Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[tantric]

People on chemo don't need to have silly, unhealthy diets based on nonsense. they need a dietitian. i live with my 23yo niece, who is also on chemo for anaplastic astrocytoma (incurable nasty brain cancer). now, if you're at a state where you can only keep down certain foods, then by all means, eat them. the bone marrow broth is probably good. but being on chemo doesn't change the fundamental facts about the human metabolism, and going on weird binge diets will NOT help. if you're fighting cancer, your ONLY chance is science. it's a cruel master, i know that, but going for non-medical treatments as a coping mechanism is deadly.

OTOH, if i were in my niece's place, i'd refuse any further treatment after the first round. just go out and LIVE and when it comes back, euthanasia. death isn't frightening, but what cancer can do to a person, helpless and trapped in the medical-industrial nightmare, is beyond hellish. all of you will think this is completely insane, but when her time comes, if she's still afraid, i'll pass with her. to me, that'd be a satisfying and meaningful use of my life. fuck, what's being a shaman about, if not being a friend of death?

 

[Ninae]

The only sugar you should have is the sugar in fruit.

 

[turkalurk]

I suppose we should just kill off all the cows so we can save the world from cow farts!

So the egoic sociopath thinks he's a shaman? good laughs

 

[Ninae]

What are you doing back, Turk?

 

[belligerent drunk]

I believe the question of veganism/whatever is not a question of ethics, but of plain and simple sustainability. I think it's a well-established fact that given our population, there is no way we can reasonably provide food in the form of meat for all of us for an indefinite amount of time. Producing meat as opposed to plant matter is, dare I say, orders of magnitude less efficient, in addition to worsening the problem of global warming with the methane. That is the only logical reason I see for veganism.

On the other hand, ethics is purely a human-made concept, meaning that it lacks objectivity and is not absolute. What is ethical for me may not be ethical for you and vice versa. The reason we care about "ethics" regarding the (very) poor conditions the animals are cultivated in is because we can "relate" to them, as they're animals just like us and feel pain similarly to us. The good thing about it is that nobody gives a fuck. The animal lives a horrible life and dies a horrible death, and that's it. Nothing changes in the universe and nothing, really, is hurt. The only reason we're so butthurt about it is because we imagine what we'd feel like in those conditions, and for evidence we take the apparent suffering of said animals. By no means am I saying that I have no regard for another animal's life; on the contrary, I often can't stand watching an animal suffer and I try to do my best when in such a situation to help the sufferer. But then again I acknowledge the fact that it's just my mind playing tricks on me.

If you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, you will see right away that ethics is not something the rest of them consider and think about. We've just got too big of a brain that we started worrying about all kinds of superficial shit. Oh well, enough of this bullshit, nobody is going to agree with or even take this point of view seriously anyway.

With that said, I know I'm a part of the environmental problem being a meat eater, but I don't have the emotional capacity to switch to veganism right now. And if I did, what would that change anyway?

 

[turkalurk]

considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten. So vegans are anti-animals. fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.

 

[belligerent drunk]

considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten. So vegans are anti-animals. fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.

That a joke? While it's true that that particular animal wouldn't have lived were it not for the cultivators, but do you really think such a life is worth living? In any case, I somehow doubt most animals even value their life on an emotional or sentimental level like we do. Most are just machines responding to the environment in a pre-programmed way, I don't think many reflect back on their life and/or are thankful for being alive, or understand what life is at all, they just don't have the cranial capacity to do so.

 

[turkalurk]

We are all just living beings responding to life in a preprogrammed way. I have seen many cows grazing in pastures and they didn't seem to be suffering to me. they seemed pretty content with their existence. I think all life is an experience worth living. I value all forms of life and am all for fighting to stop these unethical business practices that result in cruelty and suffering by developing and enforcing stricter regulations. I believe the solution will be growing meat in labs, or maybe even genetically altering a plant to grow muscle fiber. Thats our value as humans. We might push this world to the brink but we will find solutions that will make it all worth it. It will all work out as it should, with or without us. I'm just here to enjoy the ride and appreciate the view.

 

[belligerent drunk]

My apologies, I assumed we were talking about the modern "high-efficiency" farms, not the old-fashioned pastures. In that case I definitely agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with letting the animals live in an enclosed area, but still free enough to do and eat as they like, and then killing them when it's time.

I don't know what the solution will be, or if there will be one at all. I guess we'll just have to see; I personally don't care or stress much over it. I think one possible solution (veganism) is a lot easier than developing lab-meat and such, if only executed right. My ex was and is a vegan and when we lived together, I pretty much was on a vegan diet as well and I can't say I could complain much. For me what matters is the way the stuff I eat tastes and feels, and looks. I don't care if it's meat or plant-based, so well-made vegan food is just as good as meat for me. I believe I'm not the only one.

 

[drug_mentor]

considering that many of these food animals wouldn't be alive if they weren't raised to be eaten. So vegans are anti-animals. fighting for less animals to exist and experience life.

A huge proportion of the land on earth is being used to raise livestock or grow crops for the sole purpose of feeding said livestock. Whilst it is certainly true that more pigs, cows and chickens are alive due to human consumption of meat, what you are not considering is the natural wildlife whose populations are being dramatically reduced in order to clear this land to graze cattle and other livestock.

One example relates to the way that the meat industry essentially receives federal subsidies by being allowed to graze their cattle on federal land. A large number of predatory animals on federal land, like wolves and coyotes, are being culled at alarming numbers in order to accommodate the ever growing livestock industry. Another is the huge areas of natural habitat which are being cleared to feed the livestock industry. My understanding is that a very significant percentage of rain forest deforestation in the Amazon is taking place in order to grow soybean for the sole purpose of feeding livestock.

The fact is that livestock farming does not increase the number of living animals, it creates a largely disproportionate number of animals which are considered desirable to humans whilst eliminating other types of animals which either threaten or add nothing to the commercial status quo. I personally believe that this short-sighted elimination of biodiversity is having a significant negative impact on our environment. I also believe that the wild animals who are being eliminated generally have a better quality of life than animals which are raised for human consumption.

 

[spacejunk]

I have seen many cows grazing in pastures and they didn't seem to be suffering to me. they seemed pretty content with their existence. I think all life is an experience worth living.

How quaint.
You ever seen a pig living in a sow stall that spends her life in a cage so small she can't even turn around?

This is either a fascinating of display of romanticised cognitive dissonance, or you're just trying to get a rise out of people.
My money is on the latter.

One of the things i've noticed since i stopped eating most animal products is how much more delicious vegan food is.
Call me a hedonist, but in my experience it's absolutely true.

It never ceases to amaze me how bothered some people seem to get by the concept of (other folks) eating this way, but since i drastically cut my intake of dairy products (especially) i've noticed a lot of health improvements and find eating even more pleasurable than i did previously. It's great.

But i don't preach or advocate diets to people, because i know how patronising that is, because meat-eaters have tried that shit on with me for years, so i know how tedious and futile it is - plus i don't care.

But calling vegans "anti-animals" is one of the silliest things i've read on the subject...which really is quite an achievement.

 

[turkalurk]

How quaint.
You ever seen a pig living in a sow stall that spends her life in a cage so small she can't even turn around?

no, have you? haven't seen any of these places mentioned by vegans. never seen any sweat shops with child labor either. Do i doubt there existence? nope. will i quit buying clothes altogether because some businesses utilize unethical practices? probably not. Do you still drive a vehicle or use electricity powered by coal? I do. Just being who the world made me to be. I put my faith in the world that things will work out as they ought to, whatever that may mean.

 

[Ninae]

My dad works in the control sector of the meat industry. Trust me, it's ugly.

My grandfather was a butcher who spent 12 hours a day cutting the throats of animals (he wasn't very delicate).

Me and my sisters became vegetarian as soon as we could to make up for the bad ancestral karma.

 

[spacejunk]

no, have you? haven't seen any of these places mentioned by vegans. never seen any sweat shops with child labor either. Do i doubt there existence? nope. will i quit buying clothes altogether because some businesses utilize unethical practices? probably not. Do you still drive a vehicle or use electricity powered by coal? I do. Just being who the world made me to be. I put my faith in the world that things will work out as they ought to, whatever that may mean.

You've never heard vegan activists discuss the cruelty of modern farming practices?
Perhaps you haven't paid much attention?

I think you have a pretty defeatist attitude, but you're entitled to it.
For what it's worth, i try to spend my money in as ethical a manner as possible.

Just because not every choice we make as consumers is ethically sound, does not mean we should give up on the idea of making choices we agree with entirely - that doesnt make sense to me.

But anyway, the point i was making was that i have always hated eating meat, and i'm happier and healthier generally since i started eating predominantly vegan.

 

[swilow]

The fact that pretty much all of us do utilise unsustatinable and environmentally damaging practises doesn't negate the value of trying to do this less. In fact, it makes me think we should strive even harder to balance out our negative actions. I used to consider veganism to be an extreme lifestyle choice but if you look at our society and its culture of unending economic growth, fueled by consumption and built-in obsolescence and the fact that this culture is global, I really wonder what actually is more extreme.

I've seen that argument before, that the huge proliferation of livestock animals is a good thing as it gives animals life they otherwise wouldn't have had. There is a huge assumption here, that life is something that is always desirable. Obviously, I cannot ask a cow what they think of this idea, so I have to extrapolate based on my own feelings. I would much 'prefer' to not exist than to live and die with pain and suffering. The male chicken, crushed to death in the first day of its life, has no reason to be grateful for that brief and violent existence. People might be unwilling to extend empathy to animals due to a belief that they do not suffer, but this is incorrect.

The fact is that rearing animals in factory farm conditions causes extreme suffering. This is borne out by science one does not need to directly witness to appreciate. All animals, farmed, wild and middle-class, evolved traits over millions of years which increased their chance of survival. This might be limbs, organs, senses and, in mammals at least, internal states or emotions. Emotions that contribute to surivival are usually experienced very intensely. Evolutionary psychology tells us that the traits we evolved in the wild still persist subjectively even in circumstances where there is no objective use for them. One doesn't lose wings immeditately upon being prevented from flying. Thus it can be argued that farm animals must have evolved emotional states which effect their survival, just like we did and that, intentionally, in a factory farm, these emotional needs are never fulfilled, are always unrequited. It can be argued, and validly, that non-humans do not suffer as intensely as we, due to their lower intelligence and self-awareness. It cannot be argued that they do not suffer at all.

 

[belligerent drunk]

The fact is that rearing animals in factory farm conditions causes extreme suffering. This is borne out by science one does not need to directly witness to appreciate. All animals, farmed, wild and middle-class, evolved traits over millions of years which increased their chance of survival. This might be limbs, organs, senses and, in mammals at least, internal states or emotions. Emotions that contribute to surivival are usually experienced very intensely. Evolutionary psychology tells us that the traits we evolved in the wild still persist subjectively even in circumstances where there is no objective use for them. One doesn't lose wings immeditately upon being prevented from flying. Thus it can be argued that farm animals must have evolved emotional states which effect their survival, just like we did and that, intentionally, in a factory farm, these emotional needs are never fulfilled, are always unrequited. It can be argued, and validly, that non-humans do not suffer as intensely as we, due to their lower intelligence and self-awareness. It cannot be argued that they do not suffer at all.

I don't think anyone can argue that animals do not feel pain and other forms of suffering. It would make no sense to argue that, because as you correctly pointed out, evolution shaped us and other animals to feel such stuff in order to avoid risks/damage/death. Although you have to understand that it's simply a survival mechanism based on chemistry, no more than that. All of those things could be thought of as a form of more complex reflexes. You don't think the frog leg is alive, feels pain or has emotions and/or soul, when it twitches as current is applied to it, you know that it's just how the (albeit complex) mechanism works.

 

[swilow]

I don't think anyone can argue that animals do not feel pain and other forms of suffering. It would make no sense to argue that, because as you correctly pointed out, evolution shaped us and other animals to feel such stuff in order to avoid risks/damage/death.

I was trying to emphasise just how harmful the factory-farm environment is to animals. I understand that it is widely accepted that farm animals can suffer intensely... Its an idea that motivates me.

Although you have to understand that it's simply a survival mechanism based on chemistry, no more than that. All of those things could be thought of as a form of more complex reflexes. You don't think the frog leg is alive, feels pain or has emotions and/or soul, when it twitches as current is applied to it, you know that it's just how the (albeit complex) mechanism works.

I don't really see your point here. Again, it is obvious that an animal's experience of suffering is mediated by chemistry and biology, the same way that ours is. How else would this stuff work? This doesn't nullify the intensity of subjective suffering for animals. Everything a living creature experiences, humans and non-human, is related to biology and chemistry and electrical processes in the body. This reductionist view does nothing to negate my own suffering. This idea does even less when considering the suffering of animals who have no capacity for awareness of the biological underpinnings of their experience. It makes no difference how an effect is mediated. All that needs to be considered is the subjective experience of it. For me, the evidence that factory farming causes extreme suffering for indivudals is enough for me to not participate in it. And even then this is not the most profound reason to abstain from consuming farmed animals with the environmental reasons being much more compelling for me.

 

[belligerent drunk]

I don't really see your point here. Again, it is obvious that an animal's experience of suffering is mediated by chemistry and biology, the same way that ours is. How else would this stuff work? This doesn't nullify the intensity of subjective suffering for animals. Everything a living creature experiences, humans and non-human, is related to biology and chemistry and electrical processes in the body. This reductionist view does nothing to negate my own suffering. This idea does even less when considering the suffering of animals who have no capacity for awareness of the biological underpinnings of their experience. It makes no difference how an effect is mediated. All that needs to be considered is the subjective experience of it. For me, the evidence that factory farming causes extreme suffering for indivudals is enough for me to not participate in it. And even then this is not the most profound reason to abstain from consuming farmed animals with the environmental reasons being much more compelling for me.

Subjective for whom? My point was that we humans tend to extrapolate a whole lot from our own subjective experiences. What follows from considering that living organisms operate on chemistry is that there is no objective feelings or anything like that, only subjective ones. And then it most often makes no sense to observe humans and then apply the same principles to other animals. Let me give you an example. If you poke an insect, it will react. It has tactile receptor system and some kind of nervous system, so it is able to react to touch and all that. Does it feel pain when you break its leg off? Yeah, it may seem that it is struggling like there's no tomorrow, but do you really believe that it's thinking "god damn that fucking human about to kill me. I don't want to lose my mother, my wife, my baby boy! Please don't do this!"?

What I'm saying is that animals with less complex nervous systems may behave and react similarly to us, but it doesn't automatically mean they are having the same subjective experience. That is what I mean by most of them being "machines", not much more than that. We are too, except we also developed an over-sized brain so we're worrying about shit all the time. I don't believe most animals have the cognitive abilities and memory capacity to remember and analyze their life, or think about what's happening in the present as we do. Until you've been inside a cow's head, I'm going to be skeptical of this. Of course, as far as my first-hand experience goes, I cannot stand animals suffering and I do my best to help them avoid it, as I've pointed out before. I'm just not sure if there's sufficient reason for people to lose their shit over this subject like some of them do (not talking about you here).

I agree with your last sentence, there is very convincing evidence that meat-based diet is unsustainable for human kind. Which is why I'm glad and support your veganism. "Ethics" are secondary at best, because it's all subjective as I've explained.

 

[swilow]

Subjective for whom? My point was that we humans tend to extrapolate a whole lot from our own subjective experiences. What follows from considering that living organisms operate on chemistry is that there is no objective feelings or anything like that, only subjective ones. And then it most often makes no sense to observe humans and then apply the same principles to other animals. Let me give you an example. If you poke an insect, it will react. It has tactile receptor system and some kind of nervous system, so it is able to react to touch and all that. Does it feel pain when you break its leg off? Yeah, it may seem that it is struggling like there's no tomorrow, but do you really believe that it's thinking "god damn that fucking human about to kill me. I don't want to lose my mother, my wife, my baby boy! Please don't do this!"?

No would argue that the nervous system of an insect is as complex as a humans. However, thats more reductionism because I am not talking about "lower organisms" like insects, but highly developed mammalian organisms who have a nervous system comparable to our own i.e. the animals that we farm. Farm animals clearly display complex emotions. It is evident that a cow has a more complex nervous system then a mosquito, and a dolphin more then a cow. You can't make a statement about an insect and apply that to mammals who are highly and 'recently' evolved.

I think we should definitely be careful of anthropomorphising the experience of non-humans; it is an injustice to assume that all lifeforms feel like us. However, it is not anthropomorphic to look at the facts of evolved behaviours and emotional responses and understand that denying those drives leads to immense suffering. All mammals have evolved emotional needs to ensure that they survive. You can make light of the drive of an animal to bond with its mother or offspring, but that behaviour is truly pragmatic; it needs its mother to survive; and has evolved emotional systems to motivate and reinforce that instinct. If a mammal did not have a motivation to bond with its mother, it would probably not survive. But, that sort of complex motivation would mean nothing to most animals and so simpler drives emerge and that is an emotional response to one's mother and a strong emotional response in her absence.

What I'm saying is that animals with less complex nervous systems may behave and react similarly to us, but it doesn't automatically mean they are having the same subjective experience. That is what I mean by most of them being "machines", not much more than that. We are too, except we also developed an over-sized brain so we're worrying about shit all the time. I don't believe most animals have the cognitive abilities and memory capacity to remember and analyze their life, or think about what's happening in the present as we do. Until you've been inside a cow's head, I'm going to be skeptical of this.

To an extent, you needn't be sceptical. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that mammals can suffer, physically and emotionally. I conceded that non-humans probably have a less profound experience of suffering compared to humans, because of their lower intelligence and self-awareness. This does not mean that they do not suffer. You do not need to communicate directly with a cow to understand that the structure of its nervous system, the emotional capacities of its brain and its evolved social behaviour are suggestive of similar drives and experiential capacity as our own, and we know how deeply we can suffer through lack of socialising or being removed from our birth mother. We are certainly not that unique in our experiences; we do not have a monopoly on pain and suffering. People seem to think that humans are completely distinct in our experiences, but for the majoirty of our 200,000 year history, we have not exhibited much behaviour at all that seperates us from animals. We are not that different at all...

"Ethics" are secondary at best, because it's all subjective as I've explained.

I don't even really beleive in the ideas of ethics and morality as eternal and objective facts. They change as society changes. So, its useful to look at what we can know objectively and that is that the nervous system and social behaviour of farm animals indicate that a factory farm environment is a difficult and highly unpleasant one. The reason these environments exist is that humans have an unreasonable desire to eat more meat than is healthy and sustainable. If we were not so hungry for meat as a 'right', we would not resort to mass production; we would nullify some of the most painful aspects of farming animals and, most importantly, we would not be totally fucking with the environment upon which all life depends.

 

[belligerent drunk]

To an extent, you needn't be sceptical. There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that mammals can suffer, physically and emotionally. I conceded that non-humans probably have a less profound experience of suffering compared to humans, because of their lower intelligence and self-awareness. This does not mean that they do not suffer. You do not need to communicate directly with a cow to understand that the structure of its nervous system, the emotional capacities of its brain and its evolved social behaviour are suggestive of similar drives and experiential capacity as our own, and we know how deeply we can suffer through lack of socialising or being removed from our birth mother. We are certainly not that unique in our experiences; we do not have a monopoly on pain and suffering. People seem to think that humans are completely distinct in our experiences, but for the majoirty of our 200,000 year history, we have not exhibited much behaviour at all that seperates us from animals. We are not that different at all...

I'm not saying that animals can't feel pain or suffering. I know they can, and you're correct to point out that humans are not much different from other animals. The only really big difference is in our prefrontal cortices. The fact that we're so good at abstract thinking and analyzing past, preset and future gives us the ability to go beyond just responding to current stimuli, and that applies to suffering too, especially if it is persistent for a long time (e.g living a terrible life). In any case, I think the discussion has become a bit too speculative.

Your last paragraph shows very well how we're after all just regular omnivores with increased executive abilities. Our disregard for the future of our planet and its environment shows that very clearly.

don't even really beleive in the ideas of ethics and morality as eternal and objective facts. They change as society changes. So, its useful to look at what we can know objectively and that is that the nervous system and social behaviour of farm animals indicate that a factory farm environment is a difficult and highly unpleasant one.

Objectively, that still doesn't mean anything. The environment may be as unpleasant as it could be, that still doesn't mean anything objectively. This brings me back to square one to saying that "ethics" is a human-made concept that is hard to find in nature. After all, if other carnivores had the abilities to set up such farms, that's exactly how they'd set them up. Maximum efficiency.

The reason I'm willing to argue with you here is that I believe presenting such reasons as ethics in favor of veganism is not the best way to approach the matter. They're easily debatable, and in addition to that an average person can easily dismiss them, because why would they care about the welfare of other NON-HUMAN animals that they never get to see in person? You can't argue against fact however, which is that meat-based diet is unsustainable for us. I wish more people would understand that. Because no matter how sadistic or indifferent a person can be, what evidence shows us is that it is a threat to us. Any sane animal being cares about their own welfare.