Eating Meat?

[vegan]

Be what they may, they are all still vital parts of nature's cycle, like eating meat

diseases, earthquakes, malformations and eating meat are vital parts of nature's cycle???
you lost me

we don't need meat, it's not vital to humans
do you see me dying?

Just because we are of "higher consciouness" doesn't mean that the instinct to eat meat is wrong."

it does make between humans eating meat and animals eating meat

because we're of "higher consciousness", we realize very well the suffering we're causing. and we work hard on making farming more intensive, thus willingly creating more suffering
we're also very well conscious that we don't need meat to be healthy
thus, we're willingly killing animals that we know we could have let live

animals on the other hand are not as conscious of the implications of their instinctive behaviour

also, for humans, eating meat is not instinctive, it's cultural
if we hadn't been fed meat all our lives and hadn't been taught how to cook it, we'd never get the idea of running after a rabbit and cut it open to eat its insides

Obviously the meat eating culture is the majority here in the US.

but the US is a minority in the world

Now that goes against every law of nature

i don't care about the "laws of nature"!

and if you eat animals that have been raised without seeing the sun while being fed all kinds of antibiotics a few hundred miles away and are served to you in a plastic warp, then you i'm not sure the "laws of nature" are something you really try to live by either

if you do, make sure not to use man-invented medicine next time you fall ill
and stay in town next time you know a hurricane's coming

If that was the case and every one of us transcendental humans had that point of view, you would not be here. In fact, none of us would be here to experience this joyfull debate

cool!
so instead of a selfish and violent race, our ancestors would have evolved into a peaceful species and we would be arguing about art instead!

How else are you going to eat it? I'm sure you don't advocate swallowing whole, live goldfish. And eating dead aminals might have some health issues attached to it.

this answer reminds me of a hen in chicken run
- outside we'll be free. there won't be any farmers
- and so who's going to feed us

i suppose you don't see the parallel
it's the incapacity to see further than what you're already set on
you're not trying to read my post with an open vision of things but with blinkers : "what could this mean, considering the goal is to eat meat"

how else am i going to eat meat?
well, i'm not

if people only ate recently naturally dead animals in the wild, i wouldn't care
because it's not the act of eating meat that bothers me, it's the suffering and killing of animals

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

so instead of a selfish and violent race, our ancestors would have evolved into a peaceful species and we would be arguing about art instead!

Umm, we wouldn't have evolved at all.

it does make between humans eating meat and animals eating meat

The majority of people will say it's their God given right to eat meat, if you really want to boil it down to the basics.

because it's not the act of eating meat that bothers me

Well then why are you taking the argument to the meat eaters? Your efforts should be expended on the process of slaughter. It obviously does bother you.

also, for humans, eating meat is not instinctive, it's cultural

Our cultural habits are direct descendants of what our insticts originally were. We were eating meat way before we had the cerebral understanding of why we were eating it. Everybody wants to seperate us from the animals because of our advanced brains but the truth is that we are, biologically, not any different.

but the US is a minority in the world

People who eat meat and use animal products are still the majority....in the world.

 

[DocHolliday]

plants don't have a central nervous system, so they can't experience pain as we know it
maybe they do experience some other kind of suffering, but we know nothing about it... whereas we're quite sure that animals suffer
and plants don't suffer from being locked in cages, since they have no ability to move

Every cell has a fight or flight mechanism. We as humans just have A LOT of cells and they are organized in to things like organs, tissues and yes, the nervous system.

Suffering is caused by extreme stress on a biological entity. These stresses are based on external stimuli to the cells. When a plant is injured you can see cascading changes in it's systems, sometimes leading to death. Over time evolution has allowed plants to survive by employing things such as barbs, thorns and poisons. Yes, a plant can suffer.

Plants also have the ability to move, just not in the range that you were probably thinking. Their cells adjust and will orient leaves allowing them to reach out for the stimulus of the sun so as to better allow photosynthesis and the same thing happens with roots so they will grow to reach water sources.

 

[Dhampira]

the food chain is just a description of the current relation between foods and animals. it's not something to necessarily live by
i, for instance, decide not to be on top of the food chain
and it works very fine for me

The food chain has been proven to be not accurate enough. The food web explains everything to a much better degree in my opinion

This is from wikipedia:
"The term "food web" is distinguished from "food chain" by the fact that such direct steps as shown in the food chain example above seldom reflect reality. Food sources of most species in an ecosystem are much more diverse, resulting in a complex web of relationships as shown in the figure on the right. In this figure, the grouping of Phytoplankton ￾¨ Herbivorous zooplankton ￾¨ Carnivorous zooplankton ￾¨ Arctic char ￾¨ Capelin on the far right is a food chain; the whole complex network is a food web."

Originally posted by vegan plants don't have a central nervous system, so they can't experience pain as we know it
maybe they do experience some other kind of suffering, but we know nothing about it... whereas we're quite sure that animals suffer
and plants don't suffer from being locked in cages, since they have no ability to move

As previously said plants do experience pain. I deal with plants everyday and I get to observe how they react to different outside stimuli. -I- am quite sure that they suffer if damaged or are subject to other negative factors. And that they do suffer from being locked in cages, unless certain changes are presented to the cage to ensure their survival (i.e. light, water, nutritien, certain soil types ect.) As a majority we know as little about plants as we do about the other life forms we coexist with on this planet. Saying eating one type over another based on treatment is a very simplistic and uniformed way of putting it. However if you say eating one type over another based on what our bodies can use most efficently is another thing

 

[cannabis sativa]

many of the plants we eat such as corn, apples, bananas, etc are fruits and their consumption causes no suffering to the plant that produced them.

 

[jus blaze]

I'm not a vegitarian but I don't eat meat that often. I can't eat anything like still with bones (like turkey on thanksgiving..) it just freaks me out too much to think that what I am eating was once a living animal. I feel guilty thinking about the millions of animals that die per year... personally, I think the world is eating tooo much meat, we don't need a McDonalds on every corner.

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

Man o Man, you can't eat anything with a bone, but you can without. You need a reality check. You shouldn't be eating meat man. You're not ready to deal with the reality of dead animals.

We sit on top right now but that doesn't mean we can't be just another prey animal. Go into grizzly country for awhile. It's an erie feeling to know that you could be dinner for a bear. Then you know how it really is. Now go out and kill something. Gut it, skin it, cook it, eat it. Ok now you know what this is about. Now choose, and be responsible for your choices. It's been this way for alot longer than the farming culture that we belong to.

Some people do well on meat and seem to need some for optimal health and others do best on a vegetarian diet. To each his own. But gee educate yourself to what is going on as far as where your meat is comming from and how it's raised ect.

Sorry, but it is so weird to hear someone say they eat meat but can't look at a bone. It's like living in a cocoon.

 

[ebola?]

DJDannyUhOh,
your point will be well-proven when you show how description implies prescription. Until then. . .

ebola

 

[vegan]

Umm, we wouldn't have evolved at all.

how is that?
there are herbivores you know. what did they evolve from?
from herbivores
we wouldn't have evolved into the humans we are today but into another similar species
a species who wouldn't base its diet on violence

The majority of people will say it's their God given right to eat meat, if you really want to boil it down to the basics

- it has nothing to do with what you were answering to
- show me god and i'll listen to arguments including god
- check the tattoo gallery if you want to know what i think about religion, the thing that man created and uses at will to justify many of the atrocities it commits
- which god is entitled to give rights? the god who gave the right to drive a plane into the towers or the god, the god who gave the right to torture infidels or the god who decided it was a sin to eat pork?

Well then why are you taking the argument to the meat eaters? Your efforts should be expended on the process of slaughter. It obviously does bother you.

sorry, but you really don't understand anything
if you don't make the effort of trying to understand what i've already repeated (and probably in the other thread too), i'm not going to spell it out for you

Our cultural habits are direct descendants of what our insticts originally were

it probably first was a necessity rather than an instinct, although i of course can't know for sure. but nowadays it doesn't have anything else to do with instinct
and we're talking about nowadays, aren't we?

People who eat meat and use animal products are still the majority....in the world

but not in the same ratio as in the US, which is what you were forgetting when saying " Eating meat is too engrained into our culture [...to stop it]"

Yes, a plant can suffer

from my post : " plants don't have a central nervous system, so they can't experience pain as we know it
maybe they do experience some other kind of suffering,"

no, plants don't suffer like we do
what you're describing is a chain of chemical reactions, not a feeling of suffering
if you cut someone who's in the coma, he's going to bleed, the wound's going to heal... but he won't be suffering all the while
same with a plant. it reacts to some external stimuli. it fixes the problems they have engendered, but it doesn't feel pain (suffering) as beings with a central nervous system know it

and of course... if you care about plants, eat them directly, it consumes less of them

Plants also have the ability to move, just not in the range that you were probably thinking

i believe you can guess for yourself what range i was thinking about
their ability of moving is not hindered by putting a warehouse around them further than they'd ever be able to grow
many animals on the other hand can't even turn around in their cages

And that they do suffer from being locked in cages

once more, that they react, try to adapt or have difficulty growing doesn't mean that they suffer = feel pain

Saying eating one type over another based on treatment is a very simplistic and uniformed way of putting it

and it's a very hypocritical way to justify the exploitation of the beings we know to suffer by pointing out that we're not sure about the others

also, saying that you will consume less plants (and of course les animals) by eating directly the plants is nothing simplistic, it's a fact

I feel guilty thinking about the millions of animals that die per year

per day

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

how is that?

In response to your statement that you'd rather starve than eat meat. Your blood line simply wouldn't continue if that were the case. If we all (and our ancestors) had this attitude, we would all die out. Need a pie chart?

- it has nothing to do with what you were answering to- show me god and i'll listen to arguments including god
- check the tattoo gallery if you want to know what i think about religion, the thing that man created and uses at will to justify many of the atrocities it commits

I am by far not a religious person and God doesn't necessarily have to be associated with religion. Actually, more killing has been done in the name of God than for any other reason. I am merely speaking for other people that will use this excuse, as they use it for everything else. I need not show the ratio of atheists to people who believe in God.....in the entire world.

it probably first was a necessity rather than an instinct, although i of course can't know for sure.

And you want to say that I am not understanding. Necessity is driven by instinct. The necessity to procreate. The necessity to eat. These are instinct based. If it wasn't a need, you would not have the instinct for it. My goal isn't to eat meat. I don't sit around all day thinking of steak. I am merely defend the reasons why humans eat meat and will continue to eat meat regardless of how we are able to think.

Meat consumption aside, there is one very good reason why we continue to use animal products. I work with many cancer patients as a result of my job. All of them have some form of (if not used solely) animal-derived medication in their chemotherapy regiment that not only extends their life expectancy, but improves their quality of life as well. This may be a very small example, but it is one of thousands and has enormous implications as to why we are very dependent on other animals.

 

[exarkann]

oh ya... i forgot to add..

some plants eat meat...
have you ever watched meat eating plants work? very unpleasent for the prey indeed...

 

[amnesiaseizure]

Danny, the point you made about the animal derived medicine helping the patients you look after is a valid one but.... from what I have read over the years on medicine and animal testing it does seem as though the vast majority (if not ALL) of it is totally usleless and could have been developed just as well if not more effectively by using human volunteers instead of animals. I will never understand the arrogance it must take to believe that because a chemical works in this way on this particular animal then surely it's fine with us as humans.

The pharmaceutical industry will use the similarities and differences between us and animals to their own ends when and if it suits them. If a chemical has a detrimental effect on the lab animals then they use the argument that the test isn't valid due to the differences and if it's ok then they spout the similarities and thus the validity of the experiment. All they are trying to do is make money. Curing people doesn't always come first when sums of money this big are involved - not to mention the amount of jobs that rest upon certain developments. It was thalidomide that was tested on animals wasn't it? And look what that did. Nice.

I don't believe in animal testing at all and would have it banned tomorrow if I could. At this point if anyone is thinking of the highly emotive argument of "what if one of your relatives were dying and needed a medicine that was tested on animals, would you use it?", well yes, of course I would. I don't believe that themedicine came into existence BECAUSE of it being tested on animals - I think it was tested on animals as a way of getting the licence and funding. It could just as well of got here by testing on volunteers. Then you ask, "would you voluteer for testing?" and I say "yes, I would". In fact I have put myself forward for medical trials before. The truth is that medicines go through a huge amount of testing (not on animals) before they even get to the stage of human/animals testing and so can be pretty much guaranteed to be safe enough to test.

There can be no justification for the pain we put millions of animals through each and every second fo the purpose of our own health. The amount of tests done on sentient creatures to further medicine that really has a direct benefit on humans in incredibly small anyway. The majority of it is done to gain funding and to further the carreers of those doing the testing - many are also performed in the name of so-called 'education'. They've been dona countless times before but look, another class has come along so they need to be shown as well. Errr, every heard of a text book?

Vegan, you are extremely eloquent in your argument and I wish I could put forward the arguments you do with the same ability. I can kinda guess but what do think on the subject of animal testing?

 

[amnesiaseizure]

And exarkann, are you serious? We've already been over the idea that we, as humans, have the ability to see the consequences of our actions and so have a far greater responsibility than those who don't have this facility.

ok?

 

[DJDannyUhOh]

from what I have read over the years on medicine and animal testing it does seem as though the vast majority (if not ALL) of it is totally usleless and could have been developed just as well if not more effectively by using human volunteers instead of animals. I will never understand the arrogance it must take to believe that because a chemical works in this way on this particular animal then surely it's fine with us as humans.

I've been in cancer research and treatment for the past 8 years now. I've always worked directly with many oncologists and I can tell you first hand that the "uselessness" of these meds that you claim is straight out false. You need to stop reading what you're reading or give me either the name brands or generic chemical names of such meds. There is little, if no animal testing when it comes to most of these meds because for one reason, cancer is not as prevalent in the rest of the animal world as it is with humans. Animals usually breed it out of themselves in the wild. Second, many of the mechanisms that trigger cancer in animals differ from what we are used to seeing. Trust me when I say that many humans we basically used as guinea pigs in their end stages of their terminal disease just to demonstrate what happens in humans. That's why most of the chemos have been approved, because they have been shown to have cancer inhibiting properties (eg monoclonal antibodies) in human subjects. You'd be surprised what people in an end stage cancer will do for alternative treatments, including signing the rest of their short life away to try such chemos and experiencing their side affects.

The amount of tests done on sentient creatures to further medicine that really has a direct benefit on humans in incredibly small anyway. The majority of it is done to gain funding and to further the carreers of those doing the testing

Alexander Fleming, who made one of the greatest discoveries known to science (penicillin) would be rolling over in his grave if he read this. Also, Koch's Postulates would have never been proven if it wasn't for the pioneering tests on animals that were used demonstrated it. I do not condone the suffering or mistreatment of animals, but I do look upon our relationship with them in the past with a value-free point of view and that's where alot of people go wrong. Emotions get in the way of the facts sometimes.

 

[DocHolliday]

no, plants don't suffer like we do
what you're describing is a chain of chemical reactions, not a feeling of suffering

suffering is an emotion which is a way of describing an internal state of being based on external senses.

Of course it is not to the same degree as humans, just as human suffering is different than cows or chickens. Some one else (sorry, no quote) posted that the reason that we can identify suffering in animals easier than plants or insects for example is because we have a closer relationship.

And yes, I was describing a set of chemical reactions. How do you think the CNS communicates?

if you cut someone who's in the coma, he's going to bleed, the wound's going to heal... but he won't be suffering all the while
same with a plant. it reacts to some external stimuli. it fixes the problems they have engendered, but it doesn't feel pain (suffering) as beings with a central nervous system know it

It cannot be proven whether they are suffering or not. They react to that pain and may even formulate movements to push the pain away but they will have no MEMORY of that pain. Maybe we can try to invent ways to prevent animals from remembering the suffering they endure. [EDIT: This last sentence was meant to be sarcastic and I thought of removing it after realizing it's tone, but on second thought it may produce some interesting thoughts and conversations among others so I'm leaving it in.]

and of course... if you care about plants, eat them directly, it consumes less of them

I care about everything that is alive (which to me is everything in the universe), but one of the great things about being human is that I can formulate many thoughts based on billions and billions of cells and so things don't need to be so cut and dry.

I eat plants, I eat meat. With information I gathered from this thread I may eat less meat (I think it was OceanBoy that posted that great article on how 'factory meat' impacts the living earth). One of the things that I don't do is limit my future choices because of a limitation of understanding. I understand that I will learn more from my environment and therefore my beliefs now may change in the future. "I know that I don't know, but perhaps will know."

and it's a very hypocritical way to justify the exploitation of the beings we know to suffer by pointing out that we're not sure about the others

[EDIT: I just realized hours later that this was in response to some one elses post and not mine. I apologize for the tone of the following with that in mind.]

Who said I was justifying this. You are implying justification by responding in that manner. My post was not a response to yours saying that eating meat was right or wrong based on whether plants suffer. It was a post saying that I believe plants suffer as well. It seems you drew your own conclusion based on the justification that eating meat is wrong because animals suffer.

My thoughts on this manner are based on a different scale and therefore don't translate easily to: I'm right/You're wrong. These thoughts are not limited to, but involve a lot of what was in OceanBoy's article. I like to look at the overall system and what's best for sustainability (and not just for humanity).

In fact, it looks like we may even have the same intermediate goal, just for different reasons.

 

[exarkann]

Originally posted by amnesiaseizure
And exarkann, are you serious? We've already been over the idea that we, as humans, have the ability to see the consequences of our actions and so have a far greater responsibility than those who don't have this facility.

ok?

i disagree... my cat very well knows that if she bites me hard enough, i will feel pain, and so she avoids biting me hard...

humans are not the only creatures that can see cause and effect...

who decided that self awareness equals responsibility? morals and such are a totally man made construct, and a very subjective one at that.

granted, i don't think a meat eating plant is self aware, but at the same time, the insect it consumes still feels discomfort as its exoskeleton is slowly dissolved... regardless of how we feel about it, we are a part of nature, and nature isn't pretty, nor is it fair...

i have nothing against herbivores, my SO is one and i respect her choice, but i choose to be omnivorous. thats my choice to make, and no one can rightfully tell me i cant.
my morals are different that yours, but that doesn't make your morals any less or more than my own, just different.

 

[amnesiaseizure]

self awareness does not equal responsibility, you're right. I never said it did, did i? It's just that once you know you're really fucking hurting something through your actions wouldn't a typically well adjusted person want to stop doing it?

 

[amnesiaseizure]

And yes, our morals are simply different - its just that mine will generally lead to minutely less suffering if I work at it and yours will increase it. Bummer hey?

 

[vegan]

In response to your statement that you'd rather starve than eat meat. Your blood line simply wouldn't continue if that were the case. If we all (and our ancestors) had this attitude, we would all die out. Need a pie chart?

luckily there are wonderful things called vegetables that allowed herbivores to survive until now and would have allowed us to do so too

we were talking about a theoretic case to better explain what my motivations were

Necessity is driven by instinct. The necessity to procreate. The necessity to eat.

i'm not sure what you mean by "Necessity is driven by instinct"
"instinct is driven by necessity" makes more sense to me

"you have to feed, so you feel like eating"
not "you feel like eating, so you have to feed"

anyway, necessity or instinct to eat something, not to eat meat
a nice fruit is appetizing without preparation
a corpse is only appetizing after cooking it, putting salt or spices and a lot of cultural conditioning

All of them have some form of (if not used solely) animal-derived medication in their chemotherapy regiment

a thread with my opinion on animal experimentation

Alexander Fleming, who made one of the greatest discoveries known to science (penicillin) would be rolling over in his grave if he read this

except that after putting penicillin aside as inefficient in 1928 when he saw the results on rabbits (who don't react to it as humans do) and not studying it for a decade, it's by sheer luck that he tried it again on mice instead of guinea pigs (mice being less expensive to work with)
penicillin is lethal for guinea pigs and fleming would have recognized penicillin as a dangerous drug
you could as well give drugs randomly to humans if they kill some animals and cure others and you still don't know what the result will be on humans.

Please show me where I posted that I advocate the current way that animals are killed.

right here :

I do not condone the suffering or mistreatment of animals

make up your mind

Some one else (sorry, no quote) posted that the reason that we can identify suffering in animals easier than plants or insects for example is because we have a closer relationship.

wow, that's some heavy thinking!
and how about a simpler "because we can hear them scream, see their terrified eyes, see them go mad from stress, see them try to flee from their treatment"?

they will have no MEMORY of that pain

*cough*wishful thinking*cough*

One of the things that I don't do is limit my future choices because of a limitation of understanding

yeah, and actually, i'm not totally sure that this world is real. it could as well be a figment of my imagination. so what the hell, i'm not going to limit my choice by this limitation of understanding. let's be irresponsible and destroy it since i'm not even sure that it exists!

i see things a different way
i think "if there's a reasonable possibility that it might hurt someone, let's abstain from doing it"
and here there's a big fucking huge evidence

In fact, it looks like we may even have the same intermediate goal, just for different reasons

i agree with environmental reasons
but i also have other reasons that i find even more important that the environmental ones
i agree 100% with the ideas in oceanboy's text. i just find it unbelievable that people would care about water and not sentient beings
actually, i know why it's so. people care about water, etc. because they'll be the direct victims if there's a lack of it
their compassion only awakens when humans are concerned, not other species

 

[U.R.B.4.U.R.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, it looks like we may even have the same intermediate goal, just for different reasons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i agree with environmental reasons
but i also have other reasons that i find even more important that the environmental ones
i agree 100% with the ideas in oceanboy's text. i just find it unbelievable that people would care about water and not sentient beings
actually, i know why it's so. people care about water, etc. because they'll be the direct victims if there's a lack of it
their compassion only awakens when humans are concerned, not other species
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------