Why vegetarianism?

[Watchmen]

Well, there's the land use (or rather land abuse) problem. Human activity has kicked off a sixth mass extinction event. Raising non-human animals for food isn't the entire cause of this, but it is a major one. So... if you like having a biologically diverse inhabitable planet to live on, there's your reason I suppose.

Eating meat and eating meat ethically are two separate issues.

 

[Watchmen]

Haven't you been following either the moral or environmental issues we've been discussing?

Whether we should eat meat at all, and if so, how should we ethically do so are two separate issues.

 

[viole]

Why do I choose vegetarianism?

I believe animals do have souls
Animals do feel pain, they get scared and other negative feelings
Animals is also very itelligent. More intelligent than what human thought earlier

And it is more climate-friendly to not eat meat

Because of this I am vegetarian.

Any thoughts? Why are you vegetarian or vegan? Why do you eat meat?

Let us assume that animals have souls.

why should that be a deterrent against eating them, vs. eating living beings with no souls? I wonder what carrots think about this.

prima facie, I would say that eating someone without soul is more immoral. For if you eat someone with soul, its soul might detach, keep living, and do things that souls usually do. Reincarnate or whatever. While one without soul will be irreversibly terminated. And if it is unlucky enough to not be able, for morphological reasons, to show pain, or intelligence, then it is really toast.

and how do ypu intend to eat your lettuce, without a genocide of micro-organisms that are not vegetable, and might also have a soul?

on top of it, if animals have souls, intelligence and all that, then why not eating them? After all, lions eat gazelles all the time, and they do not seem to get into a philosophical dilemma because of that.

ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

Eating meat and eating meat ethically are two separate issues.

They're inherently related to one another in humans, but sure, the considerations can be nuanced. They would only become separate issues for amoral/non-ethical actors. Humans, being inherently ethical actors (or at least that's what most humans believe) cannot disentangle their actions from their ethical implications.

 

[Left Coast]

Yup, that's fine. There's probably more to it than that, but this is probably more or less true to simplify. We learn based on what we experience, and by what our surrounding culture teaches us about things. The USA is a culture that impersonalizes most of nature, so that's what most humans end up doing too and this isn't questioned much. There's no need to; it's a way of thinking that leads to a way of life that works for folks.

It's not that the beach was "impersonalized," though. It's that it doesn't meet the criteria of the English word person. So it can only be called that if you completely redefine the word.

This is the common theme of our conversation.

Anything you can learn from is a teacher, so no, not how I would put it.

Again, a teacher is one who teaches. Teaching, in general, is a conscious, intentional activity. A rock only "teaches" by metaphor or anthropomorphism.

I oversimplified in my earlier response there, but was trying not to do that "muddying the waters" thing. It would have been more accurate to say "I wouldn't generally call Spirit of Beach "alive" or "conscious" either, at least not with respect to how anthropocentrically many humans understand these terms." But that probably just confuses things more for you?

Yes, because again you're aiming to use terms to make a point but then when asked, you say that you don't mean by those terms what everyone else does. So a beach is "alive" and "conscious" in some other way, but not the way we pedestrian English speakers understand them. And not in some way that can be demonstrated. Sigh.

Maybe that could be articulated as "respect and honor all things as sacred." That's what it means at the end of the day to embrace modern animism - it does not matter if you believe something feels pain, is alive, or whatever other quality you want to assign... everything has inherent value, dignity, and worth. Not just animals. Also plants. Which is why the whole "yeah, I don't eat meat because non-human animals feel pain" annoys me a bit. It's well-intentioned, but it overlooks the plight of plants and the land itself. There's no "moral high ground" to being vegetarian. There's no way to eat at all without being a "sinner." Humans must kill other beings that have inherent value and dignity to live.

As I explained with the cat and rock example, regarding all things as "sacred" doesn't get us off the hook ethically. We still treat different things differently based on the kind of thing they are. We sit on couches. We don't sit on humans, unless we ask them first. We pick apples off an apple tree to eat it; we don't chop the leg off a cow and go along our merry way. This is because we understand that those two things affect those two creatures differently.

As to your second point, this is ground we covered and I thought you agreed: inevitability of some suffering in life is not an excuse to therefore condone any and all suffering, particularly when it's not necessary. If I pick an apple off an apple tree, that act is not causing the tree to suffer. If I chop off your hand to eat it though, I'm willing to bet you'll say I've caused you suffering.

That's why this whole "all life is sacred" mantra is something I don't find terribly convincing. If your regard for something as sacred still allows you to stomach causing it unnecessary pain and death, then I have to say it doesn't seem terribly sacred. Or you're using some idiosyncratic definition for "sacred" that is divorced from ethics.

Maybe. But if the more "mundane" angle is difficult to articulate with those who do not also walk the path, the stuff I do in the otherworlds and the journeying? Probably impossible. Plus, words like "supernatural" are problematic when applied to nature-based traditions. The term implies there's an "above" or "beyond" nature, which is not the case for me. It's all just nature. Nature's just bigger and more animate/peopled/spirited than modern domesticated humans acknowledge. We don't have to live in direct contact with the greater-than-human world on a constant give-and-take basis. We lost our need to regard them all as people, and thus animism declined. Now the world is just a bunch of soulless objects, to use and abuse at whim, to not regard as having any value beyond their usefulness to us.

Ew. No thanks.

I want to address one other thing here, which is this notion that if we don't accept all things in existence as "people," then we are allowed to just "use and abuse them at will." This isn't my belief, nor the belief of literally anyone I've ever met. We are obliged to be responsible with how we treat the environment, and in the modern world we've certainly not done a good job at that. We're engaged in all kinds of practices that are damaging and unsustainable. But doing a better job of those things doesn't require us to redefine personhood and then apply that new label to literally every object we ever come across.

 

[Quintessence]

[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 8043317, member: 66371"]This is the common theme of our conversation.[/quote]

Another common theme is cultural diversity and cultural biases. Insisting different worldviews are a "redefining" or "misuse" of language strikes me as an example of that. And yeah, reconstructions of pre-literate, indigenous and largely oral Pagan culture is gonna be very different from the modern, Western ways of thinking and speaking. I'm very aware I dwell outside the "typical" western worldview as a polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic Pagan Druid. Doesn't mean these ways of thinking and speaking are invalid or "anthropomorphisms." That is how you interpret it from your cultural perspective. From my perspective insisting that "teaching" must require a human agent is "anthropocentrism."

Both perspectives are correct within the context of their respective cultures or worldviews.

As I explained with the cat and rock example, regarding all things as "sacred" doesn't get us off the hook ethically. We still treat different things differently based on the kind of thing they are.

Yes. Were you under the impression it doesn't work that way under animistic worldview? There are many kinds of people within an animistic worldview too and how they are regarded depends on the relationship we have with them.

That's why this whole "all life is sacred" mantra is something I don't find terribly convincing. If your regard for something as sacred still allows you to stomach causing it unnecessary pain and death, then I have to say it doesn't seem terribly sacred.

Were you under the impression that animism permits unnecessary pain and death? It doesn't. Nor does it permit mindless exploitation of things that in your worldview are not persons. Like plants, landscapes, and the very air we breathe. Besides, it's important to remember this:

I want to address one other thing here, which is this notion that if we don't accept all things in existence as "people," then we are allowed to just "use and abuse them at will." This isn't my belief, nor the belief of literally anyone I've ever met. We are obliged to be responsible with how we treat the environment, and in the modern world we've certainly not done a good job at that. We're engaged in all kinds of practices that are damaging and unsustainable.

Exactly, and I'm well aware. However...

Depending on how much you've studied environmental ethics and environmental history and the like, you might be more or less aware of how the cultural, religious, and intellectual traditions of the West have enabled exploitation and abuse of the non-human world. Animism is but one of many counters to that. It's distinct from other approaches is that it is highly ecocentric rather than anthropocentric, but there's also things like deep ecology, consequentialist approaches, virtue ethics, etc.

 

[Watchmen]

They're inherently related to one another in humans, but sure, the considerations can be nuanced. They would only become separate issues for amoral/non-ethical actors. Humans, being inherently ethical actors (or at least that's what most humans believe) cannot disentangle their actions from their ethical implications.

Of course they are related, but one can debate and resolve the issue of whether eating meat is beneficial physically before turning to the question of how to eat meat ethically.

 

[Left Coast]

Another common theme is cultural diversity and cultural biases. Insisting different worldviews are a "redefining" or "misuse" of language strikes me as an example of that. And yeah, reconstructions of pre-literate, indigenous and largely oral Pagan culture is gonna be very different from the modern, Western ways of thinking and speaking. I'm very aware I dwell outside the "typical" western worldview as a polytheistic, pantheistic, animistic Pagan Druid. Doesn't mean these ways of thinking and speaking are invalid or "anthropomorphisms." That is how you interpret it from your cultural perspective. From my perspective insisting that "teaching" must require a human agent is "anthropocentrism."

Person is an English word. It came to use explicitly through the Western tradition, ie the Latin word persona. The entire reason that personhood is relevant in a discussion of ethics is because of the Western intellectual development of that concept and how that lead to our modern understanding of individual rights.

So if you are trying to retrofit precolonial indigenous animist concepts into that word - I'm sorry, but you are redefining the word. Now look, words get redefined all the time. Redefinition isn't "bad," per se. But when you're part of a tiny minority attempting that redefinition (while simultaneously invoking the ethical implications of personhood in the West by insisting that "everything is a person") - people are reasonably going to say, "Uhhh, that doesn't make sense."

Yes. Were you under the impression it doesn't work that way under animistic worldview? There are many kinds of people within an animistic worldview too and how they are regarded depends on the relationship we have with them.

If that's the case, I'm not sure how the idea that "everything is a person" is even relevant to the question of whether we should eat animals. If you agree that your notion of personhood doesn't imply that we should treat all things identically, and that we should reduce suffering and death whenever possible, then let's bypass this whole concept of personhood and just talk about that. Why kill and eat animals when we don't need to? We've covered how "suffering is just part of life" isn't a relevant answer, and that "everything is a person" doesn't seem relevant either. So what else?

 

[leroy]

I eat meat because
1/ i like meat,
2/ it's a good source of protein
3/ Our digestive systems are well adapted to process meat.
4/ unprocessed meat provides health benefits.
5/ I don't want to contribute to putting thousands of farmers, abattoir workers and butchers out of work.
6/ did i say i like meat

My eldest daughter is vegetarian because
1/ basically the same as you without the soul.

5/ I don't want to contribute to putting thousands of farmers, abattoir workers and butchers out of work.

Thousands of new Jobs would be created anyway if people stop eating meat.

Companies like Tyson would sale vegan *meat* balls instead of “normal” meat balls McDonalds would sale vegan hamburgers instead of normal hamburgers walmarrt would sale vegan sausages etc. (companies would still need employees for that), instead of buying meat from farmers, this companies would buy soybeans from agricultures

 

[ChristineM]

Thousands of new Jobs would be created anyway if people stop eating meat.

Companies like Tyson would sale vegan *meat* balls instead of “normal” meat balls McDonalds would sale vegan hamburgers instead of normal hamburgers walmarrt would sale vegan sausages etc. (companies would still need employees for that), instead of buying meat from farmers, this companies would buy soybeans from agricultures

So meat farmers, abattoir workers and butchers would be out of a job. Hang on a moment, isn't that what i said

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, I don't think that is true. And I don't believe you can show any proof for it.

Are we on the same page? You doubt than 'animal agriculture' has an environmental impact, or that climate change is real, or how greenhouse gasses are created?
What, specifically, are you disagreeing with?

I disagree with that, will though, I think people should be less greedy and not overeat.

(I said: "To exist as we do today, many of our natural behaviors and inclinations must be curbed").

Our "natural behaviors" are utilitarian. They're behaviors and attitudes that benefit our own small band of wandering hunter-gatherers. Millions of years of evolution has hard-wired these behaviors into us.
Out-group moral consideration is not natural. We're tribal animals, with gang mentalities. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with modern lifestyles. "Civilized behavior" and tolerance for diversity must be indoctrinated from early childhood. Even so, it's a thin veneer, easily stripped away.
You disagree?

 

[Valjean]

Whether we should eat meat at all, and if so, how should we ethically do so are two separate issues.

They're interdependent.

 

[1213]

Sources[edit]
Bacteria and archaea[edit]
Vitamin B12 is produced in nature by certain bacteria, and archaea.[59][60][61] It is synthesized by some bacteria in the gut microbiota in humans and other animals, but it has long been thought that humans cannot absorb this as it is made in the colon, downstream from the small intestine, where the absorption of most nutrients occurs.[62] Ruminants, such as cows and sheep, are foregut fermenters, meaning that plant food undergoes microbial fermentation in the rumen before entering the true stomach (abomasum), and thus they are absorbing vitamin B12 produced by bacteria.[62][63] Other mammalian species (examples: rabbits, pikas, beaver, guinea pigs) consume high-fibre plants which pass through the intestinal system and undergo bacterial fermentation in the cecum and large intestine. The first-passage of feces produced by this hindgut fermentation, called "cecotropes", are re-ingested, a practice referred to as cecotrophy or coprophagy. Re-ingestion allows for absorption of nutrients made available by bacterial digestion, and also of vitamins and other nutrients synthesized by the gut bacteria, including vitamin B12.[63] Non-ruminant, non-hindgut herbivores may have an enlarged forestomach and/or small intestine to provide a place for bacterial fermentation and B-vitamin production, including B12.[63] For gut bacteria to produce vitamin B12 the animal must consume sufficient amounts of cobalt.[64] Soil that is deficient in cobalt may result in B12 deficiency, and B12 injections or cobalt supplementation may be required for livestock.[65]... Vitamin B12 - Wikipedia

The bacteria and archaea come from the ground and then passed on to us with what we eat. One can get usually more than enough from eating meat, but if one is a vegetarian then there can be a problem with low levels, and I am one of those who has to take B12 suppliments.

Thanks, maybe I understand that wrongly, but I don't think that is saying the B12 comes from the ground. I think it is speaking cobalt comes and it is necessary for the bacteria to produce B12 in the gut.

 

[1213]

Are we on the same page? You doubt than 'animal agriculture' has an environmental impact, or that climate change is real, or how greenhouse gasses are created?
What, specifically, are you disagreeing with?

I believe climate has been changing as long as earth has existed.People can't stop that change, especially not by taxing more and sending industry to China for the benefit of big companies.

CO2 is created, but it is not bad. It is essential for plants to grow. It is stupid to try to fight against it.

We're tribal animals, with gang mentalities. Unfortunately, this is not compatible with modern lifestyles. "Civilized behavior" and tolerance for diversity must be indoctrinated from early childhood. Even so, it's a thin veneer, easily stripped away.
You disagree?

I don't think we are tribal animals. And I think indoctrination is not good, it is used only when people try to force something to others that they would not accept with intelligent reasoning freely.

 

[leroy]

So meat farmers, abattoir workers and butchers would be out of a job. Hang on a moment, isn't that what i said

My point is that in net terms , unemployment would not increase if people become vegan

 

[ChristineM]

My point is that in net terms , unemployment would not increase if people become vegan

I am pretty sure it would. The manufacture of vegi food is much less labour intensive and automated. Supermarkets already exist so would not take on anyore staff. But the butchers department would be lost.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

"purpose-grown hay and grains" is quite misleading. These are grown by both cultivation and nature. They are grown on land unsuitable for direct human used crops. Until humans start ruminating and eating grass these plants are unfit for use other than to feed livestock. Which livestock are a viable human food source.

There are literally a billion people in the world that live in regions that cannot be used to grow directly consumed crops but which can be used as grazing land to sustain livestock which they depend upon to eat in order to survive.

Did you even read my post properly?

Please re-read it. I responded to all of these points already.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. That's what grass fed beef is.

You honestly believe that's all we give all the cows in the USA to eat?

 

[Valjean]

I believe climate has been changing as long as earth has existed.People can't stop that change, especially not by taxing more and sending industry to China for the benefit of big companies.

True, the climate's always changing, but the only time it's changed this fast is when the Chicxulub meteorite/comet crashed into Earth 65M years ago.
When climate changes faster than much life can adapt, mass extinctions occur. It takes millions of years for the planet to recover.
This has happened five times in the past, and we're at the beginning of another extinction event. We know the cause of this one; it's us. Whether we can do anything about it is debatable, at this point, but we owe the planet an attempt.

CO2 is created, but it is not bad. It is essential for plants to grow. It is stupid to try to fight against it.

This is absurdly simplistic. Everything can be bad in the wrong concentration. Yes, plants can use it, but the rapid climate change can destroy plants' habitats just as it can animals'.
You're clearly not aware of the widespread, catastrophic effects this growing concentration of CH4 and CO2 is creating. You should read something about it before you declare it benign.

I don't think we are tribal animals. And I think indoctrination is not good, it is used only when people try to force something to others that they would not accept with intelligent reasoning freely.

You think we're solitary animals, like bears? Do you think a small, weak, slow, plains ape would have survived alone on the African savanna?
No. Again, this is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. No population of solitary humans has ever been observed.
Indoctrination? OK, call it enculturation, then. It's how we learn the languages, mores, habits, skills and basic survival strategies we need to live in the world. We're not born with these abilities, we learn them.

 

[metis]

Thanks, maybe I understand that wrongly, but I don't think that is saying the B12 comes from the ground.

It's just that the ground is the ultimate source, thus it's not necessary to go out and eat dirt.