It seems to be a philosophy that argues it’s best of human beings don’t come into existence. Your seem to be expanding it to all sentient animals.
Do you really think the world would be a better place with no vertebrate life forms?
But why should we listen to anything you say? You oppose the existence of human beings. We’re human beings. Therefore, anything you recommend will be to our detriment, as your goal is to cause us harm. We’d be best off doing the exact opposite of whatever you say - or ignoring you completely.
As I alluded to earlier, this guy is in the Army. That should help you sleep better at night.
Well, it may help him sleep better if he believes he is just taking people out of their misery when he kills them.
And i can go to the store and buy the dog human invented processed dog food.
It still does not change what the dog is or alter his natural genetic design.
The dog food store can disappear through catastrophe, guess what the dog reverts to doing?
You cant just keep dodging the facts simply because you chose not to like them.
Man is a carnivore, and through intelligence and use of tools became THE apex predator.
Unless we evolve into something like cows or rabbits, we will always be that way
And i dont forsee that taking place as that would be a radical departure from the norm.
But how can one see truth, where there is none?
Isn’t that the same as believing a lie?
You don’t want to eat meat, that’s fine, don’t.
Take your vitamins.
Is it okay to eat animals that eat meat? Eagles, for example, like to kill fish.
Can I have some BBQ Eagle if it saves some salmon?
Just remember; no pudding.
Another related argument is that the animals don’t care either. And that seems valid to me.
Animals don’t know that they are going to be eaten. They don’t know that they are going to die. So they don’t suffer mentally, and as long as they don’t suffer physically, as they generally do not, I don’t see the issue.
“Don’t eat meat” and “don’t reproduce” are, to say the least, a tough sell to humans. Because we have been doing both for all our history. So has every other omnivore species currently in existence.
Regards,
Shodan
Theme song for the thread.
Ah, the all-natural vegan life. 
Requires among other things, money, manufacturers, suppliers, retailers.
Not exactly available to all humans in all parts of the world.
It’s an artificial bubble
While true, same can be said of the nutrients contained in grass etc.
I’m not sure about you, but i can not digest or metabolize dirt grass bacteria and mold very well.
I’m human, i can process any meat, fat, cartilage, and bone to a degree.
Any meat, mammal reptile fish insect (chicken is reptile)
And yet only a limited (in the grand scheme of things) variety of the globally available plants.
There are a lot of people in the world that dont even have access to your vitamin enhanced tofu, are you going to offer to start buying for them and delivering it to them?
Nature had a much better way, it made them able to eat meat.
WRONG
Okay, you say you’re not opposed to people adopting pets. Then what should we feed our pets? Cats, for example, cannot eat a vegan diet. They are what is known obligate carnivores. So they must have meat. Any attempt to put a cat on a diet that contains no meat will kill them.
And yes, all of my cats were adopted. Three from the Humane Society, and one from the vet’s office. (I believe she was originally a barn kitten) The only thing we paid were the adoption fees.
It’s an angsty goth-teenager’s version of nihilism, which in and of itself is a snivelly limp-dick philosophy. It’s not deep, it’s not profound, it’s just a little pathetic.
Bad example, eagles are endangered.
Other than that, its kind of a personal, religious, or philosophical choice i guess.
Nope, no longer endangered. Still protected by law, though.
Yes I think the missing arguments are those why people should not eat meat, eating being the default, and the default state of affairs can’t be ignored, though is often is by ‘social theorists’ who seem to proceed on the assumption we’re thinking up how a world we’re about to start should work.
A potentially valid argument why not is to the extent animals do in fact suffer from their treatment while being raised as food. It’s not self evident either way IMO, a subject for valid debate depending on the details. But in general animals are not bothered by the fear of death like humans are, and some types of food animals (fish, probably chickens) not at all. There might be a debate at the margin for pigs or perhaps cattle though still probably not if we separate the kind of fear we have about death from upsetting the animal because it’s transported to a new place (for slaughter), or its family or herd mates are taken away, or even killed on site in view of their peers (an alternative used by some ‘organic’ producers to avoid traumatizing the animal by a trip to slaughter house still alive). We can’t say 100% that has no negative impact, but back to first paragraph, where and why is the burden of proof placed?
Another potential argument is the much bigger environmental footprint of meat production than grain production (directly for humans not to feed meat animals). But that gets into a different type of albeit more practical dirty detail. It’s not just a matter of positing that some level/method of production is unsustainable but predicting that markets can’t do a reasonable job sorting this out. And we can’t just wave our hands and say ‘externalities’ when dealing with something as broad and complicated as all food production from here to infinity. There are some externalities (costs born by neither buyer nor seller in a given transaction), but also a lot of basic price signals to guide relative consumption, use of land and employment of capital in food production. Plus, the payoff on capital used to research more efficient ways of doing things is highly uncertain in the long run. Like threads where certain confident posters predict the long term price of oil: but that’s simply impossible.
And as you say, not the greatest approach to market universal veganism to tie it upfront to species self-destruction. That opens up kind of a credibility gap.
No, it’s A LOT pathetic. Notice how the advocates of such philosophy very rarely promote it through leadership by example. i.e. They usually lack the courage of their own convictions.
Then there are people who think that we should eliminate or genetically modify all predators to make Earth a herbivore paradise.
Exactly. If the OP is some watered down wimped out version of a nihilist, believing that existance is futile and bringing new life into the world is evil, then the honest thing to do would be for him to shoot himself in the head*. Same with any nihilist.
Also, immaterialists should have rocks thrown at their head with the rock-throwers saying “Thus I refute you” until the immaterialists admit that their ideas are just contra-factual and dumb.
Note to OP. Do NOT shoot yourself in the head. Your ideas are stupid and wrong and trying to justify them by showing you have the courage of your (stupid) convictions would be even dumber.*
**Note: I’m serious: Shooting yourself in the head to prove that you stand by stupid ideas is even more stupid than the ideas themselves. Do not do it. Now go have a bacon-cheeseburger and straighten up and fly right.
So, it occurs to me: if you are saying the big problem is that takes extra resources to produce a meat diet for me vs. what it would take if I stuck to vegetables, couldn’t I rebalance the scales simply by killing another meat-eater? Or ten vegetarians, I guess, would work, too.
If I get them before they reproduce, the benefits increase geometrically, too.
