulton wrote: »I'm good with whatever you choose for whatever reasons as long as you don't come at me for my choices. Nothing irks me more than Freelee the banana *kitten* who makes uneducated criticisms on people for their life choicesAbriellefulton wrote: »I'm good with whatever you choose for whatever reasons as long as you don't come at me for my choices. Nothing irks me more than Freelee the banana *kitten* who makes uneducated criticisms on people for their life choices
Definitely a meat eater0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.
I don't include all creatures on the same plane. Please ask me what I think instead of assuming.
I find it really poor faith that you are attributing such an extreme position to me. Yes, I would kill another human in a situation where they were -- as a result of deliberate action -- threatening my life or the life of someone else. Many people would do this -- it has absolutely nothing to do with veganism. Self-defense is frequently seen as a legitimate justification of force against another human. But don't read more into that than what is there. I never said anything about prioritizing one human or a group of humans over another. And I never said I consider all creatures to be on the "same plane."
I think I'm done with this exchange.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
I'm suggesting that the pleasure serves a purpose, in directing me to good health and possibly a better environmental fit. Ruminants serve an important purpose maintaining our forests and plains, and if I'm not going to chase and eat them, something has to.
We aren't perfectly logical machines. If we were, we might never escape the cradle. That's the point (rather obtuse I know) that I was trying to make. It's emotions, like altruism and pleasure, that drive us. It drives you to sympathy for all other creatures to the point that you have chosen not to eat them for pleasure.I have no concerns with pleasurable activities that don't harm others. The argument for veganism isn't the argument that we should all be perfectly logical machines.
I get no pleasure from pest control. It's for health reasons.
I have no issue with someone prioritizing humans over others. It's the prioritization of human pleasure over another individual's life and suffering that I've decided to reject.
For the most part, the ruminants Westerns eat are not part of the wild. They are bred specifically for slaughter and exist in much greater numbers than they ever would in the wild. I think it's valid to discuss whether it would be possible for every human on earth to forgo meat without causing problems with ruminant populations. But we can't, with the quantities of cows that we breed, act like this is about ruminant control (I'm assuming you also sometimes eat chicken and fish).
There are some people who only eat the wild animals that they (or those they know) hunt. That's a specific case that is worth talking about, but it's pretty far removed from the reality of how most people source their meat. And ruminant control has little to do with the decision to eat diary and eggs, which most non-vegans do to some extent.
Are you chasing the animals that you eat, sourcing them from wild populations? I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing and I'm not making assumptions. The "circle of life" case can be interesting, but it doesn't describe the reality of most non-vegan diets in North America.
Either way, if population control justifies the consumption of meat, we then should address the ethics of bringing animals into existence specifically for slaughter. This doesn't help us control populations.
This seems more an argument against current widespread practices used in the treatment of animals raised for food while alive than an argument against killing animals for food.
I'm saying that we should address the ethics of killing animals for food apart from the "we need to control ruminants" argument as the vast majority of animals killed for food in North America aren't part of a wild population that potentially needs to be controlled.
If we're going to talk about eating animals, let's talk about how most people actually do it. Then, if we want to address the exceptions (people who only eat meat from animals in wild populations), let's have that conversation.
But again, if we are only talking about where the majority of meat comes from then we aren't really talking about whether it is wrong to eat meat but about whether it is wrong to farm meat.
And earlier someone (I think you, but not sure) mentioned eggs. What harm is there in eating an egg, especially an unfertilized egg?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
We already discussed the superiority aspect of it.janejellyroll wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
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?
Health does make it more complicated. I'm just a layperson, but there are certainly people with IBS who thrive on a plant-based diet. That doesn't mean it would work for you though.
At the end of the day, we're arguing from a limited case if you're arguing that your particular health problems make it ethically appropriate for you to eat meat. What about people without health problems? If your health problems are a justification for meat consumption, does that mean you think other people should stop eating meat? If not, I'm not sure what relevance your health problems have to the conversation -- because it means you think there is another justification -- besides illness -- for using animals for food.
You said we were created to have superiority over them and that includes killing them if we think we have a "good reason." But if it isn't required for our health and wellbeing, do you consider killing for pleasure a sufficient reason?
Because for a lot of animal exploitation, the justification comes down to "I enjoy it."
A lot of the things we do for pleasure because they are good for us. I've thought about our efforts in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and we can make a robot intelligent enough. But how do we motivate it to do more than stare at it's navel, unless we hard-coded it to interact? I swear it is our pesky hormones, our serotonins, and our oxytoycins that drive us to do more than sit. There's hunger, satiety, romance, compassion, mothering, and altruism. None of those things are required, logically. But they move us.
I'm pro-compassion and pro-altruism. That's why I have decided to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation. When I "do the math," the pleasure it brings me isn't outweighed by what it costs others.
Selected others. You have no trouble exterminating vermin. I do prioritize people over other creatures, because I am a people.
Is that the only justification for prioritizing people over others? It doesn't seem like a very good one, to me, if asked to justify in. It's not much different than saying "a Canadian and a US citizen and you are stuck in a lifeboat and one has to be killed for food or you all die" and deciding that, well, of course I'll kill the person from the US, since I'm a Canadian. (Typical bloodthirsty Canadian!) (Also kidding, in case that is not obvious.)
I'd assert that humans are different by nature.
I'd also assert that if we met an alien race that was mentally basically like humans in self-awareness, intelligence, probably other things (this also raises the AI question), then that alien would be a person, just like humans, and entitled to the same protections.
And for similar reasons I'd draw distinctions between animals. Apes are awfully similar to humans in a lot of ways that seem important (yes, I'm dodging this somewhat).
Similarly, pigs strike me as different from chickens and chickens as different from shrimp or worms. And worms as quite different from potatoes (yes, potatoes are not animals -- moving into living creatures).
Where we draw lines is what we decide. Peter Singer has his arguments, for example (which I would argue with). You can focus on higher level mental capacities or awareness (and then the discussion becomes about what we know about animals). Or you can focus on ability to feel pain/fear of death or some such. Or you can focus on many other things, including limiting the reasons for killing (self protection, limiting the harm we cause).0 -
@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.
Really? I think we all value some humans over others. A serial killer is unlikely to be given the same value by many as a law abiding citizen, for example.0 -
Veggie / vegan. I don't always have access to vegan food sadly so I do my best.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.
Really? I think we all value some humans over others. A serial killer is unlikely to be given the same value by many as a law abiding citizen, for example.
Let's take a plain old murderer, taking it down a notch. I think a good deal of cruelty and neglect that we see in our penal system comes from a deep down gut feeling that such monsters can't possibly be like the rest of us.
If it turns out that they are fully human, we might have to re-think how we treat offenders. It pays to take a good look, because there may be potential for reform or even better, prevention.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates
But if such people are simply monsters, then the "cure" continues to be extermination.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@janejellyroll I prioritize humans over all other creatures. You include all creatures on the same plane, but will kill if threatened. This then includes humans. I shudder when one human (or group of people) is prioritized over another.
Really? I think we all value some humans over others. A serial killer is unlikely to be given the same value by many as a law abiding citizen, for example.
Let's take a plain old murderer, taking it down a notch. I think a good deal of cruelty and neglect that we see in our penal system comes from a deep down gut feeling that such monsters can't possibly be like the rest of us.
If it turns out that they are fully human, we might have to re-think how we treat offenders. It pays to take a good look, because there may be potential for reform or even better, prevention.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates
But if such people are simply monsters, then the "cure" continues to be extermination.
That's different from saying you'd kill in self-defense.
For the record, the Catholic position on the death penalty is based on the idea that there's no need to execute any criminals, not that it's inherently wrong to do so even if we needed to (I mention this NOT because I want to debate Catholic teachings, but because it seems similar to the statement objected to here, that eating animals was okay when we needed to but might not be if we don't).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions