Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[turkalurk]

for Willow:


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms

"Then someone came up with the idea of urban farming and local farming," explains van der Weele. "All of these problems disappeared and they thought it too good to be true. We have meat and good relations with animals -- it's the opposite of alienating food." It makes perfect sense. So many people are disillusioned with our relationship with food today, it has already given rise to the popularity of urban farming and projects like Five Mile Food.

In the paper van der Weele and her co-author explain: "A cultured meat scenario that generated not ambivalence but great enthusiasm among workshop participants was one in which pigs in backyards or animal-friendly (urban) farms would serve as the living donors of muscle stem cells through biopsies. These pigs live happy lives as companion animals while their cells are cultured in local meat factories. Worries of cultured meat being unnatural, too technological, or alienating were absent here; the idea of local production and close contact with the animals seemed to dispel these concerns."

The paper goes on to describe a hypothesis for the urban farm, with animal cells cultured in suspension in bioreactors just 20m2. "In principle it is possible to grow animal muscle or organ cells in suspension on that scale for meat production, provided that a robust continuous cell line is available."

It's all a bit of a utopian ideal (aside from the whole pigs grown in jars, being watced by pigs in pens, bit), whereby we get a chance to do everything over, and do it right this time. Farming was always at the heart of communities before industrialisation took over. This would take us back to those days, to an extent.

 

[Journyman16]

Since quantum field mechanics proves that there are multiple possible outcomes to every situation…, it seems that - perhaps - our decisions dictate whether or not we travel in one direction or another... I'm not entirely convinced of this, but I don't think you can say that the entire field of physics indicates that we don't have free will.

See, that statement about ‘quantum field mechanics’ is an absolute. We don’t even know that quantum field mechanics is anything more than just another approximation or even just fantasy.
My statement was…

Well it is debatable (in a literal sense) as to whether we actually have free will. Physics tends towards the 'No' response.

‘tends towards’ is a FAR less absolute statement and comes from several DIFFERENT branches of physics.

You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.


I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.

And whether you admit it or not, this is sarcastic in intent. Particularly given our previous history. It is belittling in nature and clearly is about ME and not the subject.

Journeyman,

I'm a little tired of trying to explain the mythological functionality of the Garden of Eden to you.
You appear intent on misinterpreting it... and, I can only speculate as to why this is so.

Then perhaps you should pause a moment and realise you are NOT the be-all and end-all of Christian beliefs. I can only speculate as to why you think your personal beliefs are so much better than everyone else's.

You might note there are a number of 'IF's' in my comments which show a lack of dogmatism. Unfortunately for your beliefs, most Christians do NOT believe as you do and many think the Garden is quite literally a factual story. Your beliefs as to the matter are no more based in reality than theirs. :D

You can't have it both ways - IF God made us like this then our acts are entirely both natural AND his fault, not ours. Because IF God made us and the Garden myth is some kind of truth, God DIDN'T make us to question what we are and should be doing - in fact we got kicked out of the Garden for STEALING that ability.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Physics does not tend towards the idea that we don't have free will. I wasn't being sarcastic, and my comment about the Garden of Eden wasn't a response to the passage that you quoted at the bottom of your post... I don't think my personal beliefs are "so much better" than anyone else, let alone everyone. The Garden of Eden is quite easy to understand... I'm tired of trying to explain it; I'm not interested in arguing with you.

 

[swilow]

J-man, I think that a persons ideological history is important when having a discussion. The subject is not irrelevant really. If you read a newspaper, you actually gain more from it if you know the context and pursuasions of the author; you can read between the lines.

With that said, I don't think one should be dismissed because of previous comments one has made, but I don't think that's happening here.

Different strokes.

for Willow:


http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms

Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this?

For a very ideological subject, I think we've all been good up until recently in being repectful and thoughtful. I know that I sometimes come across more agressively or firmly then I wish, and I think I've been trying to logically trip some people up which isn't exactly fair. I apologise if I have done so.

But I have learned through this topic and plan to begin eating living puppies from tomorrow.

 

[Journyman16]

@Willow11 - I totally agree. But if ideology is anything, it is a personal view. To use it as a weapon against another is to indulge in religious war - my belief is right and yours is wrong. But it is belief. It is NOT fact. Quantum mechanics is simply an idea - it might be right or it might not and like string theory, nobopdy has yet thought of a way to test it, nor even come up with a hypothetical way it COULD be tested.

So claiming an untested idea 'proves' anything is pure belief.

The garden of Eden thing is believed by an overwhelming number of Christians to be truth. FEA holds a different belief, but he also claims to not be Christian. His belief is no more or less real than those who think the story is factual. If he had a different attitude, we might even be in agreement, but his dogmatism means we are on opposite ends of the belief line... he believes while I merely find it merely an interesting datum.

The facts are, the story comes from elsewhere - we know that because of dates. The Hyksos were simply not early enough to have had the 'original' creation myth and other tales told in the bible make it clear when the leaders of the Hyksos were inventing the Hebrews, they borrowed from right, left and centre.

So declaring he and he alone 'knows' what the biblical Eden story means is, at best braggadocio.

Then there is the way he likes to post about the person rather than the subject. (and yes I appreciate the irony of what I am doing here, but I claim it started with him and to hold my position I do need to talk about his actions - you might note I make no claims about his personal position, careers or lack thereof - :D ) It is not debate to target the person, it is tricks designed to cover the fact the person doing it has no response worth posting.

So while I have few issues discussing almost anything, a post that targets me personally draws appropriate response. It is not respectful to post about the person instead of the topic.

@FEA - actually physics DOES tend towards no free will. Relativity implies it. Information Theory implies it. The equations for Time imply it. The SMC implies it. When you get into physics beyond the MSM versions, there are no conditions normally found that favour a single direction in time and Physics as a subject, right now, is trying to understand WHY we have an 'arrow of time' and the Universe moves only in one direction. Free will as a given is a religious concept and used to promote guilt by the Church. But the Eden story tells us the guilt, if any, belongs to God, not us. We were innocent until we 'failed' a test he brags he knew we had to fail because he knows beginning from end.

Again, you can't have it both ways - either God knows all and created Man in full knowledge he would fail the test, or he is not God but some guy in a lab who didn't know the end results.

And yes, I know you views that nothing about creation is real but you are outnumbered millions to one. Deal with it.

And if God is real, he made us to eat meat. Our teeth AND our guts tell us that. He also made us to eat vegetables. Our teeth and our guts tell us that also. He didn't make us to eat grass. Our teeth and our guts tell us that also and one thing more - we apparently spent a lot of time eating [produce beside aquifers of some kind because of the ridges we have on our teeth. Strangely the Garden myth doesn't mention a lake or shallow sea... I wonder why?

And... back to the topic...

The teeth and gut story also tell us, even if there is NO god to create us, we are OMNIVORES - Nature designed us to eat meat and veg. Evolution says we are specifically designed NOT to be veggie eaters NOR carnivores. Any other such consideration is purely an intellectual exercise.

And deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.

 

[Journyman16]

Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this?

If you mean me about the lab meat site, I have no particular issues. (I'm figuring you mean the original poster, not me...) Mind you if they get Monsanto to do it, I will wait to see who dies before I try it. :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

So declaring he and he alone 'knows' what the biblical Eden story means is, at best braggadocio.

Never made that declaration, in this or any other thread.

See, that statement about ‘quantum field mechanics’ is an absolute.

Proof is not absolute.

a post that targets me personally draws appropriate response. It is not respectful to post about the person instead of the topic.

I didn't target you. I responded to what you said, because I think it's wrong.
And, you've posted more about me than I have about you in this thread...
So, maybe you should take your own advice.

actually physics DOES tend towards no free will.

Okay, buddy... sure it does.

Like I said, I don't want to have another pseudo-scientific discussion with you, where you make claims in the name of science. You're not explaining how the entire field of physics "tends" towards there being free will, you're just listing out theories that you think imply it without making any effort to explain why or how they imply it... This is not a discussion I am interested in having.

Let's return to the topic at hand.

deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.

There are lots of natural things that you don't indulge in, presumably.
People keep saying that it's natural to eat meat.
But, it's natural to do all sorts of "wrong" things.
Isn't it?

 

[Journyman16]

Never made that declaration, in this or any other thread.

Yeah... Except for telling us all how tired you are of telling me the real meaning of a myth you cannot possibly actually know for sure the truth about...? That's just semantics and not the first time you have claimed such knowledge either.

Proof is not absolute.

Yeah, actually it is. If I prove something that means there is no doubt. You claim an idea about which physicists are still debating and have yet to find any way to determine a result 'proves' something is you declaring an absolute. And it just ain't so. It turns out YOU are the one making up stuff about what Physics can or can't tell us. :D Maybe the 'pseudo' in your comment is because that is your level of basic Science understanding?

Science doesn't 'prove' anything until it is indisputable - maybe Religion is sufficient for others but we are talking Science here.

I didn't target you. I responded to what you said, because I think it's wrong.
And, you've posted more about me than I have about you in this thread...
So, maybe you should take your own advice.[.quote]Yeah, actually you did. I posted a response to Ninae and you dove right in with...

You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.

I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.

I guess by your ideas of who is allowed to say what, you should maybe stop talking about science, physics, diet, bible, history, and anything else you are not qualified and experienced in? Unless, of course, you ARE a chemist, cosmologist, physicist, dietician, biblical scholar, Jewish Rabbi, historian etc? If so I humbly apologise.

If not, stop telling people what they are allowed to talk about and how only you know what the Garden of Eden was. THEN we can have a discussion about things.

There are lots of natural things that you don't indulge in, presumably.
People keep saying that it's natural to eat meat.
But, it's natural to do all sorts of "wrong" things.
Isn't it?

I'd be curious as to what 'natural' things you think people do not indulge in. If it isn't too revealing personally, I mean... :D

Then there is the question of whether it is at all possible for 'natural' creatures such as human to actually do ANYTHING unnatural. By definition, everything we do is natural.

Unless of course you are claiming humans aren't 'natural'? :D

 

[ForEverAfter]

If scientific proof is absolute, then how are theories disproved? Disproof is, what, not part of science - according to you? ... I think you know what I meant, and you're just being weirdly (and antagonistically) pedantic about my use of the word proof... Nothing can be proved, really, in any field. So - what - do you object to the word proof being used across the board?

If I prove something that means there is no doubt.

Show me: prove something (non mathematical).

You're not a physicist and there hasn't been an overwhelming consensus that I'm aware of.

I guess what you mean is your interpretation of modern physics (or your selective readings) indicate - to you - that free will doesn't exist? You don't really speak for the international scientific community... In fact, you commonly disagree with the global consensus.

How in the living fuck is that an attack?

If not, stop telling people what they are allowed to talk about and how only you know what the Garden of Eden was.

I've never done either of those things, so I don't see how I can stop.

Then there is the question of whether it is at all possible for 'natural' creatures such as human to actually do ANYTHING unnatural. By definition, everything we do is natural.

Unless of course you are claiming humans aren't 'natural'?

You're contradicting yourself:

And deciding we have to eat veggies because we treat animals poorly is a reason to improve how we treat animals, NOT to become unnatural.

I never said anything - in particular - was "natural" or "unnatural": that is what I was objecting to... You suggested that being a vegetarian is "unnatural" - because of teeth, etc - which doesn't make sense, considering how far removed we are from our biological origins...

If you want to separate things into natural and unnatural (which you did, by labeling vegetarianism "unnatural") then shouldn't you be utterly natural? Eating meat is "natural", according to our teeth, etc, but only certain kinds of meat. We tenderize and consume meat that we wouldn't be able to take down without technology or pierce their hides with our teeth. Eating shit is "natural". Eating placenta is "natural". I assume you don't do either of those things?

If not eating meat is "unnatural", is it "unnatural" to drive a car or use a computer?

 

[LuGoJ]

I don't judge non-vegetarians like you do, Murphy. That way you'd have to judge everyone you meet and humanity as a whole and it just doesn't work in the long run. But I've also been vegetarian for a long time and you just can't do it that way.

I don't interefere with how other people live in any way and I sure can't be bothered starting that argument with many. But it can get to me when people start talking down to vegetarians and try to make themselves come accross as superior as there are no grounds for that. But it's like they see your existence as an implied judgement on themselves and want to get there first before you have the chance to say anything. It's annoying, but I don't see much of that in real life, except for people who are extremely aggressive about making their own way of life seen as the best.

Apart from that, it's just one of the ugly sides of life I don't like to think about much, so I try not to think about it. If you were to think about the conditions of animals in this world all the time, like the fur industry, it would drive you insane. But that is how people generally live with eating meat, aswell, by not thinking about what they're really doing, and most find it very unpleasent to be reminded as well.

^This x100.

One can only lead by example and hope that others follow. What other people do should have no bearing on one's ability to enjoy life. A lot of people make it their personal crusade to change everyone around them which is impossible and will ultimately lead to disappointment and frustration. People become defensive when they think others are trying to tell them how to live their lives and are generally less receptive to new ideas when it's framed in such a way(or when they believe it is), right or wrong. It's hard to accomplish much of anything when people are defense mode.

 

[Mysterie]

i reduced the amount i ate meat quite a bit for the past 6 months, i will avoid eating meat whenever i have the choice. but i am slightly reconsidering my position on that now that i have got my blood work back and i was deficient in B12. i have started brewing kombucha which is supposed to contain B12, so i might be able to supplement somewhat with fermented foods, but i'm getting the IM injection every week for a few weeks anyway.

i think a debate between FEA and jman might break the internet

@murphycat

buddhism is more than a morality trip tbh, it seems like a lot of people get a small amount of insight and they suddenly think they are above everyone else.

 

[murphythecat]

@murphycat

buddhism is more than a morality trip tbh, it seems like a lot of people get a small amount of insight and they suddenly think they are above everyone else.

fascinating!

 

[turkalurk]

J-man, I think that a persons ideological history is important when having a discussion. The subject is not irrelevant really. If you read a newspaper, you actually gain more from it if you know the context and pursuasions of the author; you can read between the lines.

With that said, I don't think one should be dismissed because of previous comments one has made, but I don't think that's happening here.

Different strokes.



Interesting read. What is your take on this- why did you post this?

For a very ideological subject, I think we've all been good up until recently in being repectful and thoughtful. I know that I sometimes come across more agressively or firmly then I wish, and I think I've been trying to logically trip some people up which isn't exactly fair. I apologise if I have done so.

But I have learned through this topic and plan to begin eating living puppies from tomorrow.

I feel like you have barely read my contributions to this discussion. Yet, you have commented on so much of what you think my point has been. I feel like summarizing it all for you, but its in my post history, if you were genuinely interested in the alternatives ways of thinking as you mentioned in your OP, then you would have read all the contributions made on your thread. Personally, if I had made a thread like this, I would feel an obligation to read any post making a genuine effort to answer my OP. Especially, if I were to engage any of their posts. I certainly wouldn't engage someone in my own thread, without reading everything they wrote in my thread.

 

[Journyman16]

Last night I watched 'Forks Over Knives' a doco about 2 US doctors who separately came to a 'whol;e plant foods' view - both had grown up on farms so their research led them to views almost polar opposite to their upbringing. The doco is well worth a watch as they follow how the 2 came to the conclusion that many cancers are linked to animal products, even milk and eggs.

Where it fell down for me is there was not enough details to justify their stance, and not even enough evidence that they TRIED to do a systematic investigation - they might be dead right in their conclusions but it is almost impossible to know from what was presented.

For example - the amin evidence for one was his patients - I think it was 25 top begin with and some dropped out, leaving 14 at the end. All showed significant improvement in measures such as LDL's CRP's and more. But... and it is a big but... we are not told what their diet was before, and they are a select group of people who were sick when they started the program of plant foods. It may be they could have gone onto a diet of wild fish and organic beef and got the same improvements.

Another issue for me was they demonised animal fats, all of them, something which recent research has shown to be wrong if the fats come from healthy and non-chemical'd livestock. Omega 3 from fish is extremely good for us, but you wouldn't think it from this show.

Opposed to that is sugars came very close to getting a free ride - they are mentioned as a bit of a problem but it clearly considered a minor issue compared to animal products - and yet other evidence shows sugar is a major killer and cause of billions spent in palliative and intervention care.

Also the program is quite positive about adding grains to our diet, something research is showing more and more as a problem. We can actually live without carbs because our bodies are designed to convert fats to energy, and the increasing research into the effects of grain, even whole grains, is showing the amount of them we eat is a major problem.

So yes, it has made me rethink a few of my attitudes but certainly not to the conversion to pure vegan level.

 

[Journyman16]

i think a debate between FEA and jman might break the internet

*grins* Probably... and we can't have that. :D

 

[What 23]

The consumption of meat, and correlated rate of cancer, may be due to the way it is cooked, also. The high heat perhaps. This at least is part of it.

Red meat may also carry more risk. I'm not sure. I don't have a specific reference in my head just what has hit the panel there enough times to light it up there. I could be wrong, of course.

 

[Journyman16]

Probably not on topic but related to the heat - possibly the ultimate way to cook any food, but particularly meat - sous vide. I bought an Anova unit a few months back and the food is insanely good. Veggies come out perfect every time, salmon steaks are meltingly tender all the way through and even cheap cuts like chuck steak come out so tender you can use a bread knife to cut them.

And it is impossible to overcook anything - no more mushy cabbage or waterlogged carrots. :D

I have beef ribs in at the moment, cooking for 30 hours (tomorrow night's meal)

 

[What 23]

Sounds good/sounds interesting. I read the plastic used is non-leach, but I would need to research more. I try to avoid plastic. Do you notice any plastic taste?

 

[Journyman16]

Sounds good/sounds interesting. I read the plastic used is non-leach, but I would need to research more. I try to avoid plastic. Do you notice any plastic taste?

Not in the slightest. The water temps are too low for any issues with food grade bags. I wouldn't try cling wrap though... :D

A perfect medium rare steak cooks around 57ºC (134.6ºF) chicken is a bit warmer at ~63ºC and fish is lower. (about 52ºC for medium rare fillets) Hard veggies are hotter at around 85ºC. So pretty much anything rated for boiling water temps is fine to cook in. I vac-pack mine but you can by sealable bags and immerse in water to remove the air before sealing them.

 

[swilow]

I feel like you have barely read my contributions to this discussion. Yet, you have commented on so much of what you think my point has been. I feel like summarizing it all for you, but its in my post history, if you were genuinely interested in the alternatives ways of thinking as you mentioned in your OP, then you would have read all the contributions made on your thread. Personally, if I had made a thread like this, I would feel an obligation to read any post making a genuine effort to answer my OP. Especially, if I were to engage any of their posts. I certainly wouldn't engage someone in my own thread, without reading everything they wrote in my thread.

1) I am not leading this discussion just because I started it. I'm not sure why you think I am obliged to read and respond to every contribution. I don't have the time for that, but I did try to express my appreciation to all participants, yourself included.
2) How do you know that I haven't read all of it? You are assuming that (correctly as it were) Of course, IF you were to start a topic, you WOULD do things differently. Cool man.
3) The fact is that you were unclear in your points, so I tried to pick those that made sense to me to discuss. It is not my fault if you changed your arguments several times or were unable to coherently convey it.
4) Earlier you felt that I was responding only to you- you said as much to me- so I worried that I was hectoring you so I backed off. I picked the things in your comments that interested me to discuss with you. That is how it goes. I don't have the inclination or the time to try and figure out your own arguments when other people here are expressing their's in a clearer manner.

If I've bothered you, I'm sorry, but its really your own problem. I tried to engage with you above and you just went on a small rant, so I'm giving up.