No offence intended. If you’re on my side of the debate, I would have assumed you would have kicked in your two cents by now.
If you have more knowledge in this area, please share it! That’s why I’m here, talking with people. I’m looking for information I may not have run accross yet, and no one has provided an ounce of it, relating to the discussion of “why people don’t take more responsibility for their actions when it comes to eating meat from factory farms.”
Bryan -
If you won’t accpet any of the given evidence (see my above posts) that eating meat is harmful to the environment, and that raising a vegetarian cat is in no way the same ballpark as what’s happening in these farms, then why should I try to convince you otherwise?
Fine. I won’t get a cat. I’ll get a dog, and have a vegetarian dog instead of a cat. Maybe I’ll get a few rabbit, as well.
Now, can we please deal with the more important issue of the environmental repercussions of meat production and slaughterhouses?
Way to make a completely baseless supposition there, Dalmuti. Things you didn’t know about stankow:
1 – I was a vegetarian (vegan plus milk) for two and a half years in college. I stopped because A) I broke up with the vegetarian I was going out with, B) I realized that I was doing it primarily so I could feel morally superior, and C) I like meat.
2 – I worked in a pig slaughterhouse for a summer during college. This was before the vegetarian days, but the two were not related. I still eat pork products.
3 – I honestly feel that moral arguments about vegetarianism place animals on a different moral plane from plants, and that therefore, why can’t humans be placed on a different moral plane from animals?
4 – I think that people who tout the health benefits of a purely vegetarian lifestyle are covering up for their moral objections to meat. In all things, moderation. Cutting out all meat is just as foolish as eating nothing but meat.
So keep your judgmental passive-aggressive “search for knowledge” to yourself and just admit you’re proselytizing. Save us all the trouble.
You asked “What if we just don’t feel like it? Does that make us immoral?”
Honestly, I really don’t know, which is why I asked. If I made a conclusion, I would be being judgental. (More judgemental, to be fair to all of you.) So, what do you think? What’s a good equivalent to apply the “I don’t feel like it” to?
What about recycling? Is it immoral not to recycle, if you are aware of all of the positive benefits of recycling?
Or, since you’re probably not the bunch to pitch recycling to, how about you see a little lost kid in a store, who can’t find his parents. Does it make you immoral, if you cose to not help him simply because you don’t feel like it?
I would say that “not feeling like it” equated to apathy, and there’s nothing really all to hot about apathy. Especially when it’s applies to social and environmental contexts.
I think it’s awesome you have those life experiences ticked under your belt.
I’m sorry it offended you, but surely you can deduce how I assumed that most people here would scoff at the idea of eating vegan for a week, if someone asked.
After being told about all of your lunches, dinners, and breakfasts, which included a burger, a steak, chicken kiev, and chicken wings, I would just automatically assume that vegetarianism would be a rather distant concept.
Obviosuly I couldn’t know those things about you. But be fair, I’m trying to be as civil and honest as I can. (I did get sarcastic for a while back there, but it quickly passed.) So, no offense intended.
And thank you, for answering my question, which was kind of personal, about trying out a vegan lifestyle.
I’m sorry the veggie thing didn’t work out for you. Do you tihink you’l ever try it again?
Oh please. We are all worm food in the end. You think that plants don’t cry out when they are cut down for vegetarians and omnivores to eat? They are living too. They have a right to live too. It’s not even sporting to eat plants. They can’t even try to away. Why do you distinguish between plants and animals? Your life kills lots of things. Just don’t be abusive about it and get over it. Or not, it’s up to you.
Anyway, what I think is: tasty burger or tuna or chicken or whatever, I hope some “meat is murder” creep is getting high blood pressure over worrying about me eating meat. High blood pressure will kill him/her early, worms will dine on his/her body, the soil will be enriched, insects will move seeds around, birds will eat worms and seeds, etc. Grass will grow, cows will eat it. I will eat cows. Ahh, the circle of life.
On the first point, you’ll get no argument from me EXCEPT that it’s not eating meat that is harmful to the environment, it is the large-scale production of meat that is damaging. If I eat, digest and excrete a steak, the environmental impact is effectively zero. If a few hundred acres of rain forest is leveled so a cow can be raised, then you’ll have an argument for environmental damage. I knew that long before you showed up, but you consitantly fail to make that distinction. Somehow, the environmental impact of large-scale meat production is scrambled up with the moral effect of large-scale meat consumption. I’m not sure why the two sould be linked.
Even at that, the fact that something is enviromentally harmful is not quite enough reason alone to stop it. Given the laws of thermodynamics and whatnot, everything we do is harmful to the environment, in the sense that we use energy without 100% efficiency, creating entropy.
I don’t feel guilty about driving my Camry, either.
As for the second point; so depriving a cat of meat causes less suffering than a day in a slaughterhouse? Well, I guess since killing my neighbor won’t be as bad as, say, Hiroshima, I may as well load up my shotgun for the next time he plays his stereo too loud. Relatively speaking, my actions wouldn’t even be in the same ballpark. Actually, wiping out my neighbor’s whole family would still be small potatoes by comparison, so I’ll stock up plenty of shells. Thank God for moral relativism, even when it’s invoked by people who believe in moral absolutes.
The only valid response to this line of thought is to call it what it is: a series of loaded questions. If someone asks you if you’ve stopped beating your wife, the only good response is challenge the question, rather than answer “yes” or “no”.
If you’ve decided that eating meat is immoral, it follows that people who eat meat are immoral, and people who refuse to stop eating meat are immoral. But when confronted with this question, I challenge your initial premise. I don’t believe that eating meat is immoral, so I don’t accept any of your subsequent reasoning and as such, I don’t feel compelled to subject myself to your moral test (going vegan for a week).
And given that I feel that eating meat is not immoral, making comparisons to other behaviour with moral aspects is invalid. Refusing to change one’s diet is therefore not morally comparable to ignoring a lost child.
You can load up your arguments any way you like, but we’re pretty good at spotting that sort of behaviour.
I asked about what your reaction would be to someone who asked you to go vegan for a week. It was neither a loaded question nor a moral question.
So, it’s not convienient for you to go vegan for a week, or it’s not something you desire to do, so you woulnd’t do it. That’s fine. That’s perfectly reasonable.
Yes, consuming and production are inherently linked through the law of supply and demand. If you weren’t waiting in line with money in hand, Burger King wouldn’t be producing as many Whoopers, because the demand would be lower. That basic, I’m sure you already knew that.
Also, I already abandoned the Cat idea. See? I’m open to other people’s ideas. I’ll adopt a dog. I’ll leave the cats at the pound.
So. I guess after all this time, through all of the wonderful dialectic interation with everyone who was nice enough to share his or her ideas, I’ve consolidated my ideas, and am mow ble to phrase them in a much better way. Okay? Here goes:
We are all linked, as you said, to the earth and other creatures that dwell upon it. Do we, as humans, have an ethical responsibility to give our utmost effort to ensure the survival of the earth, and all of the life upon it? Is ther an ethical relationship, or should there be, between the planet (or more specifically our ecosystem) and its inhabitants? Or, should there be no commited effort given by humans to conserve natural resources, and insure the survival of the human race?
If, indeed, people feel there is a moral relationship, or a moral indebtedness people owe to the planet, should we be held accountable for doing everything in our power? Or should there be some set level of “doing enough.?”
What are the “hottest” or most popular current theories in the academic realm of environmental ethics? Do these systems, generally, mention animal consumption by humans?
Wow… I blink, and a three page thread pops up. That’s about the fastest I’ve seen a thread grow.
Might as well toss my own two cents in, too
Personally, I’ve got a rather naturalistic look on life, death, food, etc. It’s even enough that it’s a part of my “spiritual” (Or whatever) nature, in that I am, to some degree, a predator. I don’t really see different species as being on different moral levels, truely. I see it more as a matter of nature and utilization. All living things (With the possible exception of some single-cell life? Anyone?) consume other living things. It’s a fact that, while I find it somewhat dissapointing that the world is based on this fact, is truely something that can not be changed, and is not worth dwelling upon. Instead, I see food (And for that matter, death) as a matter of utility and survival. Omniverous animals, from bears to humans, eat both vegetable and animal matter. Too much of either without enough of the other is not good for them. A human eating another animal is no different in my eyes than a bear eating another animal. Humans can live on a strictly non-animal diet, but it requires a lot more effort to achieve and still be as healthy as a balanced omniverous diet, effort that could usually be used better toward other outlets. I see no moral reason to “elevate” myself above other animals, as my views on them are much the same as on humanity as a whole, and saying that it’s “more moral” to not eat meat when it’s natural for a creature (Human or not) to eat meat seems rather out of place. It’s about as reasonable as expecting wolves to suddenly start mingling with deer and eating leaves. Vegan diets don’t appeal to me in the least; I’ve tried some of their food, and while some of it is okay, a lot isn’t nearly as appetizing, and I like the variety of an omniverous diet. And to top it off, I’m -poor-, I can’t afford an equally healthy vegan diet.
If anything, it seems to me like the concept of being “more moral” than all the other animals is the conept that is unnatural, not the idea of omnivores eating meat. Eating meat is not immoral for wolves, or bears, or humans, it is natural.
Now, of course, that doesn’t mean I agree with all the things done by the meat industry. Ecological damage isn’t a good thing, and it isn’t a necessary thing. Or maybe I should say BUT it isn’t a necessary thing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the general controlls over ecological damage have, in general, been tightening in the past century, reducing this damage. In addition, the same can be say of any industry, wether it’s the electronics industry that makes these computers we are typing on possible, to the power plants that provide a huge part of our comfort of living, to the agricultural industry that supplies food for both humans and animals (Don’t forget about all those pesticides polluting the ground water, and the like). I support reducing the damage from such industries, to reduce the harm they cause, but not by eliminating those services.
As for other matters…
An interesting quote, but I think you’re mistaking “evolve” for “choose”. If the human race were to evolve to a vegetarian diet, then eating meat would be unhealthy (Or at the least, un-beneficial). As it is currently, with humans being omniverous, the claims of supperior health and survival chances from a vegan diet remain rather contested and uncertain.
An interesting comparison, but leaving out some details. I assume this is for the complete growth? Well, that 1 pound of apples is a 1-year figure (At most), and most likely doesn’t figure in the growth time of the year itself (Instead focusing on the yearly harvest from the trees). How long does it take for a chicken or cow to grow to full size and be ready to eat? Probably many more years (Unsure about the chicken, but probably a couple?). It’s still more, but much less of a difference in the year-to-year sense. And water is a completely renewable resource anyway, it doesn’t make much of a difference if 5214 gallons of water go through a cow if there’s still enough water for everyone, it doesn’t go anywhere (And I would be willing to bet you use more water taking showers for the same durration of time than goes into a cow durring it’s life, but that’s just a WAG).
You mean other than getting fired and possibly heavily fined or sued?
And it isn’t nearly as hard to cook meat to a specified thoroughness as it is to fly a jet liner. That’s why fast-food cooks get paid minimum wage, and airline pilots don’t.
(Speaking AS someone who happened to WORK at a fast-food place and has yet to see any apathetic 16-year-olds at the grill, or anywhere else inside the store except on the other side of the counter)
We can’t destroy the earth. If you think we can I’d certainly like to know how.
No, we do not have any responsibility to ensure the survival of any particular species. Is the world really going to be a sadder place without the California Condor? What about the Boll Weevil? In Arkansas, and many other states, we’re actively trying to make that sucker extinct.
**
I don’t think apes have an ethical relationship with the environment.
**
Sure, but that’s a far cry from having a responsibility to all life on earth. I actually do like to see less pollution and conservation.
**
What does mankind owe the planet? Nothing. Mankind doesn’t survive because the earth is benevolent or in spite of any malevolence. The only reason we survive is because we make an effort to do so. No such thing as a free lunch.
So if it’s morally wrong for human animals to eat non-human animals, wouldn’t it also be morally wrong for non-human animals to eat each other? - I’m just a little daunted by the idea of having to police the diet of all those lions on the Serengeti, not to mention all the spiders in my garden.
Well, you did assume correctly. I’m not on your side of the debate. I enjoy the taste of meat and I enjoy the eating of meat. Neither of those activities has ANYTHING to do with my knowledge, or lack of knowledge, in this particular area. I may have written 5 books or I may be using up my 3 remaining brain cells just trying to find the keys on the keyboard to type this.
What I object to is that you label anyone you assume to be on the opposite side as less intelligent than you. That’s not conducive to a debate. It makes it too easy for you to dismiss good arguments as not worthy your time.
There’s really no possible way anyone will convince you of our side. Nothing we say will convince you. Nothing we cite will convince you. Alas.
You object to the killing of animals and you object to the use of slaughterhouses. What you fail to understand is that these are TWO SEPERATE ARGUMENTS. If you don’t like how we kill animals, then work to reform the system. If you don’t like that we eat animals, well…there’s nothing I can say. We just do. We’re supposed to. Dogs are supposed to as well, even though you can make them change. Dogs don’t have a sense of morals, so why do you impose yours on them?
One last thing. I do recycle. I try to recycle when I can. I’m sure there are some ways I could be recycling better. But when I use up a package of styrofoam I toss that sucker in the trash. Why? It can’t be recycled. It’s not in its nature. To force the recycling guys to take it just screws up the system.
I eat meat. I don’t eat it because I don’t like animals. I eat it because I really, really LOVE plants.
Now, seriously… I eat meat and sleep perfectly well at night. I don’t eat veggie burgers because they taste like crap. If you don’t like the fact that I eat meat…tough…I don’t care.
If you want to be a vegetatrian, fine. You want to be a vegan, again, fine. Just stay away from my dinner table and you’ll never see me cutting into a nice rare steak with blood pooling on my plate.
I agree, we’ve done the “mmmm, tasty - HAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA” bit to death and beyond.
I think the basic problem is that we don’t have the same emotional reactions as vegans do.
Did it ever occur to me that I am eating the muscle tissue of a dead animal? Yes, certainly - hardly anyone who has gone to college has not been exposed to the evangelical vegetarian, and those twits at PETA make a life’s work out of getting into everybody’s face.
Does it bother me? No.
I ask the same questions everyone else does. “Did the animal suffer unncessarily?” Not really. Certainly less than if it were a wild animal and starved to death some winter, or was eaten by a predator who was less scrupulous about how quickly its prey died, or about making sure it was dead before it began eating.
“Was it the animal’s basic role in life?” Fairly obviously yes. Several posters have pointed out that cows, pigs, chickens, and many other domestic species have no chance of survival in the wild, so that a mass change to vegetarian ways would condemn these species to extinction. Isn’t it non-human species that we should be concerned about? What exactly do you have against those cute little piggies?
One of your arguments seems to be that if we realized that animals can suffer, we would abandon our carnivorous ways in a heartbeat. Then you mention that you intended to raise a cat as a vegan, and you got beaten into the ground on the basis that this would constitute animal cruelty. So I think your assumption that “meateater == heartless towards the suffering of animals” falls apart.
And finally, you ask why we might refuse to adopt a vegan diet for a week. Well, I don’t know about others, but I have heard no reason why I should.
You seem to be advocating that I should abandon the traditional diet of most cultures on earth in favor of something (dare I say it) “unnatural”. No reasons cited except that it uses up water more than if I only ate grains. I respond that the health benefits (protein, B-12, iron) of eating meat outweigh the risks.
You sound relatively intelligent in the OP and subsequent posts. You also are relatively new to the SDMB. I recommend that you stick around, and not be discouraged by the apparent pile-on in this thread. The experience of defending your position against those who do not reflexively agree with you is both educational and entertaining.
Said the conservative, Christian, right-wing, pro-Israel, anti-affirmative action loser of many an argument.
What goes through your mind as you’re eating meat, and/or other animal products?
Generally it’s ‘Yum.’ Sometimes ‘Hmm, overcooked.’ But for the most part I don’t wax philosophical while I’m eating.
Also, how do you justify the fact that a living, breathing animal was killed for the sole reason of satisfying your hunger, which could obviously be satisfied by a plant-based diet?
I see nothing in need of justification. I am of species homo sapiens sapiens, and my body was designed to take in animal proteins. Nature dictates that for one organism to live, some other organism must die. In this case, it happens to be animals. Plants do not fulfill my need for animal proteins and lipids.
In your mind, are animals simply detached from your basic day-to-day ethics and morals?
No, in fact they are part of it. I would not torture an animal nor kill one needlessly. I am, however, part of the food chain and as such, will take my place in it. Nature (which I am a part of) is particularly clear on the rules of the food chain. Those animals who were built to be predators are such, and they would not hesitate to eat me if I were the nearest available source of meat.
Do you feel guilty?
For being part of a natural process and doing what I was designed by nature to do? No.
**Do you feel as if there are no other alternatives? **
The only alternative is to deny what I have evolved to be, and that is not an alternative I feel is worth pursuing.
Do your own research, visit a few slaughterhouses, and then get back to me. We’ll see who’s “got it” then.
Been to them. Also hunt my own game in the wild. Kill it, field dress it, butcher it, cook it, eat it. That is what it is to be a predator animal. I have assumed my place in the food chain. When I die, I’ll be consumed by those who have assumed their place in it. That, IMO, is the definition of natural.
I just have to say that if I had to go vegan for a week (emphasis on HAD TO), I would. I would then, at the end of that week, proceed to the nearest steakhouse and wolf down the largest steak I could manage, and not think twice about whether it was right or wrong to do. Why? Because it tastes good, and I have no moral objections to eating meat, and you, or any other vegan, sure as hell aren’t going to convince me otherwise.
Oh, and by the way, the use of “poo”, as you so elequently call it, in feeding livestock is used in a form that derives NATURAL nutrients from these by-products, returning them to animals that can benefit from these supplements. Its very much like Flintstone vitamins. It is an efficient use of by-products that reduces the inefficient digestion, and produces less natural waste. The necessary vitamins and minerals are digested out of the by-product by the animal that consumes it, and the rest returns to “poo”. The alternative, is to use synthetic supplements, which cost a lot more to make, and are expensive to produce as well (in my experience as a student of organic chemistry, a lot of organic waste is likely also produced - and in this context ORGANIC does not mean natural or life-based!). Besides, animals had to die to make these supplements in the first place (they had to be studied) and they had to be tested - on animals! Most biological compounds have many enantiomeric forms, and guess what? Certain ones are bad for people! Certain ones can kill, while others can be beneficial. So, time, money, effort is put into identifying and isolating the proper enantiomer, and the rest is all waste! Possibly deadly to lifeforms. Is this better, in your opinion? Would you rather have a bit of extra nitrates or phosphorus in the ground (something MANY researchers are making active, enviro-friendly efforts to reduce) or have a bunch of potentially deadly side-products of synthetic vitamin supplements? Clearly you don’t know the whole story, and don’t care to know it. I admit, neither do I, but at least if I’m going to make claims, I have something to back it up with!
I don’t know why I bothered to write this, since I’m likely never coming back to this thread, but whatever. My suggestion is to go ride your moral high horse somewhere else.
I’d like to know if the thread author’s moral value system allows for the keeping of chickens in order to harvest their eggs, or the keeping of dairy cows for moo juice. Since neither animals are slaughtered for their byproducts (and animal slaughter seems to be the main thorn in the OP’s side), I suspect it should be allowed.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by the_great_dalmuti *
**
See question 2. Yes, once in a great while I kill one of the behemoth-sized spiders I occasinally find lurking in my bedroom. But, again, covering up your lack of knowldge about a subject by pointing out that I am not the perfect model is weak. It’s a flaw, sure that I do not adhere perfectly to the same system I prescribe. But, thats precisesly one of the biggest and more feasible criticisms of most of the great philsophers, througout history. So you can’t really just disregard my ideas because of #3. **
[QUOTE]
The smiley ;j got left out of my last post. I am Jewish and follow all the fun dietary laws. The Talmud commands the most humane and painless care and slaughtering of animals. The shochet(kosher butcher) must cut the throat in one stroke. The knife must be clean, sharp and without so much as one nick in it. Having had mishaps with exacto and other knives, I can vouch for the fact that even a deep cut from a truly sharp blade is painless.
The Talmud also prohibits the killing of insects or spiders without good reason. I catch spiders in a plastic cup and deposit them safely outside.
The death of livestock serves a purpose. Their meat provides protein and nutrients. Squashing a spider serves no purpose. It has died simply for being in space that you consider yours. This is not a small point to me.
Your position seems to be 'Killing animals raised for food is wrong. But killing animals that wander into my apartment is okay.'
If this is wrong, please clarify
Looks like I’m a bit late, but I’ll add in my $.02
**
What goes through your mind as you’re eating meat, and/or other animal products?**
Nothing other than the random “chew, chew, chew.” Or, “that really hit the spot.” In general, whatever I’m thinking, regardless of what Kingdom or Phylum my food came from.
Also, how do you justify the fact that a living, breathing animal was killed for the sole reason of satisfying your hunger, which could obviously be satisfied by a plant-based diet?
This will take me a while to get to the answer. In the course of my schoolwork, I’ve dissected an earthworm, a crayfish, a shark, two frogs, and a cat. The first was one of the frogs. Before we started, our biology teacher told us (we were a bunch of high school freshman, and many were being immature about it) “try to learn enough to justify the frog’s life.” So when it comes to eating, I’m thankful that there are cows and I am lucky enough to eat things like t-bone steaks.
**In your mind, are animals simply detached from your basic day-to-day ethics and morals? **
I’m a bit confused as to what you mean by this. I generally don’t subscribe things like morals to animals. Maybe the ones approaching sentience (the great apes and whales). But even so, Jane Goodall has documented chimps attacking and killing each other.
**Do you feel guilty?**No. Although I do feel guilty that most of our food supply comes from factory farms. I come from a long line of Wisconsin dairy farmers. I’ve worked on farms in the summer and thus have been the reason that some cows were fed. I saw my grandfather ruin his knees in a lifetime of milking. I think family farms are important, and I will support politicians who feel this way.
I have also gone fishing and squirrel and deer hunting. I have cleaned and eaten the fruits (no pun intended) of these labors. If anything, I felt less guilty, because I was able to personally insure that the animal died with a minimum of suffering. I also felt a greater sense of accomplishment than merely going to the supermarket.
Do you feel as if there are no other alternatives? For me, no. I like being an omnivore. I will not attempt to “convert” a vegetarian, as long as they give me the same courtesy. I will grant that a vegetarian diet would potentially feed more people on a given amount of land. I feel that we should spend more time and effort trying to help raise the standard of living of third world countries (which leads to smaller population growth, which will lessen population pressure and hopefully mean fewer starving people) than trying to change the eating preferences of the majority of this country.
If you’re interested in a serious debate, maybe you should get this thread closed down and start a new one on a different subject – I agree that there’s lots to complain about in the production of meat; concentrated animal feeding operations disturb me, destruction of natural habitat isn’t great, and I think that the massive antibiotic regimens might harm the health of humans if they breed resistant bacteria. None of these are issues that the OP raised, though, and I’m not going to start it now.
One other thing before I leave this thread – you know how all those animals balance each other in the environment, dalmuti? They get eaten by other animals. Introduce something where it doesn’t belong (fire ants, beetles, kudzu) and see how good it is about limiting its population. Further, human actions tend to reduce the large predator populations, which hurts the health of prey! The lack of wolves and other large carnivores around where I live has caused the deer population to increase to the point that they’re trying to encourage people to hunt them – there are too many deer and they’re starving to death. Also, snow geese are destroying fragile tundra ecosystems because there’s too many of them as well, so they’re trying to get hunters out for them too. It’s all just part of the system. If you don’t want to eat meat, though, more power to ya.
