vegetarianism

Lucid Lounge
21

Sage and Dreamaddict - :eh: I can’t believe I have to say this, but animals have this thing called a ‘brain’, which is connected to a ‘nervous system’. Pigs are smarter than dogs, but Im sure there are millions of people who absolutely love their pets that dont even think about the horrible conditions the pigs were raised and slaughtered in that produce their ham, bacon, or pork. Imagine how incredibly upset America would be if dogs or cats were factory farmed. So why do we let it happen to other animals!?
The most vegetables can sense (if you could even call it that), are environmental conditions like sunlight, temperatures, and obstacles in the soil. Their ‘senses’ are chemical reactions, not intelligence. Comparing vegetables to animals in terms of ‘rights’ is preposterous.

What kind of ‘realistic’ cause for getting rid of factory farming could there be? Blowing them up? The corporations are in cahoots with the government, did you read the post on ‘meat and the environment’?

The meat-eater/purchaser is what keeps factory farming going! Thats YOU! If nobody ate factory farmed meat, they would go out of business. You may not torure and kill the animals yourself, but you support the people that do! Ethically, that’s just as bad. If boycotting could influence enough people, major changes could be made. I dont see the vegetarian ‘cause’ as being faulted, it’s the minds in America. As I said before, (*edit) many Americans are selfish, ignorant, and illogical. I dont see possibility for change unless people start pulling their heads out of their asses.

BTW, what the hell does a diamond do for anybody anyway? Does it make the newly weds love each other more? It’s just materialism, and bullsh*t if you ask me.

22

I never said plants had a brain or were conscious. I said they take the same amout of resources(or more) to produce and transport.

Yes you have said that in many threads and replies. Repeating this comment too many times make you seem selfish, ignorant, and illogical.

If you use electricity, then you fuel the companies such as Enron. YOU seem to be more aware of these twisted companies than common folk, but yet you still choose to support them. (Unless you use solar power)

If you purchase oil or gas, then you have helped fuel slavery and poverty in some countries, and/or even terrorist organizations.

The truth is you can never be sure where your money goes once it leaves your pocket. It that really our fault?

You seem very passionate about many subjects, but you seem to show little hope for humanity.

23

“But what about vegetable rights? What about plant rights?! You people who don’t eat meat: how many heads of lettuce do you shamelessly decapitate each week? How many carrots do you rip up from the ground, taking them from their roots? How many beets do you mercilessly butcher? How many ears of corn do you rip from the stalk? How many plants must die to satisfy your insatiable hunger for these poor, innocent greens whose only crime was to freshen the air and produce oxygen for you to breathe. Will the killing ever end?”

I never cared much for beets anyway. But Sage, I believe the point of the articles were to say that more grain etc goes to feeding enough livestock for a person to eat than would ever be eaten by a vegetarian. So it’s you who are the mass murderers! (If vegetables have rights… :neutral: Anyway, plants produce fruit/nuts the plant “wants” eaten)

Plus on airplanes they hand out the veggie meals first.

24

To everyone who took me seriously… I was being ironical! But as to your arguments…

Well, I for one am looking forward to the day when I can go down to the market for a nice fillet-o-kitty or puppy-burger.

Ultimately, animal “intelligence” is nothing more than chemical reactions. More complex and/or lengthy chemical processes, but chemical reactions nonetheless.

One could argue that cows produce steaks - the cow wants to be eaten.

25

My statement was in response to:

I’ll have disagree with what you say about resources in regards to production and transport. Many vegetables can be grown locally. There are 1.2 million acres of organic vegetable production in 48 states. And many vegetables can be preserved in cans. The animals we eat have consumed enough soybeans and grain to feed over a billion people. With that in mind, I dont see how you could think that meat production takes less resources than vegetable production. And then there is also the fact that meat production does great damage to the environment at the same time.

I may seem like a lot of things to you when my words offend your culture. I can’t really put much of what I have to say about where the world is going into good terms. Arguing against a destructive force I would not consider selfish.

Obviously we dont think the same way, but I would like to hear your ideas about where humanity should be headed. Are you one of those mainline Chrisitans that is apatheitc about the future because you think God is going to destroy the Earth at the apocalypse anyway?

I say what I do about vegetarianism because it is an aspect of our lives that we can opt for an alternative to corporate production. This is how change begins. Our society requires you to support corporations, and they are consolidating even further. Even you can recognize that corporations are bad things, and this is what everbody needs to wake up to. I don’t have much hope for humanity, it just seems that we are reinforcing our pending destruction each and every day. Environmental ruin, atmospheric destruction, global control, nuclear war; these are all imminent threats to our planet. Do you consider me ignorant or illogical for thinking this?

I am still under my parents control, I am not able to make all of my own decisions about what corporations my lifestyle supports. For some amount of time I plan on being part of a community that lives in redwood trees, but I will eventually get out of America and invest in alternative resources. I feel that the most anybody can do is inform others.

26

Perhaps your slanderous mouth will be more welcome in the forest.

joins Sage in a fillet-o-kitty :beer:

27

Wow Dreamaddict, at first you wanted to argue, but now you just want to insult. Whatever level of ‘slander’ I am on that offended you so, you have brought yourself down to. You don’t have the integrity to allow your beliefs to be scrutinized and judged like you have mine. You can attack what I think, but dont bother with explanations or alternatives. Such a good Christian example you are setting.

28

“One could argue that cows produce steaks - the cow wants to be eaten”

Well, cows don’t reproduce by being eaten by birds and such do they (like fruit)?

29

I never wanted to argue, and I’m definitely not here to set a Christian example. I’m not even sure why you mention Christianity.

I think you have taken my disagreement with the many articles you’ve posted as personal. Sorry, but I’m sure you were not expecting full agreements when you posted these.

I am not claiming I know a more ethical way of feeding people. I just happen to believe you can’t do that without meat.

30

Something to clear up quickly, my comments about ‘Americans’ are not meant to be taken as reference to all Americans anymore than they are reference to some Americans. I speak of Americans in general, the ones whose material comfort keeps them from seeing beyond themselves. I will be clearer should I mention them again.

If you didn’t want to argue, you countering the issue of resources must have given me a wrong impression. I felt a need to counter what I thought was your argument (meat takes less resources to produce), because it just wasn’t true.

I mention Christianity because peoples ideas of the ‘big picture’ of life often influence their concerns, and usually not in very good ways. I know certain Christians express an apathy for the future because of what they have pre-determined about existence. I wanted to know if this is how you felt.

The only things I took personal were the comments you directed at me, rightfully so. I felt that because you took offense to some of my comments, your motive was to try and get back at me. You obviously disagreed with me but couldn’t exactly say why. That is why I asked for an explanation of your views, and upon you not having any alternatives, it only made me think that your intentions were the same ‘slander’ that you accused me of.

I definitely wasn’t expecting full agreement, but the disagreement I did face I expected to have reason.

What does meat offer that nothing else can? Why is it necessary?

31

I don’t know much about cow sexuality, so all I can say is, maybe they do… maybe they do. :wink:

But here’s a question - if cows didn’t want to be eaten, why would they make meat that is so tasty? I mean, they could have made some foul-tasting meat… so why tasty?

32

It might be because our tastebuds got used to it since our people in the past have been eating meats for so long that maybe our genes have adapted over time. And plus in the past, we used meat to survive. Yes?

We have a bit of animal instinct in us… we kill to survive if necessary… not something that you might like to hear… but we’re capable of kill to survive. If we don’t have a society, then we’d be acting completely on our animal instinict which isn’t “wrong.”

It might explain why we still eat meat even though we are aware that we killed an animal in order to eat meat, yet we still eat. We can continue to agrue how messy our world have gotten to, but in my opinion… we’re innocent in a way too. We have to eat to survive; therefore, we kill. Our lives are something we hold importantly in our heart. We need food to eat if we don’t kill… then we have no food to survive on.

See my point? We’re innocent… we’re just acting on our animal instinict to survive. Mmm?

33

I agree DM7, that is a very likely theory.

Like you said in your first paragraph, in the past we needed meat to survive. Our dietary animal instincts aren’t necessary in modern society. Holding onto this past time is more destructive than anything else. I strongly believe that the issue here is pleasure. Many Americans are addicted to what feels good, to the point that, in this case, it has precedence over our planet and the treatment of other forms of intelligent life. Getting past this animal instinct is a necessary adaptation to ensure a more positive future.

34

Biologically humans are still omnivores our bodies can’t produce all the amino acids it requires from vegetarian sources.

Having said that I have been a 99% vegetarian since I actually found out where the food came from. I have occasionally been able to force myself to eat meat inorder to not standout but I have had to divorce my brain from thinking about what I was eating. It made me feel sick.

My objection to eating meat is the thought of an animal being prematurely killed to produce food. So I sometimes wonder what I would do, if I was in a for example aircrash and the only source of food was someone who had died? As my main objection would then be removed…the person would probably be willing to be used to help someone else to live. Food for thought…(no pun was originally intended).

What is everyone elses views? :wiske:

35

Out of interest, abrickinthewall, why are you forever bringing the topic back to Americans exclusively? Even in the final paragraph of your last post, you made mention that Americans were all about doing whatever is pleasurable, and this was most likely the reason why they continue to eat excessive amounts of meat.

As far as I know, the entire world enthusiastically produces and consumes what you would consider an unhealthy amount of meat. I know the particular article you initially started the topic with was based on US statstics, but the reasons for this trend surely extend to all parts of the world.

I don’t want to sound like a heartless beast, but I’m not actually concerned with any apparent lack of ethics demonstrated in the meat industry. I don’t make the mistake of pretending animals have humanoid emotions and feelings. Sure, their robot instinct and evolutionary desire to avoid pain gives us the impression that they’re in terrible discomfort, but I just don’t believe that. It’s not like they’re sitting there wondering about what’s to become of their life, or how they’re going to teach their offspring to follow in their footsteps. They’re just animals.

Intrestingly, I had this exact conversation with a workmate while I was giving him a lift home this afternoon. He questioned my view on animal ethics, and explained that he was interested in hearing my opinion particularly because I was an atheist. He made a point that generally, people hold different opinions of topics like this, often in accordance with their religion. We’ve talk about all kinds of things to this effect, so it wasn’t unusual for him to ask.

I suppose that’s true to a degree. It’s easier to disregard ethics when you see everything as a mere logical construct of circuits.

36

Hi Atheist
I usually stay out of vege-discussions, but this one catched my attention.Didn´t you state some weeks ago that humans are just like robots, following their instinct to avoid pain and to get offspring?
So, in what way are we different?

Traumgänger

37

I sure did, and I said it again at the very end of my post just above. :smile:

My original plan was to avoid posting in here, simply because my particular view of animal ethics isn’t a largely shared or accepted one. It extends to humanity as well, but that isn’t really the point of this discussion.

38

Hmm, Well we are omnivores, Any omnivore creature perfers meat over vegatables anyday. It’s really a question of if we can get meat. At the moment we can make enough meat through mass breeding of edible animals. Of course, being omnivores, we can’t eat meat 24/7. We need plants too. You could live off vegatbles your whole life, the same way a runaway, 2 legged dog can leave off grass and leaves becuase he can’t hunt other animals. If anything, animals would do the same too us if they could actually hunt us done. When availible food is around, the hunters will hunt until there is no more OR find a way to control the food suppl for their own purposes.

Also, those statistics don’t take into account, that if any other country could have as much meat as us, they would take it. Omnivores in general will take meat over plants anyday. Heck, the reason we probaly are omnivores is becuase we can’t hunt meat 24/7 efffectively like a lion and had to substitute plants to make up for not getting meat.

39

Scientific attitudes are often a product of social beliefs, rather than of any process of logic. If a dog is hit, he yells. If this is understood as some kind of reflex, the scientist can measure it, test it, and form a theory about it. If, on the other hand, the scientist starts to see things from the dog’s point of view, and to understand that the dog is in pain, he cannot measure this. An ordinary person would be able to empathize with the dog, but a scientist is forbidden from doing so, because this would compromise scientific objectivity. While this approach works well in physics and chemistry, it does not work well when one is trying to understand the behavior of other individuals. I could say just as easily say that you are mistakenly pretending that animals don’t have emotions and feelings.

In many cases of pigs having a gun aimed at their head, they avoid the bullet. Surely this is not merely an evolutionary instinct as they did not evolve with humans or weaponry. Cattle are very social animals that often form strong bonds with certain peers while incessantly avoiding others. Certainly the cattle harbor a range of feelings towards each other. My sister’s dog displays basic self-consciousness, a behavior that amazed me when I witnessed it. She puts a shirt on the dog, and while the family looks and laughs at him, he lowers his head and tail and becomes very rigid and still. He isn’t as much physically uncomfortable, (he doesn’t even attempt to get the shirt off and doesn’t mind it when lots of people aren’t around), as much as he is psychologically uncomfortable.

Both genetically, and in terms of behavior, humans are much more closely related to other great apes than these animals are to monkeys. Humans and chimpanzees have about 98.4% of their genes in common, whereas monkeys have only about 93% of the same genes as the apes. Gorillas are about twice as close to humans genetically as they are to chimpanzees. Compare this with the genetic difference between two similar birds such as the red-eyed vireo and the white-eyed vireo, which are 2.9% different genetically.
The genetic similarity between humans and other apes is reflected in their behavior. Recent experiments with gorillas and chimpanzees have shown that they can learn sign language, and use this to construct simple sentences. They express similar emotions to humans, and show self-awareness - for example, by recognizing themselves in a mirror. Using a variety of different intelligent tests, they have been shown to have IQs at the lowest levels of human ability.

The philosophical basis of objectivism comes from Rene Descartes. Descartes, a devout Catholic, had the bizarre belief that humans were the only animals who were conscious and had feelings, because only they had a soul. Thus an animal who was obviously in pain was in fact simply an automaton, exhibiting reflexes. Descartes’ ideas were used to justify the vivisection of conscious dogs by scientists. A very similar attitude is followed today. So long as we imagine that animals are inanimate objects which “show reflexes” rather than living creatures which experience feelings and pain, we can exploit them in the belief that no harm is being done.

About the ‘logical construct of circuits’, the other day I was thinking about free will and came up with something. I don’t have much knowledge at all on the subject and this is a largely undeveloped idea, so let me know if something is wrong.
According to the belief that free will does not exist, choices are the result of random electric brain charges and memory, correct? Well, consider this scenario: Joe, who has not been happy with the impressions he feels he leaves on other people, makes a conscious decision to transcend personality and become selfless in order to be as positive as possible for others and himself. In this scenario, all of Joe’s actions are the result of a pre-determined outcome, only with the mechanisms differing from one situation to the next. The fact that Joe has a goal that is only achievable through his actions (choices) being a calculated response to the actions of others, seems to demonstrate free will to me. (I hope this is making sense). It seems that free will can be doubted only because of the time that we experience being linear, but time moving in one direction is the very process that gives free will the value that it has. What I mean by this is that, if the only way to prove free will would be through going back in time and making an alternative decision, free will wouldn’t necessarily exist anymore because the decision isn’t entirely free as it is based on the experience of one of the outcomes.

40

America produces the most beef in the world, about 11.7 million tons in a year. About 1.15 million of these tons are exported, but then about 1.5 million tons are imported, making total American consumption of beef about 12.2 million tons for a population of about 292 million people.

fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/20 … rview.html

Total exports for the largest beef exporters in the world are projected at 6.5 million tons in 2003, almost half of what is consumed in the United States alone.

Now compare these numbers with other wealthy nations:

The European Union produces about 6.9 million tons of beef in a year. About 570,000 of these tons are exported, and about 530,000 tons are imported, keeping beef consumption around 6.9 million tons for a population of about 378 million people.

Australia is the world’s number one exporter of beef, producing about 2 million tons a year and exporting 1.4 million tons of it. Australia imports a minuscule 4,000 tons, putting their consumption at about 600,000 tons for a population of about 20 million. If the numbers stayed at the same ratios but the population was 300 million, they would be consuming about 9 million tons.

Canada produces about 1.2 million tons of beef a year. About 600,000 tons are exported, and about 320,000 tons are imported, putting Canada’s beef consumption a little less than one million tons for a population of about 31 million people. This would give them less than 10 million tons for about 310 million people.

Japan exports little or no beef, and imports 860,000 tons for a population of about 128 million people.

Russia exports little or no beef, and imports about 740,000 tons for a population of about 146 million people.

Mexico, a not so well off with country with no significant exports, imports about 445,000 tons of beef a year for a population of about 105 million people.

What we see here is that with population as the control, America consumes several million more tons of beef than all other wealthy countries. I could not find consistent worldwide statistics on any other kinds of meat. But cattle are the most destructive to the environment and the ones that take up the most resources and produce the most waste.

Being an American citizen I feel I can only rightfully demean the materialism that I personally experience. I do not think that materialism only exists in America but I think it is heaviest here. If meat isn’t about pleasure what is it? Like I said before, meat provides nothing that can’t be derived from another source, it even wastes protein.