Atheism and Veganism

I’m not a vegetarian, but I am an atheist. I agree that similar conversations are often had about the two things, as shown in the comic, but I don’t think that implies that being one means you ought to be the other too. After all, you could make the same arguments about eating vegetables as you could about eating meat. Who cares whether it’s traditionally done, or if people think you need it to be healthy — you can just take vitamin supplements to make up for what you’re missing! Do you think that means we should all eat only meat and no vegetables? Seriously, God is not the same as meat. I don’t even understand why someone would think these things are related, except to point out a humorous coincidence in which the same bad arguments are made in two cases. It doesn’t preclude the existence of good arguments in one or the other case.

Meat is tasty. have you ever tasted a communion wafer? No flavor at all.

Y’know what? I really like meat. I also like consumer electronics. Both of these are environmentally devastating enterprises.

The thing is, I don’t care. I’m part of a massive framework of society that’s environmentally devastating. I can’t leave, and I can’t change it, and while it might be tempting to reduce my personal impact, that’s pretty insignificant. If I’m going to do something insignificant, I’ll do something I enjoy instead.

Also: you may not take my bacon away. Not yours.

@konstanty: Communion wafers are Jesus. Jesus may have been god made man, but he was definitely a man. Humans taste like pork, hence the phrase “long pork”. Pigs make bacon. Ergo, Communion wafers must really be bacon. HOLY CRAP, I think I’ve just converted.

To me, being a vegan is healthier than being a fundamentalist. I only equate the two as being the more extreme versions of their respective states.

I am an atheist and a meat eater but I don’t think people are likely to harm themselves or others by not eating animal products. Being a fundamentalist can, in fact, be harmful. So can eating only raw food but that’s not what you’re talking about, here.

I’m an agnostic atheist. I don’t “know” that god does or doesn’t exist, so, until it’s proven that he does (because you can’t prove a negative) I choose to not believe. As far as veganism/vegetarianism goes; Meat is just too damn tasty.

The irony of this is that people that believe the literal story in Genesis don’t think that it is natural at all to eat meat. Apparently all the lions were herbivores back in the garden.

I can see a connection between atheism and veganism, though I’m not sure I would go so far as to buy it.

It could be argued that it is immoral to believe in a god, as to do so requires an immense amount of personal dishonesty, lying to oneself if not to others. Usually to both.

It could be argued that it is immoral to kill another animal for food, especially given the way the meat is treated while alive, the environmental damage done to harvest meat and the genetic reality that we’re all basically variations on the same theme.

It could also be argued that the above arguments are a marshmallow in the middle of a cowpatty, and that one is not going to eat that cowpatty.

So the journey continues.

Meat = tastes good
Religion = not so much.

Mmmmmm, meat. 🙂

I’m in the atheist-but-not-vegetarian category. Many years ago I was a vegetarian, for two full years. But I have a very fast metabolism, and I developed classic failure-to-thrive symptoms of listlessness and having to eat almost constantly just to keep myself going. I figured my consuming stuff ALL THE TIME wasn’t all that great for the environment, either, when just a leeeeeeetle bit o’ meat would keep me going for half a day.

I still cook mainly vegetarian dishes, though, ’cause raw meat feels yucky on my hands.

As far as I’m concerned, the comparison isn’t a very good one. You can come up with plenty of reasons that theism is problematic, but frankly, I haven’t seen any necessary or sufficient way to go from the reasonable “We shouldn’t go out of our way to harm animals or living things in general” position to the “Meat is immoral” position.

I think meat-eating and religion are similar in that many people cling to each simply because they are too uncomfortable with the thought of life without it. But in both cases, the arguments for never seem to make up for the arguments against.

God may provide some a sense of security/morality, but by worshiping God you are buying into a system that thrives on ignorance, obedience, and sometimes stubborn, if not violent, promotion and defense.

Similarly, meat may be tasty, but by consuming it you are often supporting cruel and inhumane treatment of animals (though this is getting better), contributing to the deterioration of the environment (vegetarians offset about 4 tons of CO2 every year), and propelling the notion that meat is the only way to get protein into your diet.

C’mon, haven’t you seen Babe?

I’m an atheist because I have no reason to believe in god. Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years and I don’t see a compelling reason to completely stop.

Religion has been around for just as long, so what is the compelling reason to stop that then, I wonder?

Atheist Vegan here. I don’t need meat (or dairy for that matter) to be healthy. And I sure as heck don’t need religion.

But I think that they are separate decisions. I chose both based on the evidence and my moral convictions.

I’m a meat-eating atheist.

I do believe that vegetarians have a point, I just don’t think that it’s as much of a big deal as they make it to be. I don’t equate human life to animal life, and I also don’t equate animal life to vegetable life. We should be loyal to the HUMAN species.

If we don’t eat animals, them some OTHER animal will – so what’s the point? Should we just drive all bovines extinct by stopping their domestication? They certainly can’t live by themselves in the wild. If anything, dying to feed a human sounds like the best destiny that an animal can have… After all, they are supporting the existence of the only species on the planet with the potential to spread the seed of life to other worlds.

But we can argue from a different perspective, too (and I’m sure that many of you will frown on me for this one…). All animals that are born will eventually die. Killing an animal is not a crime against it per se, as it will no longer exist to be in any way affected by it. Killing an animal is a crime against those that it left behind… But when you kill a cow in a farm, you won’t leave sad bulls behind. You don’t leave its children scarred for life. You won’t destroy information that was stored in its brain that could be used to change our culture or our technology. I don’t believe that anybody mourns for a dead cow. So, what exactly is the sin in killing a cow?

And even if we were to stop eating animals, we’d still need to perform medical research – anyone arguing otherwise clearly has no idea of what’s at stake here, or has no value for the life of their fellow human beings.

“Our loyalties are to the species and the Planet. WE speak for Earth. Our obligation to survive is owed not just to ourselves, but also to that Cosmos, ancient and vast, from which we spring.”

The problem with this comic argument is that you actually need meat to be healthy (or at least some vitamins found in it) but you don’t need religion to be moral.

False analogy, as always.

I am an atheist and a meat-eater. Hemant comes from a religion that is vegetarian, so perhaps that is an artifact of his religion.

However, I am fine with people being vegans. I have had some fantastic vegan food and I don’t think vegans are necessarily missing out on anything they really need.

Thanks for the support Autumnal Harvest, but Becky puts forth an interesting question I’d actually like to answer:

Religion, for a long time, was the only method for explaining things. Now that we have modern science, and more specifically the scientific method, we no longer need religion. In my mind it has far outlived it usefulness and one might wonder how useful it ever was.

In dark ages people are best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.
-Heinrich Heine

My personal reason for not believing in your deity of choice is that I have no reason to believe in him any more than to believe in someone else’s favorite deity or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell’s Teapot. If you’d like to provide me with evidence of your deity’s existence please ask him to rip off the roof from above my head and tell me he exists. A small feat to ask for from an omnipotent creator, might I add.

Human ancestors have been eating meat for about 2.5 million years. Burial rites may have occurred about 300,000 years ago. I’ll admit that religion has been around a long time, but I won’t jump to say we are evolved for it. There might be a case to be made linking some form of religion that would be passed down through generations to evolution of the species, those that didn’t follow the religion were killed and thus everyone shared the religion. But even if such a connection could be established it would not prove religions to be true but just something we made up a long time ago.

FSM doesn’t exist without meatballs. What would a vegan say about that?

I am both an atheist and a vegetarian. I would be a vegan if I didn’t love cheese so much–I don’t eat any other dairy, but cheese is such a staple of my diet that it would be too much of an adjustment for me at this stage of my life.
However, I do get both of those responses on a regular basis, really more so for vegetarianism than for atheism!

Fully agree with Lisa.
Btw, I actually like this comic on the same website better…

here

Daniel, your post is heresy! The FSM is simply spaghetti and a light tomato and garlic sauce. No meatballs! I beg you to reconsider. Your immortal kreplah is at risk!

What’s irrational about exploiting non-humans? Seems like a much more rational thing to do than trying to exploit humans. After all, humans are more apt to fight back effectively against exploitation, while non-humans can be exploited with far less danger and trouble. Whether it’s chickens or carrots, those non-humans are a lot easier to exploit. So that seems rational to me.

Bananas on the other hand…

Well, why *not* eat meat? If you’re going to tell me that it’s cruel and inhuman, I’m going to tell you that we’re animals, and that many *many* other animals do it every day. Our digestive system is built to handle it, so in my opinion, it’s natural.

Yes, I agree that many of our current methods of meat “farming” are inhuman and indeed cruel, but that has nothing to do with eating meat in the first place. Eating some meats in moderation is good for our diets, plain and simple.

I have to say that associating atheism and vegetarianism/veganism is quite ridiculous. One has *nothing* to do with the other. I choose not to believe in an imaginary friend in the sky because, well, that’s simply a silly thing to believe in, and I see no reason to. I do not practice vegetarianism because I see no reason to. Neither theism nor vegetarianism are beneficial to me, and that is where their similarities end.

Honestly, I think associating one with the other, and placing expectations on others (such as the idea that vegetarianism and atheism should go hand-in-hand) is a bit unfriendly.

For the record:

mikespeir eats meat. Incorrigibly. The last meal he ever eats will probably involve meat.

David: We have evolved eating meat over the past 2.5 million years. You can design diets that work just as well/better as a meat diet and you can design meat diets that are very unhealthy, but neither is a sufficient reason to stop or start eating meat.
I guess my question is: Why should I stop eating meat?

Some people just happen to think that not all ways of surviving are morally equivalent. Your argument is identical to the one in the comic. If you don’t care about the suffering of non-human animals, no one can convince you that you should stop eating meat.

Similarly, if a theist doesn’t care about objective evidence, it is useless trying to convince them that they shouldn’t believe in God.

Some people just happen to think that not all ways of surviving are morally equivalent. Your argument is identical to the one in the comic. If you don’t care about the suffering of non-human animals, no one can convince you that you should stop eating meat.

Are you implying the only valid argument for not eating meat is that it stops the inhumane treatment of farm animals? I can think of a number of other arguments for vegetarianism. And the argument in the comic is unsupported. Providing support makes it a valid argument. I agree, without the support I’ve added, my argument is similar to the comic’s argument, and quite poor at that.

Bananas on the other hand…

I heard a pretzel put up a good fight against the President. As far as I know, it’s been his only attempted assassination.

i’m a vegan and an atheist. i get the same questions too.

“you’re a vegan?”
“yeap.”
“what do you eat?”
“anything that doesn’t come from animals.”
“you’re an atheist?”
“yeap.”
“what do you believe?”
“not in god.”

it’s strange how those answers completely freak people out.

@Marzipan

If you don’t care about the suffering of non-human animals, no one can convince you that you should stop eating meat.

Those are really not the same issue. Many countries in Europe have laws to ensure the humane treatment of farm animals. It makes things more expensive, but it’s the right thing to do. I would fully support such legislation here, but I see little interest in that in this country, and I think that’s partly the fault of vegetarians. When anyone tries to start a conversation about humane treatment of farm animals, it immediately gets sidetracked on to “we shouldn’t be eating them at all”. They are such fanatics that there doesn’t seem to be any room for a middle ground, and it’s the animals that pay for that.

Domestic animals are dependent on humans to survive. Many species of wild animals have gone extinct when they got in our way, but that will never happen to the domestic animals, and that is a major plus considering the way the environment is going at the moment. They get benefits from this arrangement, it’s not all one-sided.

In Victorian England, dogs were sometimes a commercial animal. They pulled dog-carts for people who needed a small cart for their business (peddlers, ragpickers, etc.). When they were made illegal in London in 1840, the week after the law was put into effect the streets were full of dead dogs, killed by the owners because they couldn’t afford to feed them.

So here’s my question for vegans – what is supposed to happen to all the cows and chickens if people no longer need dairy products or eggs? It’s not like they are going to become apartment pets. Why is extinction better than an arrangement that benefits both? Why is abandonment of an ancient relationship a better moral position than working for laws for humane treatment?

It’s a real question by the way – while it’s clear what side of the issue I’m on at this point, I’ve never had an opportunity to ask a vegan for their take on it.

For the record – I buy my eggs at a farmer’s market, from happy hens. I get as much of my meat there as possible too.

Gullwatcher

My one problem with vegetarians as individuals or groups is their fanaticism.

You’re stereotyping. You assume that the majority of vegetarians are fanatics. One of my points was that, like religious people, vegetarians are judged based on the extremists amongst them, not the majority.

As for 75% of the parallels applying to vegetarians… I don’t see it, except in cases wherein vegetarianism is a culture-based choice, which would make it no different from religion or meat consumption.

Vegatee, I’d be curious to know how you’d respond to the rest of the gullwatcher’s points. His argument is similar to mine: the morally bad part isn’t the killing animals for food, it’s the animal cruelty. Veganism/vegetarianism does little to solve the latter problem, and groups like PETA might even make it worse. This does not mean veganism/vegetarianism is bad, but it might mean that meat eating with a concience towards animal suffering (like in Europe) is not bad either.

@Vegatee

You’re stereotyping. You assume that the majority of vegetarians are fanatics.

It’s you who are assuming here. I didn’t say all or most are fanatics, I just said that the ones I have problems with ARE. I know lots of lovely vegetarians and none of them are fanatics, because I tend not to befriend the fanatical. But they are out there, I have met them.

I can’t say the same for groups – all the groups that have brought themselves to my attention (note the qualifier there) do seem to be fanatical.

For brevity’s sake, I’m going with numbers. You had 12 parallels – 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 all apply to vegetarianism as well.

Has anyone else here read “Real Food” by Nina Planck? She was a vegan until her job required her to eat different foods, and she found that her health improved enormously. It’s a very interesting book.

@Vegatee

As for your comment on the domesticated animals becoming extinct. So what? What’s the big deal about having domesticated animals?

Interesting – I always thought that vegetarians liked animals. I guess I was stereotyping there. I didn’t realize that they might consider whole categories of them as disposable. Do you include dogs and cats in that as well?

I like animals. I don’t judge them as unfit to live because they aren’t ‘natural’. I like lots of unnatural things, like sleeping in a house and indoor plumbing, all good unnatural things that most of us enjoy.

You mention that an arrangement wherein food animals are treated nice until they die is a good arrangement for both. I don’t see how any of us can decide what the animals may feel are good arrangements for them by using our own, human, and subjective points of view.

Actually, I specifically mentioned dairy and egg-producing animals. I expect that the reason you decided to switch it to meat animals in your reply is that you realized your argument won’t work for that (nice Palinizing, BTW).

As for the rest of the argument, I take it you have never had a pet. You can tell when an animal is healthy and happy. It’s not about ‘forcing a point of view on them’ (which is an absurd notion in and of itself), it’s obvious in the way they are. A healthy happy animal is a good thing, be it a dog, a cat, a cow, or a chicken.

@Vegatee

Ok, I’ll give you #11. I was thinking of “numbers” in terms of statistics, not as in the majority is right.

Vegetarianism, although in many instances is based on tradition and/or emotions, is also based on scientific facts, rather than anecdotal evidence as is the case with meat consumption and religion.

Your scientific facts are outdated and were often the product of bad science in the first place. For an interesting history of food science, check out “Good Calories, Bad Calories” by Gary Taubes, which sets out 40 years of food science and the government policies based on it, and how it was influenced by the politics and commercial interests of the people performing and funding the studies. The whole “meat bad, low-fat good” was a manufactured myth, and is not supported by the research.

A vegetarian diet is no healthier than a varied diet, low in processed foods, that includes meat. It’s just not a valid argument.

@Vegatee

Who are we to stand in the way of nature taking its course? Most domesticated animals are human-made versions of their wild ancestors. They’re unnatural in a way. I say, good riddance!

Those are not the words of someone who thinks of animals as valuable and as something that enriches the world. Sorry, they just aren’t – unless you misspoke or overstated your case?

People want their meat and that’s that. Cutting down their supply to make the necessary changes wouldn’t go over well.

And that’s a reason not to try, because…. why?

And I’m sorry, beyond that, your reply does require a more thoughtful answer than I can do right now, I have an appointment to get to. More later, I hope.

I don’t see anything more than pure eristics this time.

The point is there IS a difference – atheism is a culture thing and it actually intesified the position of morality in our civilization, the need of eating meat is biological (and it’s one of the most basic), so it’s completely independent from any culture issues.

I mean – veganism and vegetarianism are sort of a way round – getting what has to be gotten, but in totally different way than the nature ‘planned’ it. Someone feels better that way – ok, but it’s kind of cheating on our dark bestial side, fully natural, though.

Gullwatcher

I’m sorry, beyond that, your reply does require a more thoughtful answer than I can do right now, I have an appointment to get to. More later, I hope.

I may not be as available as I would like to be for this discussion, as I am buried up to my eyelids in biochemistry homework and I will be gone all weekend (Canadian thanksgiving) and have to finish everything before Friday. So, if you do feel like continuing this, that’s fine, but I may not be able to get back to you until next week. Already, I’ve spent much more time here today than I wanted, not to mention I got myself in a discussion about the ethics of vegetarianism which were not the reason I went vegetarian in the first place. I usually stay away from this line of debate. I don’t know what possessed me to get into it now. :o)

As for my love of animals, think what you may. As I said before, not wanting to see them bred for our own gustatory pleasures is not the same as not loving them or thinking they are disposable. I would go into a fiery inferno to save my little dog, just as I would for a friend or any other human being. Perhaps my use of the phrase “good riddance” was a bit over the top, but I do feel strongly about the overproduction of animals for our pleasure, be they food producers, or pets. It’s unethical, as far as I’m concerned.

yawn. Many of these comments, sadly, are the same comments that are on Digg.

I luv meatz LULZ. I could never give it up. Pass the bacon, LOL!!! Isn’t that so funny!? One time I put meat in a vegetarian co-worker’s sandwich. I’m awesum!

As soon as people find out you are vegetarian or vegan, they suddenly seem to have a degree in nutrition (even though they can’t name a non-milk source of calcium).
Also- it has to be said- as a vegetarian, I am really sick of hearing about “smug” or “preachy” vegetarians. Almost every discussion or disagreement I have been involved in (I mean VAST majority, over 90%) was started by an omnivore. Maybe a few of you are projecting.

I’m an atheist who eats meat because I care more about eating meat than I do about the fact that the meat comes from animals. Occasionally, I feel a little guilty about it, but not too much.

I also happen to think that people are best suited to an omnivorous diet that contains a considerable amount of animal-derived food. I think the rise of vegetable-derived food as primary calorie source has been terrible for people’s health. I’m sure it’s possible to eat healthy as a vegetarian by consuming lots of cheese, eggs, olives, etc., but it’d be pretty hard for a vegan.

(I’m a low-carb believer, if it’s not clear. Whole vegetables are great, but starch-as-staple is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion.)

Atheist and vegan here.

If you acknowledge that humans have no immortal souls–and that we are a result of natural selection as much as any other species–it makes no sense to inflict pain upon any being who can feel it.

JewishAtheist-

Being a vegan isn’t hard, especially now. Maybe 10 or 20 years ago it was hard. I’ve been vegetarian 10-11 yrs and vegan almost 6. We can have our cake and eat it, too.

Cheese isn’t really good for you at all so I am not sure why you’d list it in those “healthy” items of yours. And in terms of cruelty, eggs are pretty high up there in terms of suffering-> output of product. Also the fact that the egg producers themselves are able to label their eggs as “cage free” and whatnot and have no guidelines for what that means for the average consumer is sketchy at best. The fact that they are menstrual waste is enough for me to not eat them.

But I do agree with you that complex carbs are the way to go (even though I loves my sugah). No one said that Cheetos and Soda or fries and Kool Aid (while vegetarian) are healthy.

GullWatcher- Maybe I should have been more positive 🙂 I just expected more from this group. It is good to see other vegans/vegetarians speaking up. I just get really tired of being confronted in daily life w/o provocation by people who know diddly about vegetarianism. It’s especially awesome to hear my anti-choice dad go on about Obama and being “pro life” while he eats dead animals.

Pamela:

But I do agree with you that complex carbs are the way to go (even though I loves my sugah). No one said that Cheetos and Soda or fries and Kool Aid (while vegetarian) are healthy.

I’m not convinced brown rice, whole wheat, etc., are much better for you. Broccoli, etc., are fine — the non-starchy vegetables. It’s the starch that concerns me.

It may also be the case that it’s only a subset of humans that has issues with starch — the obese, the diabetic, those with high blood pressure, etc. Maybe the rest have evolved to handle it just fine.

Wait, why is eating fish ok? Am I only against eating animals with fur or feathers? Why don’t scales count? Can I still eat bugs as a vegetarian? On the moral principal, should I reconsider being pro choice? When does the slope cease being slippery?

Wait, why is eating fish ok?

Who said eating fish is ok? I only provided the pescetarian website FAQ’s as a source for data and studies about the perils of meat consumption. The home page of the site states that although it is a site for pescetarians, the information within is drawn from studies on vegetarianism.

Oops, I wanted to comment on the “animals suffer to produce meat” argument. Yes, they do. However, how do we know that plants don’t? It’s true that they don’t have a nervous system like we do, but how do we know that you have to have a nervous system to feel pain? For all I know, plants do feel pain just as much, albeit differently, from animals. So how can I justify not eating meat but eating plants instead? I can only do that by saying “plants are not like me, therefore I don’t care.” It’s to hypocritical for me. And I have to eat something, so… I just eat everything.

how can I justify not eating meat but eating plants instead?

Ok, last one, and I’m going to shut my laptop off! :o)

The idea behind vegetarianism is to do the least amount of harm. Plants, based on scientific evidence, do not feel pain, nor emotions, so, this is a ridiculous argument from the start. None the less, the idea is to do the least amount of harm. It takes far more plants to produce a steak than a plate of plant based food. So, if one is looking to live a life that creates the least amount of harm, one would choose vegetarianism because less things have to die to feed a vegetarian than a meat eater.

Felicia,

J Myers, I’m confused – how do you prove the nonexistence of something? Can you prove that Russel’s Teapot does NOT exist? It may be possible to prove a negative, but not nonexistence – that’s a special case, surely?

Here’s a decent essay by Richard Carrier on this subject. I don’t much like that he refers to “choosing what to believe,” but I think he opted for that imprecise but convenient wording to get his larger point across. Still…

All together now, to the tune of Ray Stevens’ 1970 hit, “Everything is Beautiful”….

Wish I had your gift for doggerel, Richard. 😉 Pretty clever.

Ah I might add that many (most?) vegans are so not out of a misguided notion that this is more natural, but because of ethical reasons.

True, the more fundamentalist vegans will argue that meat is horrible for your health and that schoolchildren shouldn’t be given milk, but fundamentalists tend to be wacky everywhere.

Your run-of-the-mill vegetarian or vegan will choose their lifestyle out of a rejection of animal abuse, especially their butchering but also sometimes their exploitation (milk, eggs). They may argue that they are more healthy, but that simply has to do with the fact that most people eat far too much meat (and excess meat is unhealthy) and that both vegetarians and vegans spend a lot more time thinking about food choices and healthy eating than your average person.

Vegetarian (ovo-lacto if you want to know) atheist here to throw in my take on the subject.

I chose to be vegetarian, er…11ish years ago, but I’ve never felt that I chose to be atheist. I was a non-theist at birth and was allowed to remain that way (thanks Mom & Dad!). I never chose theism. Atheism and vegetarianism are mutually exclusive, although I do totally appreciate the cartoon. I can’t tell y’all how many times I’ve had those same conversations!

Whew! All the talk about veg vs. meat is substantive…health, humane animal treatment, etc, but when I get down to it, I have to say that my defense for my personal lifestyle choice is (with thanks to Lisa Faires): I can’t eat meat because eewwwwww! To me, meat is yucky-tasting, and I came to “feel wrong” when I ate it, so I stopped eating meat. Don’t I sound like the religious person who, despite all rational arguments against her religion, choses religion because it “just feels right”? Yeah, so I’m like that with my vegetarianism. Odd, right?

Thanks for allowing me to share!

I am not a vegan because i love bacon and cheese. Simple as that. I disapprove of many farming practices, am vehemently against animal torture and painful killing practices (i try and eat halal meat whenever possible), but daaamn does bacon taste fine.

By painting vegans the way that you have, you’ve done nothing but build a strawman argument.

A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s argument.
Do vegans hold the position that all “animal products” are immoral and bad for the health, yes or not?

You also conveniently leave out the fact that everyone reading this thread, meat eaters and vegans alike, partake in the industrialized society and all of its ills.

I left it out because it is implied and obvious. But it’s only vegans/ARAS who denounce human caused animal suffering as absolutely evil, which makes your global condemnation of meat arbitrary.

Every one of us, omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans alike. That being said, some try to minimize the impact they have by either being vegetarian, or giving up the car and using a bicycle instead, some recycle, and some do all of these things together.

This part of your post summarizes my problem with vegans.

In order to claim to be “minimizing” anything you need to quantify it first. I have yet to see any vegan even try to theorize a moral system which tries to quantify this so-called “harm”.
If to produce the nutritional equivalent of a slaughtered cow one mouse needs to die (optimistic guess) in crop farming, on which basis do you decide that the mouse suffered less than the cow or that its death is less important?

Would vegans adopt a diet which includes animal flesh, if they ever discovered that it’s less “harmful” than a purely vegan one?

The religious sanctimony they like to cast on everyone else makes me doubt that.

So, why is it wrong to recognize the efforts they make at trying to live more ethical and environmentally friendly lives? Is it out of spite? Guilt?

It’s not about recognition but about arrogance and inconsistency.

Imagine if tomorrow I decided that squatting mosquitoes is immoral and that instead, we should capture and release them humanely.

Would I be justified to villainize everyone who still kills mosquitoes while deliberately partaking in optional activities, like driving, that cause the mass destruction of insect life?

The “no meat” line is an arbitrary and the “I am less evil than you” morality doesn’t warrant any bragging.

Lastly, your claim that meat consumption’s harmful effect on the environment and health is a “dogmatic assumption” speaks volumes about your lack of understanding regarding this subject.

Speaking of strawmen, I made it very clear with the “regardless of their quality, quantity and provenience” part of my post that my problem with the simplistic vegan dogma is its condemnation of all meat consumption.

I have no problem accepting that a vegan diet may have positive health effects, compared to the hypercaloric, hyperproteic average western diet.

I have a problem with the absurd implication (the only one consistent with the “meat is bad dogma”) that the mere presence of animal flesh (even a small amount of boiled/roasted sweet water fish) in your diet is inherently harmful.

Much like with religion , in veganism, absolute, bold claims predate or defy evidence.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Are you going to dismiss everything written in this site as “evil meatarian propaganda”, or something?

Rocketroach

A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s argument.

You painted vegans as ignoring “that Industrial agriculture, and the urban lifestyles most of them conduce also cause a large amount of animal suffering. They’ll denounce your steak all day long, but don’t you dare to take away their Ipod.”

This exaggerates, and thus, misrepresents the vegan community as whole. In fact, virtually every vegan person I have ever met has pointed out that there are things we all use that are produced with some amount of harm inherent in them. Then, they point out that while we have no say in how a car is made, for example, we do have a say in what we put in our grocery cart at the store.

If to produce the nutritional equivalent of a slaughtered cow one mouse needs to die (optimistic guess) in crop farming, on which basis do you decide that the mouse suffered less than the cow or that its death is less important?

A cow consumes thousands of tons of crop material before it is turned into steaks. One pound of cow does not equal its weight in plant material. Sine it takes far, far more crops to produce that pound of cow, it stands to reason that it takes far more dead mice, to use your example, than a pound of plant food.

Would vegans adopt a diet which includes animal flesh, if they ever discovered that it’s less “harmful” than a purely vegan one?

That depends. A vegan who is vegan for environmental reasons, probably would. One who is vegan for health reasons, might not. I can not hypothesize about what one who is vegan for ethical reasons would do, but I do not believe there is any way that scenario would ever come to be (that not eating meat is more harmful).

Would I be justified to villainize everyone who still kills mosquitoes while deliberately partaking in optional activities, like driving, that cause the mass destruction of insect life?

No, but then mosquitoes do not have frontal lobes, can not feel emotions such as fear, or be sentient. They are also harmful themselves by spreading disease. I think the reason some vegans take the attitude you so much dislike is because they focus on intent. In the vast majority of the cases, it is impossible to eek out an existence in our society without having a car, or some other means of transportation to get to work. It is also virtually impossible, once at work, not to use the computers there, the paper, the ink, etc.

The idea behind ethics based veganism is to do the least harm within reason. It is not an all or nothing stance. Eating meat is a pleasure people have. It’s not a necessity, like work, or getting to work. Just ask Hindus. They live out their lives without munching on steaks or throwing BBQ parties.

Vegans choose not to add insult to injury by eating meat. They know that driving a car or making a living is going to be harmful to some extent. They also know that most of us have to do these things. They don’t understand why, then, given that we can’t help the harm we do by merely living in an industrialized society, anyone would want to add to that harm by eating meat. So, I get their attitude. I’m not saying I enjoy being at the barrel end of it (and believe me I have been, since being vegetarian makes me look like some kind of traitor/ coward to some of them, more so than someone who chooses to ignore these things).

I have a problem with the absurd implication (the only one consistent with the “meat is bad dogma”) that the mere presence of animal flesh (even a small amount of boiled/roasted sweet water fish) in your diet is inherently harmful.

It is always more harmful than a plant based diet because of the sheer amount of resources necessary to yield that small amount of fish, or chicken, or beef, or whatever. No matter how we look at it, the amounts of water, feed, and pollution necessary to yield a 10 oz. piece of flesh is higher than the amount necessary to yield a plant based alternative. Fish consume less than cows, but they still consume more than they yield. We can have whatever kinds of feelings we want about the people who point this out to us, but it doesn’t change the math.

Much like with religion , in veganism, absolute, bold claims predate or defy evidence.

This is precisely how I feel about people who eat meat.

http://www.beyondveg.com/

Are you going to dismiss everything written in this site as “evil meatarian propaganda”, or something?

Actually, as any vegetarian or vegan reading this thread will tell you, the beyondveg website is the laughing stock of the vegetarian community. In my opinion, all the guy has managed to prove with his obsessive gathering of information is that humans are perfectly adapted for a frugivorous, insectivorous, and ovivorous diet. The vegetarian community does not dispute this, nor do vegans. They (vegans) just choose to go one step further and not consume insects or eggs, not that the insect diet is something the West looks kindly upon anyway.

It would take months to go through all the study-based assumptions and interpretations on that site, just like it would take a lot of time to go through all the study-based assumptions and interpretations the tobacco industry used to justify their products until recently when the public just didn’t buy it anymore (a parallel I do not make lightly).

Look, I understand your dislike of having vegans take on a holier than thou attitude about your consumption habits. I’ve been where you are and took a bigger hit for it because I’m vegetarian. I also understand why they see me as worse than a meat eater: unlike a meat eater, I do not deny the harm inherent in my life style choices, yet continue to eat eggs and if the cake at the restaurant has milk in it, or cream cheese frosting, I won’t turn it away. I also do not gain any points in their eyes, I’m sure, for defending the way they see things. If anything, I end up looking like a hypocrite. But that’s ok. I don’t have to have their respect to respect their choices. If we put our feelings aside about how it feels to be looked down upon by people who choose a more environmentally friendly life style, we have to admit that their lives really do have less of an impact than our own.

Not all vegans are part of the vegan police anyway. Most (at least the ones I’ve known) are afraid to come out of the vegan closet unless they are forced into it by a well meaning meat eater who insists on having them try a piece of meat casserole, or whatever. It took me over five years to get over my fear of publicly saying I don’t eat meat, and I’m not even vegan. Based on my personal experience with vegans, there are a lot more out there than we realize, because they don’t make themselves known. They prefer to live their lives doing what they can to minimize harm without drawing attention and judgement from meat eaters.

vegatee: Actually, as any vegetarian or vegan reading this thread will tell you, the beyondveg website is the laughing stock of the vegetarian community. In my opinion, all the guy has managed to prove with his obsessive gathering of information is that humans are perfectly adapted for a frugivorous, insectivorous, and ovivorous diet. The vegetarian community does not dispute this, nor do vegans.

You do not speak for this vegan. Why is it again i should find that site a “laughing stock”? I applaud his efforts to lift himself up out of the dogma and put forth science based opinions on the matter. Tom Billings does a great job of exposing the weaknesses of raw vegan diets and his commentary on ethical veganism is enlightening and well thought. “Obsessive gathering of information” smacks of anti-intellectualism and ad hominem so i’d tread lightly.

I do not dispute that we are suitable for an omnivorous diet but we can thrive on a vegan one. It’s a choice of luxury as humans in this time and this place and it behooves us to make this choice. I can bet everyone here couldn’t stand to see animals beat up like they are anymore than they would stand to watch a guy kick a dog. (Michael Vick anybody?)

If you’re one but not the other, what’s your reason?

I fail to see a connection between the two. The very fact that some religious practise ritual vegetarianism or veganism pretty much kills any claim that there is a link between vegetarianism/veganism and atheism.

As for why I’m one and not the other – rationalism.

I don’t think I need to go into the rational arguments for atheism on this board. As for not why I’m no longer vegetarian:

1) We have evolved as omnivores, pure an simple. The last human ancestor that was likely a vegetarian died out about 4 million years ago. The last human ancestor that was a guaranteed vegetarian lived 6 million years ago. Our whole digestive system is orientated towards high-protein intake, and has lost many of the adaptations vegetarian primates have to maximize nutritional intake from plant sources.
2) Contrary to popular belief, science has found many medical issues with vegetarianism, and especially veganism. Some of these are simple nutritional deficiencies, but the more serious ones are a direct product of excessive plant intake – specifically of the types of plants used for protein (soy, legumes and pulses). These plants contain high levels of phytoestrogens and isoflavins, which are known to have some serious health issues – decreased fertility in men, increased risk of some cancers, birth defects (particularity in male children).

3) Most of the health benefits originally associated with vegetarianism have since been shown to be not diet-based, but rather lifestyle-based. Long story short – people who become vegetarians are also more likely to include exercise in their daily lifestyle. So when those initial studies were conducted, using vegetarian and omnivorous groups with equivalent levels of exercise, all of the purported cardiovascular benefits of vegetarianism disappeared.

For myself, the straw that broke the camels back and ended my vegetarianism was the work I did in my PhD. I was studying defects in the innate immune system during HIV/AIDS. We found among our vegetarian blood donors – myself included – suppression of the innate immune system equivalent to what we were seeing in mid-phase HIV patients. By the end of the study we ended up banning vegetarians as control donors due to these immune defects.

Today I have gone back to my evolutionary roots, and eat an omnivorous diet (granted, I eat a lot less meat than most).

It is, after all, the rational choice based on our biology.

In an effort to answer the questions I’ve been getting I created this:

http://reasonablecomics.com/misc/rv.html

If there is anything you feel I’ve not addressed let me know and I’ll try to do so.

people who become vegetarians are also more likely to include exercise in their daily lifestyle. So when those initial studies were conducted, using vegetarian and omnivorous groups with equivalent levels of exercise, all of the purported cardiovascular benefits of vegetarianism disappeared.

Forgot to add my (and my husband’s) experience with this. We are woefully sedentary (sit at a desk and computer, nose in books all day, and neither of us exercises, except for the occasional walk around the block). Not proud of this. But we each dropped 50+ cholesterol points. I went from 210 to 156 in the first two years and we’re not alone in this. I realize this is anecdotal information, but wanted to share it none the less. My doctor wanted to know my secret, funny enough, because, apparently, my blood work is stellar in every aspect even though I stay away from supplements like they’re the plague.

This exaggerates, and thus, misrepresents the vegan community as whole. In fact, virtually every vegan person I have ever met has pointed out that there are things we all use that are produced with some amount of harm inherent in them.

I’ll concede that the vegans I had to deal with were exceptionally annoying/hypocritical.

But the arguments they use is not any different from what the rest of their community uses.

Then, they point out that while we have no say in how a car is made, for example, we do have a say in what we put in our grocery cart at the store.

That is conveniently and selectively defeatist attitude: in the long run, you CAN influence most of these things simply by not partaking in them or promoting the products you like.

By your reasoning, humans will not stop “oppressing” animals, not in 10, 100 or maybe even 1000 years, therefore veganism is not worth pursuing.

A cow consumes thousands of tons of crop material before it is turned into steaks. One pound of cow does not equal its weight in plant material. Sine it takes far, far more crops to produce that pound of cow, it stands to reason that it takes far more dead mice, to use your example, than a pound of plant food.

Even if we assume that cows NEED to be grain/crop fed (as I posted above “quantity, quality and provenience” which vegans choose to ignore), a direct pound to pound equivalence (I wrote “nutritional equivalent” for a reason) doesn’t work.

Most of what you call “crop material”, is not food that humans can utilize directly.

And you still haven’t answered my question: cow or mouse?
It’s pointless to keep using quantitative arguments (“far more dead mice”) if you refuse to do any counting.

That depends. A vegan who is vegan for environmental reasons, probably would. One who is vegan for health reasons, might not.

The “animal products” distinction (honey?) only makes sense from an ethical perspective, and makes the notion of “health only” vegans difficult to even entertain.

I can not hypothesize about what one who is vegan for ethical reasons would do, but I do not believe there is any way that scenario would ever come to be (that not eating meat is more harmful).

You and other veg*ns are entitled to your beliefs but I have to wonder how categorical they are.
I constantly reexamine my own beliefs, often accepting positions that I find uncomfortable on a instinctive/emotive level.
I would have no problems whatsoever accepting that the hypothetical “least harm” may be vegan (if one you ever bother to define this “harm” first, that is).

The simplistic, accusatory arguments many of you insist on using ultimately only hurt your cause.

No, but then mosquitoes (…)

You are taking my mosquito example way too literally.

I think the reason some vegans take the attitude you so much dislike is because they focus on intent.

I’m glad that at least that came across.
But if the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from believing to be helping animals is more important than objective, testable results, doesn’t that make veganism similar to a religion?

In the vast majority of the cases, it is impossible to eek out an existence in our society without having a car, or some other means of transportation to get to work. It is also virtually impossible, once at work, not to use the computers there, the paper, the ink, etc.

Wrong. You (and I) are just to lazy to conceive it so you arbitrarily draw a line where your comfort trumps the alleged right to life of animals.

Which is why i find the notion of “animal rights” silly. If it was people being killed by the millions, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

The idea behind ethics based veganism is to do the least harm within reason. It is not an all or nothing stance. Eating meat is a pleasure people have. It’s not a necessity

A lot of other things we do (including net browsing for recreation :)) are not necessities but they still cause “damage”.

Even if we restrict ourselves only to diet, vegans condemn all meat and forgive all veggies.
By their own standards any fruit or vegetable which is strictly not necessary to human survival and can be replaced by a less “harmful” alternative should have the same ethical status as meat.
But I’ll be damned if vegans give up their tropical fruit or highly processed soy stuff.

Just ask Hindus. They live out their lives without munching on steaks or throwing BBQ parties.

That’s a pretty unfortunate comparison, given that Hindus rejection of cow-killing is famously dogmatic. They don’t show the same regard for other critters.

It is always more harmful than a plant based diet because of the sheer amount of resources necessary to yield that small amount of fish, or chicken, or beef, or whatever. No matter how we look at it, the amounts of water, feed, and pollution necessary to yield a 10 oz. piece of flesh is higher than the amount necessary to yield a plant based alternative.

A bold, unsubstantiated claim which assumes that the resources needed for crop farming are negligible.

Fish consume less than cows, but they still consume more than they yield.

As hinted above humans are not perfect machines which can process whichever organic matter they want. There are things human cannot or will not eat.
What are cows consuming?
What is fish consuming?
How much of it (if any) will humans eat?
These questions complicate the issue, stripping generalizations of credibility.

We can have whatever kinds of feelings we want about the people who point this out to us, but it doesn’t change the math.

The fact that there’s no solid “math” is one of my chief issues with veganism.

Actually, as any vegetarian or vegan reading this thread will tell you, the beyondveg website is the laughing stock of the vegetarian community

Color me surprised.
TalkOrigins is a laughingstock among creationists too.

I would rather appreciate links which address, at least partially address his arguments: my mind is open.

In my opinion, all the guy has managed to prove (…)is that humans are perfectly adapted for a frugivorous, insectivorous, and ovivorous diet. The vegetarian community does not dispute this, nor do vegans.

This is patently false, many of the misconception he addresses are still widespread.

Link

Look at the video and then look at the comments.

Look, I understand your dislike of having vegans take on a holier than thou attitude about your consumption habits.(…)

Thank you for that.

If we put our feelings aside about how it feels to be looked down upon by people who choose a more environmentally friendly life style, we have to admit that their lives really do have less of an impact than our own.

I’ll accept (yes, I will) it when they’ll provide evidence. In the meantime condescension is all I’m left with.
The benefit to animals (let alone the standards on which it is being determined) is not as self evident as you believe.

Not all vegans are part of the vegan police anyway

I apologize for over generalizing, but my life experience is pretty horrid.
Would you put the author of the comic in the “vegan police”?

From the link:

What is the difference between eating an animal for pleasure and beating an animal for pleasure?

Why only focus on diet?

This is the crux of the problem: like I refuse to accept from a Christian that I’m a sinner and I owe something to this God dude, I refuse to axiomatically accept that eating meat makes me “guilty” and that I need to justify it to you (veg*ns).
I need stronger arguments than emotional appeals.

In spite of your satire I feel I explained my position fully, so you can have the last word if you want. “Arguing on the intertubes” is not a habit of mine.

Thanks for reading (if you bothered).

In spite of your satire I feel I explained my position fully

Yes. You pretend the environmental impact of animal farms has not been quantified and use this imaginary lack of evidence as justification for denying the ecological footprints of meat eaters. You seem to believe that the pastures and fields used to grow crops for farm animals can not be used to grow other kinds of food for humans and are only good for growing animal feed.

You pretend the environmental impact of animal farms has not been quantified and use this imaginary lack of evidence as justification for denying the ecological footprints of meat eaters.

I know this reply wasn’t to me, but I’d like to point out a common flaw I see in many of these types of arguments. Farming – animal or plant – is environmentally damaging. Monoculture destroys habitat, pesticides and fertilizers kill indiscriminately, farm machinery and food transport releases CO2, etc, etc, etc.

But for some reason veg’s seem to concentrate on the cost of animal farming, and tend to ignore the cost of plant farming, in their arguments.

Take, for example, rice farming. It releases 100 to 150 million tonnes of methane every year, making it the single largest human source of methane, about 2x that released by cattle farming (50-100 megatonnes).

I don’t see many “ethical” vegetarians calling for a moratorium on rice.

Likewise, transport-based CO2 also tends to be worse for plant-based foods, as these products are more widely transported than are meat products.

I also notice that vegetarians tend to gloss over the fact that many forms of animal agriculture create less impact than does plant agriculture. Plant monoculture almost always requires clearing the field of pre-existing plants, resulting in the near-total death of all animals living in that area. In contrast, free-range animal husbandry doesn’t require this – in fact, in many areas (western Canada, for example) free-range cattle farming is being credited with habitat restoration, because the cows have replaced the nearly extinct buffalo as apex herbivorous.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not trying to pretend that animal farming doesn’t have some serious environmental costs. I’m simply pointing out the double standard many vegetarians have in this area – plant farming is in many ways as destructive or more destructive than animal farming. A vegetarian buying large amounts of foreign-grown veg and fruit more likely than not has a larger environmental footprint of a omnivorous buying locally.

So the claim that vegetarianism is more environmentally friendly is wrong – or at least over simplified. How environmentally friendly your diet is depends on more then what you eat – it depends on where its made, where its shipped, and how its produced.

If you want to have a real impact on the environment, buy local foods, avoid crops grown as monocultures, and if you eat meat eat free-range.

Bryan

There’s no really good reason to be a vegetarian nor is there a really good reason to not be. I guess it comes down to the question of if you care about the suffering of farm animals. A lot of vegetarians seem to know a lot about ethics, and I don’t. But I wonder why the suffering of farm animals is of such consequence as opposed to the suffering of microscopic organisms, or insects, or plants. Hypocrites…

A lot of vegetarians seem to know a lot about ethics, and I don’t. But I wonder why the suffering of farm animals is of such consequence as opposed to the suffering of microscopic organisms, or insects, or plants. Hypocrites…

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who honestly believe that microscopic organisms suffer, or even feel pain. I’m pretty sure nothing without a CNS suffers in any sense we can understand. Do you really consider kicking a dog and washing your hands similar in their immorality?

Jason wrote: I guess it comes down to the question of if you care about the suffering of farm animals.

I’ve always had to laugh at these types of arguments. Factory farming aside – which thankfully is not widely used outside the USA – farm animals live in paradise compared to animals in the wild.

Few mammals born in the wild reach adulthood – depending on the species, upto 2/3rds will die during childhood as a result of predation, disease and starvation. Those lucky enough to reach adulthood get to spend most of the rest of their lives hungry, chronically infected with a broad range of parasites, and under constant threat of predation. And when it comes time to die, the end is never easy – no slipping quietly into the night. Instead they get a pain filled end – starving to death, and/or wracked with disease, and if really unlucky, torn asunder by the fangs of a predator.

In contrast, farm animals (or for that matter, lab animals) have it easy – most survive to adulthood, infections and parasitism are rare and controlled, average lifespans on farms exceed those in the wild, farmers make great efforts to avoid suffering (stressed animals don’t produce), and when it comes time to die, death is quick and as painless as possible.

So from an ethical point of view, if animal suffering is a major concern then domestication is the key to limiting animals suffering. Nature is a far harsher mistress than human kind.

========

But I wonder why the suffering of farm animals is of such consequence as opposed to the suffering of microscopic organisms, or insects, or plants.

Scientifically speaking, there are marked differences in the way different species experience pain. Plants, insects, even microbes respond to damage – i.e. respond to stimuli which humans perceive as pain.

The difference is in the way that pain is experienced. Plants and microbes are not self-aware; “pain” responses are generally limited to activating pathways which repair damage, limit the spread of damage, and in the case of motile microbes, cause the microbes to move away from the damaging stimuli.

In “higher” animals (I hate that term, but that’s another post) damaging stimuli take on another level. Even in the simplest animals with a centralized nervous system (insects, for example) painful stimuli induce more then simple repair/avoid responses. The “higher” you get up in the animal kingdom, the broader and broader those effects are on the biology of the organism.

When you get into urocordates on upwards (tunicates to man) painful stimuli affect nearly every part of the animals biology – from the immune system, to the circulatory system, to the digestive tract. Basically, damage signals go from being triggers of self-preservation pathways to more generic “lets stress out everything” signals.

At some yet-to-be-defined point (jawed fish is the likely site) animals become aware of pain at an “intellectual” level. By which I mean they can anticipate pain, and even experience stress (and even pain) at the threat of pain. Scientifically, this threshold is what we use to determine if we use pain-management measures during research – from fish on up we use anaesthetics and analgesics to minimize pain.

The cutoffs used by some vegetarians are rather arbitrary; the cortex argument for example. IMO, these cutoffs are due more to the Disney effect (i.e. don’t hurt the cute fuzzy ones, damn the rest), rather than any rational reason.

========

I would also like to make one last comment on the “ethical vegetarians”, in regards to limiting animal pain. I feel that the arguments of the “animal pain” vegetarians are very one sided and ignore the huge and entirely detrimental impact that plant farming has on animals.

Plant farming is very damaging to the environment – you need to clear fields of all native plants to grow your crops (a procedure called monoculture). Toxic pesticides and herbicides are widely used, as it trapping of larger “pests”. This form of farming causes unimaginable pain for the indigenous species in the area. Indeed, plant monoculture is single-handedly responsible for more extinctions than any other human activity. And all those deaths were through starvation, poisoning and trapping.

I’m not exactly sure how that gets construed as ethical – IMO its pretty horrific.

Now once again, I’m not pretending that animal farming is impact-free, but keep in mind that conventional free-range farming is preformed without replacing indigenous plants, using pesticides or fertilizers, or trapping pests. Meaning that unlike plant farming, animal farming can co-exist with nature.

Bryan

In CA we get to vote on Prop 2 which will mandate that farm animals get to move around more outside. The opposition seems to think this will allow disease to creep into the chicken population through contact with wild birds. This seems totally unlikely since there are already free-range chickens out there.

Does anyone know anything about this?

Dan D Lion wrote: Animal agriculture is not in the business of provide happy fun lives for their animals

Strange – I grew up working on farms, and every farmer I met had the utmost concern for the well being of their stocks. The reason is simple – stressed animals do not produce – no milk, no eggs, poor growth; all of that equals no profit.

Why eat cows and not dogs or cats?

Dogs and cats are consumed in many countries around the world. But generally speaking, it is not a good idea to eat the flesh of carnivorous as they have high parasite burdens.

Humans–who enslave, castrate, experiment on, and fillet other animals–have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain

Statements like these are quite insulting, and completely false. Its also taken out of context – animal activists love to use this quote, but strangely never quote the following paragraph. Maybe pick up the book that quote is from – “Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors” and see why what your quoted is taken so far out of context as to be laughable.

Of course, the above tactic is what I’ve come to expect from the animal-rights lobby. Forget reality, twist any fact or quote to serve the cause…

More to the point I’ve been involved in medical research for over a decade, and yes, I have used animals as research subjects (and, if anyone cares, I began this type of research while I was still a vegetarian).

Pain control and a happy life are quintessential to producing useful and accurate scientific results. We are fully aware of the pain they experience, and the hugely detrimental effect it has on their biology. The “john q publics” who sit on our ethics boards tend to be rather overwhelmed at what we go through to ensure minimal suffering and a happy life. More than once I’ve heard “we don’t even do that for our pets/kids/parents” when we discuss our pain-control and environment enrichment programs.

For that matter, the last research animals I used (rats) used to come up to the edge of their cages to be petted and held whenever I entered the room – clearly I wasn’t bothering them much. You might even go so far as to say they liked me…

Likewise, when I worked on the farm, every reasonable attempt was used to minimize pain when working with the animals. From using a spray-on local aesthetic during castrations, to switching from branding to ear tags for ID.

Had you any experience in either field you would know the above. But you’ve swallowed PETA’s lies hook, line and sinker.

Ever wonder why all of their anti-research videos are so grainy, and have such poor colour? Its because they were all filmed in the 50’s and 60’s. Guess what – things have changed a lot since then…

Animal agriculture is monoculture too

Depends on how its conducted. Free-range farming (the main form of cattle farming, btw) is not monoculture, as it does not require the replacement of natural fauna with a single crop. As I mentioned in an earlier post, cattle farming has been managed in western Canada to actually restore natural grasslands – the cows were used in place of the near-extinct buffalo.

it’s a false dilemma to claim it’s all or nothing.

And since I never claimed that, your point would be what? In fact I clearly stated:

“I’m not pretending that animal farming is impact-free”.

The “take home point” was simply that the moral high ground that vegetarians pretend to have is a lie. Plant monoculture has killed far more animals, in the most horrific manner imaginable (starvation, poisoning and trapping), than any other form of farming humans engage in.

And no, I’m not exaggerating. You should read up on the number of rodents each year in the name of soy production (there is an article on that in ingenta). In the US alone more rodents die per year in the name of soy (around 3 billion) than there are cows in the world (about 900 million).

Bryan

PS: I used to believe all the PETA pro-veg crap that you seem to. It was when I started thinking for myself, and actually researching (and looking back at childhood experiences) that I realized most of those “facts” so readily put forward by the animal rights and pro-veg lobbies are lies. Maybe you should do a little research yourself; I’m sure if you do you’ll come to the same conclusions I did.

That’s a good point. Let me think for a bit.

Oh, wait, never mind, that’s absolute bullshit.

Don’t get me wrong. If “But everyone does it!” is the best excuse someone has for eating meat, that’s pretty pathetic. But those are far from the only arguments against vegetarianism.

Now here’s where it gets a bit tricky. See, while I eat meat, I am not against vegetarianism in the least. I do not believe that everyone should do it because it’s a natural behavior, any more than I believe that we should all screw like rabbits. I have no interest in talking a vegetarian out of eating meat unless (1) it is having a negative impact on his/her health or (2) he/she has decided to become a vegetarian on some shallow and poorly-researched lark.

But here’s why I eat meat:

1: Health. Yes, I know, it’s widely held that humans do not need to eat meat; we can get all the nutrients we need from supplements, yadda yadda yadda. Isn’t this a bit like saying that we don’t need green vegetables because we can just take folate supplements? Thank you, but as far as nutrition goes, I will get mine from a natural source. In addition, while your body may have equipped you quite well to run on beans and vegetables, mine does not seem to have been so generous. It reacts in an incredibly hyperactive manner to many sources of carbohydrates, and rather than using them as fuel like it should, it tends to store them as fat. Naughty little metabolism.

Meat is not nearly unhealthy as many animal rights vegetarian proponents would have you believe. Compared to processed grains and sugars, it’s actually a remarkably benign addition to the human diet.

2: Ethics? I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but you can’t exactly go on living without killing something. If you eat nothing but plants, you must still kill all the small animals that would have invaded the field and ruin the crop. Even if you can somehow avoid this, you are still depriving another animal of a potential food source. If I really wanted to avoid harming other beasties for my own benefit, I would have no choice but to kill myself.

Which isn’t to say that I support wanton killing of animals or excessive meat consumption “just because”. I believe that living is equal parts cooperation and competition, and to that end I will try and minimize my impact on the world in general. I would much rather eat “industrial waste” meat (like the beef we have in our freezer) or hunted meat than the mass-farmed, impact-intensive stuff you get in the store. I wholly plan on looking into that as soon as I am responsible for my own groceries.

3: Mmmmmm.