Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Curious George]

I think we need a lot more evidence that, say, humans can go five generations with optimal health with no dietary source of EPA and DHA omega 3 fatty acid, and relying strictly on the body's poor ability to convert ALA to EPA and DHA.

I agree that there is no single optimal diet. Hunter gatherer diets did vary hugely, although all of them that I'm aware of did include some meat.

Plus, if humans don't eat any fish or bivalves, then all of the caloric content that currently comes from oceans (2/3rds of the planet surface area) will have to be done on land (1/3rd of the surface area), which will further stress the already questionable ability of our soil and water systems to support our food system. Sustainable fishing methods, like what is currently used in Alaskan waters, allow for a continued source of healthy calories without needing fertilizers, pest control, and land usage.

While I agree, caloric intake could still come from plants, and algae in the ocean, could they not. Restricting sea animals does not mean all calories would have to come from land.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes. I believe humans to be superior to non-sapient beings. Moving on...

And yet it is quite obvious you have literally nothing to back up this claim. Oh... except for the words "moving on". Not quite sure what to make of that. Perhaps you aren't entirely "sapient" yourself?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't do the work myself, because, it's not conducive to my lifestyle or necessary.

I see. I'd like to see the facts on the numbers of people who go on to commit physically violent crimes after having worked a stint picking vegetables. There are such facts on the much higher percentages of those crimes to be found among populations of slaughterhouse employees. People who become jaded to violence against living, breathing, frightened and feeling creatures, and then foist their new found penchant for such onto their fellow humans. It's "not necessary" for you because you let others do the dirty work. There's no use denying it. That statement is a fact.

There's a difference between an animal being alive without pain and being alive and in pain during final moments.

This is true, though as others have pointed out, not all of the animals end up with the same degree of "anesthetization", and the actual deeds done are no less gruesome. Again here - the screw ups and carelessness are propagated by the "need" for meat that humans have. We impose loss of liberty, impregnation, pain, disease, and ultimately death on all manner of animals of this world. They are our fellow inhabitants of this planet - regardless how you feel about your own supposed superiority. Based on the fact that you decree yourself superior alone I know that you simply aren't.

 

[Father Heathen]

While I agree that comparing a child of your own species importance to that of another animal is certainly not an "equal" comparison - on the whole would you say that, taken from a more objective, or outside perspective, humans are "better" than, say, chickens? Are we "better" than dogs? "Better" than lions? Bears? Gorillas? I'd argue it is asinine to state, definitively, that you are "better" than any animal. We are all simply "different". You couldn't survive a northern winter without clothes on your back. You couldn't defeat a lion, bear, or gorilla without using a man-made implement, and augmenting your "strength". And yet you are "better?" I don't see it. Maybe you know something about humans that I don't.

Would you compare washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap to, say, the holocaust? Both ended the lives of millions of lifeforms, and in your eyes there is no difference in value, right?

 

[Father Heathen]

They are our fellow inhabitants of this planet - regardless how you feel about your own supposed superiority. Based on the fact that you decree yourself superior alone I know that you simply aren't.

Are all carnivorous and omnivorous animals "evil", or just our specific species? If the latter, doesn't this contradict your claim that a distinction shouldn't exist between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Would you compare washing your hands with anti-bacterial soap to, say, the holocaust? Both ended the lives of millions of lifeforms, and in your eyes there is no difference in value, right?

There's an interesting point there, obviously. But if you note, I specifically said that from within your own species, obviously the welfare of that species trumps the others. So yes, there is a difference in value to me, to you... to any human. But this is only due to our subjective view of the situation. In other words, yes, washing my hands is very much like the holocaust when viewed from an external perspective. Millions of organisms die. That is a fact of the holocaust and also of me washing my hands. Well... what do you want me to say? Those are the facts of the matter. There is, of course (another thing you well know) the matter of gross hatred and malevolence having been employed by the humans perpetrating the holocaust, where there is not such impetus behind my washing my hands. You try to hide behind these analogies - but I know you know better. All animals take steps to protect themselves, regardless the effects on other creatures who may be encroaching on that safety. That is the way of the world.

But we're not talking about just the "welfare" and "safety" of our species, and you know it. We're talking about a level of comfort that we sustain that NO OTHER SPECIES ON EARTH IS AFFORDED. Our boon is a greater capacity for discernment and usage of knowledge to our benefit. Because of this, we can be more responsible. In fact, we are really one of the only beings who comprehends the meaning and value of responsibility. It is my opinion that we squander the value of this comprehension. We're irresponsible with our environment, irresponsible in our relationships with our fellow Earthlings, irresponsible with even our own bodies.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Are all carnivorous and omnivorous animals "evil", or just our specific species? If the latter, doesn't this contradict your claim that a distinction shouldn't exist between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom?

Please give me a break. I never said any of them were "evil". Go back and check, if you want. Such a stretch. You assume far too much. But it's to be expected. You're trying to "win". But it is my firm belief that the side you're arguing for has already lost. You will simply realize this too late.

 

[Chakra]

There's an interesting point there, obviously. But if you note, I specifically said that from within your own species, obviously the welfare of that species trumps the others. So yes, there is a difference in value to me, to you... to any human. But this is only due to our subjective view of the situation. In other words, yes, washing my hands is very much like the holocaust when viewed from an external perspective. Millions of organisms die. That is a fact of the holocaust and also of me washing my hands. Well... what do you want me to say? Those are the facts of the matter. There is, of course (another thing you well know) the matter of gross hatred and malevolence having been employed by the humans perpetrating the holocaust, where there is not such impetus behind my washing my hands. You try to hide behind these analogies - but I know you know better. All animals take steps to protect themselves, regardless the effects on other creatures who may be encroaching on that safety. That is the way of the world.

But we're not talking about just the "welfare" and "safety" of our species, and you know it. We're talking about a level of comfort that we sustain that NO OTHER SPECIES ON EARTH IS AFFORDED. Our boon is a greater capacity for discernment and usage of knowledge to our benefit. Because of this, we can be more responsible. In fact, we are really one of the only beings who comprehends the meaning and value of responsibility. It is my opinion that we squander the value of this comprehension. We're irresponsible with our environment, irresponsible in our relationships with our fellow Earthlings, irresponsible with even our own bodies.

I think the fault with the analogy lies in the fact that bacteria are not sentient, unlike animals. Also, we have to wash our hands in order to make sure we don't get sick ie self defense. Is there a good reason why we specifically target the farm animals? It's definitely not self-defense, and if for food, well there are un-cruel methods of getting the bodily nutrients.

 

[Father Heathen]

Please give me a break. I never said any of them were "evil". Go back and check, if you want. Such a stretch. You assume far too much. But it's to be expected. You're trying to "win". But it is my firm belief that the side you're arguing for has already lost. You will simply realize this too late.

I wasn't trying to "win" anything, just pointing out glaring inconsistencies. You could declare "victory" if you want while I continue to consume animal flesh. An omnivorous diet is natural for our species, as we've evolved as such. If you want to go vegan, that's fine. I can respect that. What I can't respect is mawkish, mewling sanctimony.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think the fault with the analogy lies in the fact that bacteria are not sentient, unlike animals.

Ah, so there is a line drawn depending on level of intelligence and consciousness.

 

[Chakra]

Ah, so there is a line drawn depending on level of intelligence and consciousness.

Yes, on sentience. Being alive or intelligent doesn't make something sentient.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I wasn't trying to "win" anything, just pointing out glaring inconsistencies. You could declare "victory" if you want while I continue to consume animal flesh. An omnivorous diet is natural for our species, as we've evolved as such. If you want to go vegan, that's fine. I can respect that. What I can't respect is mawkish, mewling sanctimony.

"Glaring inconsistencies." You apparently see what you want to see. And I understand your desire to label the call for humanity to take up the torch of responsibility as "mawkish, mewling sanctimony" I really do. Good luck with blathering that into reality... you seem to at least be trying really hard.

 

[Nous]

Who "settled" it? And on what basis? Obviously not on the basis of evidence that humans share the biological adaptations that characterize omnivorous mammals.

Are meat-eaters any different morally than unrepentant child rapists, or unrepentant slave-owners? Meat-eaters, rapists and slave-owners merely cause others to suffer unnecessarily in order to satisfy their own perverted momentary desires. That's why no here has been able to morally (or rationally) justify humans stuffing their faces with animal flesh and products.

Again, I will gladly jump to morality once you accept the biological facts.

Until then, there is not much room for science deniers. Sort of like going roundabout with a yec.

You're the one making claims about humans' teeth, etc., that you can't substantiate. Obviously you (et al.) make such claims about humans being "omnivores" in order to try to somehow justify the perversion of using, harming and killing animals to satisfy one's own unnecessary and momentary desires.

 

[Nous]

I've tried different diets over the years, and have done more research on the environmental impact of food than I care to admit. I've experimented with different diets, including many years as a vegetarian.

Personally, I'm pretty convinced that permacultures are the way to go for food.

Here is the evidence from the peer-reviewed literature on raising and using animals for human consumption:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

Click the links to conduct further research.

 

[dawny0826]

And yet it is quite obvious you have literally nothing to back up this claim. Oh... except for the words "moving on". Not quite sure what to make of that. Perhaps you aren't entirely "sapient" yourself?

You've not supported your own claims and seem to be seeking to "win" a debate through emotional appeal, which I don't have time for.

Thanks, but, no thanks.

 

[Curious George]

You're the one making claims about humans' teeth, etc., that you can't substantiate. Obviously you (et al.) make such claims about humans being "omnivores" in order to try to somehow justify the perversion of using, harming and killing animals to satisfy one's own unnecessary and momentary desires.

no I am making the claim off observation of the human diet, prior to any moral argument. It is simple really, humans have for a very long time engaged in eating meat. I have shown that our closest relatives have and did engage in meat eating. whether it is moral is something we can get to after finishing this silly biological discussion. Humans are omnivores because they do and have eaten meat throughout human history. Omnivore teeth look, in some species like ours because we are the definition of omnivore. I am not justifying anything with the fact that we are omnivores. That we are omnivores has no bearing on whether we ought to eat meat. If we were carnivores it certainly could. But being an omnivore means that we have a choice.

 

[Curious George]

Here is the evidence from the peer-reviewed literature on raising and using animals for human consumption:

The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency.​

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e.pdf

Plant-based diets in comparison to diets rich in animal products are more sustainable because they use many fewer natural resources and are less taxing on the environment. Given the global population explosion and increase in wealth, there is an increased demand for foods of animal origin. Environmental data are rapidly accumulating on the unsustainability of current worldwide food consumption practices that are high in meat and dairy products. Natural nonrenewable resources are becoming scarce, and environmental degradation is rapidly increasing. At the current trends of food consumption and environmental changes, food security and food sustainability are on a collision course. Changing course (to avoid the collision) will require extreme downward shifts in meat and dairy consumption by large segments of the world's population.​

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/100/Supplement_1/476S.long

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides. [. . .] Livestock production is also a leading cause of climate change, soil loss, water and nutrient pollution, and decreases of apex predators and wild herbivores, compounding pressures on ecosystems and biodiversity. It is possible to greatly reduce the impacts of animal product consumption by humans on natural ecosystems and biodiversity while meeting nutritional needs of people, including the projected 2–3 billion people to be added to human population.​

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697

Click the links to conduct further research.

You apparently have missed her points if this is that with which you reply.

She is talking about a type of farming that is very different from the livestock sector today, and she has clearly identified why the proposed method is better than both the livestock sector today and any sector developed without animals.

She is not advocating a diet "rich in animal products" to which your plant based diet is superior, but rather a diet that utilizes some animal products and is superior to plant based diets.

Again, you are equating the current state of the livestock to something completely different that she advocated. This is not relevant information to address the points. Essentially you want to throw out the baby with the bath water, and get rid of all meat because the current livestock industry has problems. She is advocating a way that solves those problems and still includes animal products in the diet.

Try again though.

 

[Curious George]

I would state that there is no logic being used. The justification you're likely to get from people when you boil it down using logical lines of questioning is "I want it". How do I know this? I have personally experienced it time and time again.

I am vegan, and when I get into debates with people who eat meat, many come into the debate with near absolute certainty that they are "right", entitled, and are bound to get me to accept their way of thinking on things. But once I present the evidence, the accounts of abuse, environmental damage, emotional stress of the employees in the business, the greed and corruption, the case for empathy toward the animals involved (what if it were you?)... as I head them off at every pass and knock their arguments down handily and easily... as they find themselves without a pillar to stay standing on... then they turn to "I like bacon because it tastes good!" Unfortunately I am not kidding - nor exaggerating the desperation here. That is literally what has eventually come out on so many occasions. And that is why I state that no logic is being used in the justifications.

"Eating meat" in and of itself is not wrong. But when you are not the one who procured the meal and yet are the one to partake, that is when exploitation starts to creep in. The further you are removed, the more you would deplore the things that went on to get you that cheeseburger, that omelette, or even that glass of milk.

I think most can agree that "eating meat" isn't wrong. While most would also look at the conditions and problems of our meat industry and say that those are wrong. The problem is getting people to be aware of the problems and conditions, and make better consumer choices. This applies to everything though from the clothes you wear to the computer you use to the house you buy to the you-name-it. I can agree that meat and agriculture are a good place to start because of all of the environmental problems that are resulting from these industries.

I do not imagine that I will get you to accept my way of thinking because you already do. That you are a vegan who realizes that the choice to eat meat is not some great ethical violation is refreshing. Though I do know plenty of others. I can imagine your experience with some meat eaters is frustrating, but perhaps it is the way you go about it.

It sounds to me like you are trying to "head them off at every pass" and present information that suggests that their choice is wrong. Then, you are equivocating by creating the impression that the choice is to eat meat. When really the choice is to support an industry that causes detriment.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

But what is "degenerate" is a matter of fashion, and cultural norms change over time and vary between cultures. What is considered degenerate today might be the norm tomorrow.
It was once socially unacceptable to be homosexual or to marry outside your race.

Literally raping an animal is Degenerate. Socially unacceptable. End of story.

 

[Chakra]

With all due respect, I can't trust your claims that 95% of all farms in America support inhumane treatment of animals until you provide links to sources.

Of course. A simple google search got me here https://www.aspca.org/animal-cruelty/factory-farms- check the top right corner. I have to check the official USDA statistics for further proof, so take this with a grain of salt for now.

And no. This is indeed an emotional appeal if you object to eating non human animals.

So if I talk about the health and environmental impacts of your diet, would you consider that emotional? As far as ethical arguments are concerned, you do realize that morality flows from rational thought right?

I've done my research and accept certain methods of killing animals (for food) to be humane or at least, as humane as can possibly be. The methods that I would condone are instantaneous.

Okay, I see. I appreciate your intentions. Where do you buy your meat, and have you actually visited the farm your meat comes from?