Will Meat Become Obsolete Some Day?

[EllisDee]

*Originally posted by Shade *
How about cruelty to animals? Your argument should apply equally there, but many people believe that a cat playing with a mouse is unfortunate, but a human doing the same is doing something very wrong.

Hmmm…I hadn’t carried my argument to its logical conclusion. Honestly, though, I still say that if it’s okay for nature, it’s okay for us. If a human needed to hunt rats to survive, then playing with a mouse to hone those skills is a-okay in my book.

It’s hard to explain why, I’m not sure myself. I think because we do have a choice and a cat doesn’t. I can see it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense (the mouse is hurt just as much either way) but otoh the same logic applies to a lot of things - eg. starving someone to death=evil, allowing people in another coutry to be starved to death=not evil.

Yeah, it’s a bit tricky, and though I have grossly oversimplified, I still hold to my basic belief that humans are natural, and that any morality we impose upon ourselves to limit the suffering of animals in our pursuit of survival is nice and all, but not strictly required.

The only universal, innate moral I am aware of in the human condition is the desire to bury/commemorate our dead. Short of that, all of our morals are self-imposed constructs we created to…make ourselves feel better? I’m not trying to be obtuse…I’m surprised I can’t really pinpoint the purpose of morals.

Isn’t that just a ringing endorsement of my character. :dubious:

[Shade]

*Originally posted by Ellis Dee *
**Hmmm…I hadn’t carried my argument to its logical conclusion. Honestly, though, I still say that if it’s okay for nature, it’s okay for us. If a human needed to hunt rats to survive, then playing with a mouse to hone those skills is a-okay in my book.

Thanks for considering the implications seriously.

Yes, if need to survive, that’s ok in my book too (though regrettable). But the we don’t need to eat meat, we choose to eat meat. Is ‘playing’ with a mouse for fun ok? A large proportion of people do think this is wrong.

OK, a cat doesn’t need to eat rats to survive either if it’s a pet, but it can’t make that connection. Perhaps substitute

Yeah, it’s a bit tricky, and though I have grossly oversimplified, I still hold to my basic belief that humans are natural, and that any morality we impose upon ourselves to limit the suffering of animals in our pursuit of survival is nice and all, but not strictly required.

The only universal, innate moral I am aware of in the human condition is the desire to bury/commemorate our dead. Short of that, all of our morals are self-imposed constructs we created to…make ourselves feel better? I’m not trying to be obtuse…I’m surprised I can’t really pinpoint the purpose of morals.

Isn’t that just a ringing endorsement of my character. :dubious:

There’s a whole other debate on the subjectiveness/objectiveness of morals, which I do generally run into after thinking about vegetarianism for a bit. I’m a bit too tired to go into it tonight, but basically don’t be surprised - a lot of other people aren’t too sure where morals come from either.

[Shade]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
**Sort of.

A majority has (I suspect) already confronted the arguments for moral vegetarianism, and are unconvinced by them.**

Good point. However I can still hope the next generation could conceivably think differently (see below).

Non-vegetarians perceive qualitative differences between humans and animals, and those differences are used to justify killing animals for food.

I can admit there are qualitative differences, (and don’t believe animals have should have all human rights), but that they should have some rights. A lot of people agree they have the right not to be hurt unnescessarily. I think they have the right not to be raised to be eaten.

Which is why analogies to slavery don’t really work. One can show that there are no differences between blacks and whites that are sufficient to justify chattel slavery. It is much more difficult (to say the least) to argue that a cow or a chicken is not qualitatively different from a person.

Yeah, but could people at the time? I though people did think there were serious differences. We now know these people were wrong.

Sorry, maybe I should avoid analogies. The reason I brought slavery up wasn’t to say that “Eventually animals will have the same rights as us” but “We’ve about-faced on a substantial moral question before - why not this one?”

I can envision a future where meat is raised in gigantic cloning vats, instead of on farms, but that isn’t going to happen until the meat is indistinguishable from “normal” meat, and raising meat that way is more cost-effective than current ranches. Even then I would bet that steaks from a normally raised cow will persist as a luxury item. They would simply occupy the same niche as fresh-squeezed orange juice does vis-a-vis orange juice from concentrate.

Same would be true for non-meat substitutes. They aren’t going to take the world by storm until they are indistinguishable from regular meats, and less expensive.

In neither instance will moral arguments in favor of vegetarianism play a significant role in getting people to switch. People have strong emotional attachments to the foods they ate growing up.

OK, I admit you’re probably right here - it’s most probably people won’t stop eating meat unless there are good economic/taste/health reasons for it. (I don’t have to like it, but it’s proabbly true.)

And vegetarians often tend (no offense) to exaggerate their arguments. The latest example is how we are all going to die from mad cow disease. I just don’t believe that is going to happen. Tuberculosis in cattle did not bring an end to the dairy industry. Neither did bovine brucellosis, anymore than anthrax caused us to give up wearing wool altogether. And these were far more serious issues, in a time when the health and safety parts of our food delivery system were less able to handle them.

Of course over-consumption of anything can be bad for you. But I have not seen any evidence that the moderate consumption of meat and dairy products is any less healthy than veganism or vegetarianism.**

I most people succumb to the temptation to forward arguments that agree with their conclusions regarless of merit. I have noticed this trend amonst vegetarians before, and it is annoying.

[flonks]

*Originally posted by Beelzebubba *
**From my personal observations, I believe a lot of people would have trouble eating meat if they were present for the killing of the animal. **

That’s what I always thought as well.

But: in the muslim society, every man must slaughter a lamb at a certain religious holiday, so about everybody is doing that, with the possible exception of very very poor people. Still, some people are saving for a long time in order to be able to afford that. Don’t ask me what they do with all the meat that day…

And they don’t really know the concept of vegetarianism there. Cite? My wife is moroccan, and my in-laws do not really understand why I don’t eat meat.

[Earthworm_Jim]

RickJay, et al, I think you’ve misunderstood what I was trying to say. I agree with you that "Vegetariansim in Western society is higher now that fewer and fewer people see the slaughter of animals firsthand. " - it’s the point I wanted to make Sorry for the confusion.

Let me elaborate somewhat:

Western society tends to anthropomorphize animals in general. Unless interacting with animals in some specific profession such as hog farming, or being raised in a hunting/fishing/out-doorsy family, most of American childrens early knowledge of animals comes from Warner Bros., Disney, and perhaps the family pet. Additionally, the association between ‘meat on the table’ and ‘dead animal’ is rarely made in any way other than conceptual, as in:

Kid: “Dad, where does chicken come from?”
Dad: “From the farm, son.”

The kid doesn’t experience the chicken going from living clucking animal to dead bird to meat in the pot to roast chicken with a side of potatoes. He just knows the chicken on his plate came from the farm.

I think a large number of people raised in this way would have a hard time eating the meat if they witnessed the complete process, because of this combination of influences. I don’t mean to argue that killing in and of itself would be a deterrent to all, more that in Western culture it would be a deterrent to a growing number of people. The lack of interaction with animals as food, plus the ‘humanizing’ of animals essentially since birth, provides plenty of impetus to view killing an animal for food as a Bad Thing.

Which brings me back to my original statements: To a large degree, we have changed the way people think of animals, and we continue to do so. I think that most Western people (to ammend my previous statement) would have trouble eating an animal if they witnessed the killing close up.

As an aside, I think an interesting question is: Do you have to be de-sensitised to killing in order to eat the animal, or sensitized to animals in order to feel bad about it?

[Shodan]

I have been present at the killing of animals, lots of them. I have killed some myself. And I remain an omnivore.

I think it works the other way. You need a certain level of naivete about animals to anthropomorphize them. A chicken farmer of my acquaintance referred to her charges (she is a Ph.D. in veterinary science) as “plants with wings”.

It is difficult to convince yourself that creatures that can, in some cases, survive for weeks with no head at all, should have the concept of “happy” vs. “unhappy” applied to them at all.

I suspect a dairy farmer or cattle rancher has a more immediate sense of the disconnect between the dull-witted creature chewing her cud in the pasture, and “Bossy the Happy Cow Goes to Market” fairy tales.

Certainly it doesn’t all go one way. There is an element of truth to many vegetarian horror tales of animal cruelty, and no one wants the sources of our beefsteak and shoe leather to suffer unnecessarily. But the idea that the animal is fretting because she knows that her destiny is the milk machine and slaughterhouse is not easily supported by those with experience in the field.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shade]

Here’s another link from the genetic engineering thread.

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20030516/105309720008.html

No, I don’t believe it either but apperently someone has grown meat on a tree! :eek:

If this works, maybe animal-free meat won’t be as far away as we’d thought.

[spogga]

A Dog is for life not just for Christmas

A Turkey is for Christmas, not for life.

I just had ham,sausage, eggs for breakfast, boy do I feel ashamed of myself. I mean I could have had toast and felt a whole lot better…my arse!

[flonks]

*Originally posted by spogga *
**A Dog is for life not just for Christmas
A Turkey is for Christmas, not for life.
**

Well if you say it… I hope the turkey agrees.

[Shade]

*Originally posted by Shade *
**Here’s another link from the genetic engineering thread.

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/wwn/20030516/105309720008.html

No, I don’t believe it either but apperently someone has grown meat on a tree! :eek:

If this works, maybe animal-free meat won’t be as far away as we’d thought. **

Apparently snopes says that’s a hoax. I did say I didn’t believe it Sorry, guys, I just c&p from the other thread and didn’t think t check.