Discussion: Ethical Vegetarianism

[Terxpahseyton]

I was going to simply link the definition of sentience but it seems that the definition is simply the ability to feel pain.

I was always taught that sentience included self-awareness, thought, and reasoning. I guess that was wrong.

Actually I apparently didn't know what I was talking about either, so my apologies.

People who admit on being wrong in some way or another makes me always feel good about OT debating culture We need do that more often.

If you needlessly take a life it is wrong. If you take a life because you need to eat and your body is made to eat what you just killed, I'm not sure where the problem comes from.

How is the fact that the human body is designed to eat meat an argument for how it was right to kill to do so? This design is born out of necessities in the context of the animal kingdom. How do such necessities translate to what is the right course of action today?

You can easily have a "healthy" diet while not eating any meat but that is simply removing the omnivore from us and turning our species into a herbivore. Being an omnivore is an advantage that is something we shouldn't exactly be striving to remove.

Why not? It is not like we have any imperative need to be omnivore today. To the contrary, it is more easy to feed people without meat (less resources required). And it is also not like we could not go back to eating meat if we wished.

 

[Synobun]

How is the fact that the human body is designed to eat meat an argument for how it was right to kill to do so? This design is born out of necessities in the context of the animal kingdom. How do such necessities translate to what is the right course of action today?

Why not? It is not like we have any imperative need to be omnivore today. To the contrary, it is more easy to feed people without meat. And it is also not like we could go back to eating meat if we wished.

I support vat meat for the very reason that killing large amounts of animals is no longer a necessity given the technology we have today, but I am also in support of maintaining animal population. Abolishing our source of meat from domesticated livestock will significantly hinder or extinct many of the species we eat or extract goods from.

I'd rather not mess with a good thing because it's not physically necessary anymore. A whole plethora of things could go wrong at any given moment that will put us in a position where food is much harder to come by. Personally, I would prefer the species keep the capability of eating both meat and veggies in the case a future problem ever arose. If we all suddenly switched from an omnivore diet to a herbivore diet, it would be a matter of generations before our bodies began to adapt to it.

 

[zstep14]

Personally, I would prefer the species keep the capability of eating both meat and veggies in the case a future problem ever arose. If we all suddenly switched from an omnivore diet to a herbivore diet, it would be a matter of generations before our bodies began to adapt to it.

But, the point is that in our modern food system, meat does more harm than good to our bodies. I'm not saying that meat itself is harmful to the health of human beings, just the way that it is produced today.

 

[emzie]

The several thousand year domestication has heavily stunted their desire and genetic urge to evolve their genes.

lolwhat?

The cow today is incredibly similar to the cow from 3000 years ago.

I really really really don't get the point you're trying to make. It sounds like you're trying to make a larger post and throwing smart-sounding words around without understanding of the context. I say this because the difference between a domesticated phenotype and the ancestor is less than difference within the domesticated phenotype. There's going to be greater variance between any two cows that aren't twins than the average cow of today compared to 3,000 years ago -- unless the domesticated variant has gone through bottlenecking (that is, domesticated only once).

But really, so what? What does any of that mean?

At this point, the only evolving done in these species is through hormones injected by humans in order to get a 'better' meat product.

That's not even artificial selection. That's modification.

ii. I do not support mishandling of livestock in any shape or form. Abuse should be sought after and persecuted fully. Your scenario is entirely based on the concept that cows are sentient and that the abuse is comparative although it is not. I really do not know what else to say to that since the scenario falls apart with the simple fact that livestock isn't sentient.

If livestock isn't sentient (which, btw, this word doesn't mean what you think it means) then why does abuse matter? If I go chop apart a bush no one cares.

 

[duckstab]

I'd rather not mess with a good thing because it's not physically necessary anymore. A whole plethora of things could go wrong at any given moment that will put us in a position where food is much harder to come by. Personally, I would prefer the species keep the capability of eating both meat and veggies in the case a future problem ever arose. If we all suddenly switched from an omnivore diet to a herbivore diet, it would be a matter of generations before our bodies began to adapt to it.

I just don't buy this argument. We wouldn't have to adapt to a herbivorous diet because the vast majority of human beings, maybe even all of us, are already so adapted. There are a few instances where people raised on a high-meat diet (the Dalai Lama being one famous example) have had some difficulty switching to vegetarianism. But I don't know of a single case where somebody died because they were suddenly deprived of meat when other sources of food were available. Most people who adopt a vegetarian diet do at least as well as when they ate meat.

Contrast this with the current high-meat diet favored in most developed countries. Given our rates of heart disease, colon cancer, etc., etc., I would argue that we are emphatically not well-adapted to such a diet.

You seem to be hinting at some kind of catastrophe where things like fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes, become very hard to come by. Yet somehow we manage to have enough low-grade plant material to feed our livestock. In a world where we had to survive primarily on meat, most of us would live rather short and unhealthy lives.

Just because we are technically omnivores it doesn't mean we can thrive on any arbitrary mix of food sources.

 

[Synobun]

But, the point is that in our modern food system, meat does more harm than good to our bodies. I'm not saying that meat itself is harmful to the health of human beings, just the way that it is produced today.

I agree. I would like to see a massive shift in the policies of factory farming and more funding put into vat meat for this very purpose. As long as we remain meat eaters, lessening the need for physical cows and other livestock will save a lot of room, resources, and more, which will in turn allow farmers and companies to employ more lenient living conditions for their livestock.

Which is why I suggest for people in the position to do so, buy from a confirmed source instead of the common beef found in grocery stores. A higher demand for better meat will slowly shift the meat industry into appealing to those tastes.

 

[Synobun]

I just don't buy this argument. We wouldn't have to adapt to a herbivorous diet because the vast majority of human beings, maybe even all of us, are already so adapted. There are a few instances where people raised on a high-meat diet (the Dalai Lama being one famous example) have had some difficulty switching to vegetarianism. But I don't know of a single case where somebody died because they were suddenly deprived of meat when other sources of food were available. Most people who adopt a vegetarian diet do at least as well as when they ate meat.

I never claimed that everybody would suddenly shift their genetic diet in the same generation. If a family/network of communities strictly eat vegetables for say, 200-300 years, their off-spring will begin exhibiting signs of illness and resistance when eating meat. That is how evolution works for a self-aware species. Your social actions steer how you evolve.

Contrast this with the current high-meat diet favored in most developed countries. Given our rates of heart disease, colon cancer, etc., etc., I would argue that we are emphatically not well-adapted to such a diet.

You seem to be hinting at some kind of catastrophe where things like fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes, become very hard to come by. Yet somehow we manage to have enough low-grade plant material to feed our livestock. In a world where we had to survive primarily on meat, most of us would live rather short and unhealthy lives.

Just because we are technically omnivores it doesn't mean we can thrive on any arbitrary mix of food sources.

A strictly meat diet is bad for any omnivore if I recall correctly. A balance between the two is preferable, couple that with the fact that we have been slowly shifting into a heavier vegetable diet throughout the past several hundred years, and a lot of people today already show signs of weak tolerance to meats (my best friend and his entire family being one of them).

I am just saying that removing our omnivore capability is a hindering factor of our future and we should not be actively trying to remove it.

 

[Synobun]

lolwhat?

Domestication is the process of selectively breeding a species to evolve traits and characteristics that appeal to our human wants. As in, the only evolving these creatures are doing is the evolving we want them to do.

I really really really don't get the point you're trying to make. It sounds like you're trying to make a larger post and throwing smart-sounding words around without understanding of the context. I say this because the difference between a domesticated phenotype and the ancestor is less than difference within the domesticated phenotype. There's going to be greater variance between any two cows that aren't twins than the average cow of today compared to 3,000 years ago -- unless the domesticated variant has gone through bottlenecking (that is, domesticated only once).

But really, so what? What does any of that mean?

What smart words...?

My main point with the things I said is that the directive of all the domesticated livestock we currently have on this planet is entirely decided by the humans that herd them. They are not free to evolve on their own and as a result have remained the same except for when they adapt to our needs, which brings us to the argument that if we were to suddenly release these creatures in the wild, they would all die incredibly quick.

They never evolved to survive. They evolved to be in our Big Mac.

That's not even artificial selection. That's modification.

Modification can be seen as a form of evolving after a long enough period of time.

If livestock isn't sentient (which, btw, this word doesn't mean what you think it means) then why does abuse matter? If I go chop apart a bush no one cares.

Kudos on reading the whole thread.

edit: Sorry for the 3 replies, I would notice a new reply right after I posted mine.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I support vat meat for the very reason that killing large amounts of animals is no longer a necessity given the technology we have today, but I am also in support of maintaining animal population. Abolishing our source of meat from domesticated livestock will significantly hinder or extinct many of the species we eat or extract goods from.

I'd rather not mess with a good thing because it's not physically necessary anymore. A whole plethora of things could go wrong at any given moment that will put us in a position where food is much harder to come by. Personally, I would prefer the species keep the capability of eating both meat and veggies in the case a future problem ever arose. If we all suddenly switched from an omnivore diet to a herbivore diet, it would be a matter of generations before our bodies began to adapt to it.

So now you stopped to debate if it is right to eat meat, but go on to speak about your concerns if we do so? Well quit a shift of topic, but here I agree with duckstab. While no meat at all may cause some inconvenience for a healthy diet, it should be doable. I really wouldn't know why not. And as to future problems, we could always keep livestock parks for reserve or something.

edit: But I am not sure how well we did without milk and eggs. That basically leaves us with nuts to get protein.

 

[Synobun]

So now you stopped to debate if it is right to eat meat, but go on to speak about your concerns if we do so? Well quit a shift of topic, but here I agree with duckstab. While no meat at all may cause some inconvenience for a healthy diet, it should be doable. I really wouldn't know why not. And as to future problems, we could always keep livestock parks for reserve or something.

You based your argument on the morality of eating meat on the need to eat it in modern society. I responded accordingly.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Nevermind, but you still have not brought forth a convincing argument for the necessity of meat consumption All I read so far are very vague concerns. Too vague to be valid. And as said, your argument against moral concerns, which is based on the hypothetical existence of animals, is troublesome for exactly this basis.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think vegetarians are stupid, vegans even more so.

All domesticated farm animals are alive because we eat them (edit: or have a use for them. However the number of animals we have for slaughter heavily outweighs the number of animals we have for extraction of goods). Without human intervention, they would meet similar fates of all other extinct animals.

Presumably you are also of the opinion that it is morally permissible for parents to slaughter and devour their children.

 

[Synobun]

Nevermind, but you still have not brought forth a convincing argument for the necessity of meat consumption All I read so far are very vague concerns. Too vague to be valid. And as said, your argument against moral concerns, which is based on the hypothetical existence of animals, is troublesome for exactly this basis.

Very well.

Presumably you are also of the opinion that it is morally permissible for parents to slaughter and devour their children.

No.

 

[Traitorfish]

No.

Hypocrite.

 

[Synobun]

Hypocrite.

Probably.

 

[LucyDuke]

If a family/network of communities strictly eat vegetables for say, 200-300 years, their off-spring will begin exhibiting signs of illness and resistance when eating meat. That is how evolution works for a self-aware species. Your social actions steer how you evolve.

Explain how (the first part).

 

[Synobun]

Explain how (the first part).

As a self-aware species, you gain a certain control over your evolution in some cases if you do something long enough in a large enough community. It's pretty simple really - Most of our bodies are adapted to an omnivore diet. If a large enough cluster of people switched to a herbivore diet and strictly mated with others who shared this diet, it would be a matter of generations before their stomachs and organ systems in their off-spring adapted to this new diet as they no longer see a genetic need to be an omnivore. This will cause sickness and intolerance when they eat meat, eg. they get sick from eating meat now.

Do you get what I'm saying or should I expand further?

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm getting the impression that Synsensa doesn't actually know the first thing about genetics.

 

[Synobun]

I'm getting the impression that Synsensa doesn't actually know the first thing about genetics.

I am waiting for someone to prove me wrong. Your impression means nothing unless you can tell me I'm wrong and then explain how.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm getting the impression that Synsensa doesn't actually know the first thing about the burden of proof.