Vegetarians: Would You Eat Meat If Animals Didn’t Have to Die for It?

As a murdering meat-eater:

Yes, I’d eat it if it’s tasty

If there’s barbecue sauce, I’ll eat it.

Apart from the fact that I prefer real food, and not something “made” in a lab, I still doubt I’d eat it. Meat is a contributing factor to diabetes, cancer, high cholesterol and numerous other ailments. My choice to be vegetarian is only partly based on my distaste for flesh.

I assure you Hemant,  bacon is wonderful.

I am currently a vegetarian.  If I could eat flesh that didn’t come from mistreated animals you can bet I would be doing it everyday.  Eating meat is not immoral, only mistreating animals is.

The predator-prey relationship is fundamental to the way Nature works.  We evolved as omnivorous hunter gatherers and have become the planet’s apex predator.

I think it’s a mistake to place human values on the way that nature works.  

Thanks Hemant for posting this. As a vegan I find it frustrating talking to atheists about why they eat meat. Many seem incapable of applying the skeptical thought process they use on religion and other things to eating meat and enter this denial state that’s similar to Republicans talking about climate change. It’s so bad for the planet, for people, and especially for animals (in our evil and unsanitary factory farm system).

I urge everyone to give it the benefit of the doubt and think about this from a fresh perspective. And maybe try going veg for a week… you’ll be happy you did.

Yes, if I were sure it was no more dangerous that non-lab created meat, I’d eat it!

I’ve read that some fireman don’t care for the smell of pork.

I’m not a vegetarian, but if I were it would be because of the environmental impacts of our meat consumption and industrial agriculture. So I try to reduce my meat consumption, and I buy most of my meat products from a local farmer who raises his cows, chickens, and pigs in a humane and ecologically sound manner. That’s probably still not good enough environmentally, but it’s where I am right now. So the question that would have to be answered for me is what the total environmental impact of this test tube meat is and how it compares to my local farmer. To get calories out, you have to put calories in. Now we’ve removed the need to keep a large animal alive, but how much is that and how much of it is replaced by new energy needs in facility maintenance, raw materials, the production process, etc. My meat eats grass and it’s manure fertilizes my vegetables. The cycle of life goes on, just as it would in any case. Facilities are minimal and require much less energy input than a factory farming operation. So when they convince me this stuff is safe, tasty, healthy, and less environmentally damaging than my pastured cows and chickens, then I would eat it.

As someone that was primarily motivated to be a vegetarian because of the horrific conditions of factory farms, I would give it a go. I’m sure it would be weird at first, much like how eating various mock meats was weird at first for me, but I’d try it.

Vegetarian for five years and I can sympathize with disliking the smell of bacon.

What would happen to the existing food animals if everyone went veggie, do you think?

Am I the only person who’s thinking of the meat blob from Better Off Ted?

Well, there are about a billion Muslims on the planet, som 13.5 million Jews and some 30 million Sikhs. Even assuming that only, say, 60% of them obey the religious rules when it comes to diet, that makes for a whole lotta people who don’t eat pork and have in many cases never even tasted the stuff and don’t associate it with the word “delicious” (lots would probably go with “disgusting”) so I’m guessing Hemant isn’t exactly “alone”.

A very interesting concept.  I’m not a vegetarian, but I’ve heard a number of reasons for being so from friends who are.  Ignoring religious reasons, the primary ones I’ve heard are moral, economical, environmental, and health-conscious.  Personal preference, as you’ve noted, is of course something that is an important factor, and this would do little to change it.  You’ve covered the moral objection pretty well, so I’ll look at the others.

This hypothetical scenario would likely help replace the massive environmental impact from factory farms.  The pollution produced by thousands of animals all in one place is astounding.  If instead of a huge factory farm, we just had a nice, clean laboratory, that would certainly eliminate the environmental objection.

The economics of the issue, however, are something on which we could only speculate.  Its possible that, by cutting out the costs of feed, housing, and medical care, creating meat without using an animal could be much cheaper.  But I suspect it would likely take a lot of time and effort to make the process efficient, such that large amounts of “lab meat” could be produced at a low cost.  Until that happened, it would be even more expensive than regular meat, which isn’t at all cheap compared to many vegetarian alternatives.

Regarding health-consciousness, this would seem to be an objection that could be overcome by creating the meat in a lab.  In theory, it would be indistinguishable from traditional meat, and thus have all the same bad health effects.  But on further reflection, that may not be the case.  Keep in mind, a lot of the problems associated with meat don’t come from the meat itself; they come from the fat around it and from the carbon that accumulates from some cooking methods.  If all the meat you ate was 90+% lean, something easily done when you’re directly controlling what cells are in the meat, then you’d actually be eating quite healthily.  Currently, the leanest meat is usually from the best cuts, and thus is the most expensive.  If the economics were to work out, then I would see health reasons being far less of an objection than they currently are.

The quickest way to get an atheist to quote the bible would be to mention vegetarianism. 😉

I love the taste of meat and I’m excited by technology like transgenics (GMO). As a 13-year vegan and animal rights activist I would be first in line to NOM that shit. I cannot justify taking my animal cousin’s life for the relatively tiny bit of pleasure derived by a personal preference.

Absence of religion doesn’t mean absence of ethics, that’s one of the most common slurs that religious folks level against atheists. most atheistic systems of ethics are based on some variant of not causing harm to  others, at not without some over-riding reason.

In eating meat you’re causing suffering and death to a great many animals, and for no better reason than that you enjoy the results. It’s a shame you find being called on it ‘annoying’, but that’s really your problem.

It is possible to be good without god. It’s also possible to be bad.

I’m not sure, but the environment and the earth would be in much better shape: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism

Well, only if everyone decided to go veggie on a certain date, and had a big binge to finish off all the food animals beforehand. Otherwise we’d probably be looking at huge pyres…

Some sheep and cows might survive the cull, unless everyone went vegan as well.
Next step- drain wetlands and similar areas to grow crops (bye-bye wildlife habitates) and try not to think too much about the smaller animals killed by combine harvesters…

My wife and I were just mentioning the other day that the smell of cooking bacon is nauseating. 

I would try it,  but i make it from my own cells, just to see how i tasted and if i’m any good then i replace the sunday roast.

Presumably it would be at least as inefficient to have a lab-grown meat diet as natural meat (you have to put all the energy into it, right?). I’ve been veggie for 17 years now, and would have no interest in eating lab-grown meat myself. 

In terms of meat, we evolved as scavengers.  The “meat” in our diets came from breaking open long bones that were left behind from a carnivore’s kill.  Our ancestors ate the nutrient-rich marrow inside.

Meat eater here. Let me put it this way: If such a form of meat production could gain us a perfectly well-marbled “rib-eye” substitute as tasty as the natural form, while being cheaper, I’d be all over it like nobody’s business! Heck, I’d try it at least once even if it were more expensive (perhaps up to double or triple cost-per-pound). Until then, it’ll be $4.99/lb and up for me.

On a different note – from a meat-eater’s perspective, regarding things you would think would “taste bad”; a couple of weeks ago I ate tripe accidentally on-purpose. I was at a local latino/mexican grocery store (Pro’s Ranch Market) which has a cafeteria-style eatery inside; I selected a couple of items off the menu for a plate, and I wasn’t sure what I was selecting on one of the items, but it looked like it would taste good. It was only when I got it and started eating it that I realized I had selected “tripas” as one of the meats (the other was carne asada, which I like).

I guess I like tripe.

Depends on the reason though. If someone tasted some kind of meat and finds it disgusting, that’s fine. I don’t like sausages or meat with lots of visible fat for example.

Religious dietary restrictions aren’t based on experience however – or even taste or smell. They’ve just been taught that pork is bad and react disgusted when they learn that they just may have eaten some. If you secretly fed them pork in a stew for example, most of them would never notice

As to the vegitarian argument heres the way i see it, i like meat, it tastes great and having a roast beef/chicken is the best meal i have in a week, yes many things die to feed me but i’m selfish enough to just not care about it. Also i would have to give up fishing if i used the cruelty argument so i only got one life and i’m going to enjoy it as i see fit. 

I doubt it. I’m an omnivore, but I wouldn’t trust “food” made in a lab. I’d at least try it, though. 

Why would we drain wetlands to grow crops? What do you think animals produced for meat eat? Do you really think they subsist on just grass?

i should add if they could grow meat that tasted the same or better than sure i eat it, even if it was made by my own cells.

 Sorry, vegans, but there is no food without death.  Do you think farmers run around their crops yelling “shoo shoo” to all the critters that would eat them?   My fathers relatives were farmers. They were permitted to shoot deer off season to protect their crops. They also poisoned and trapped raccoons and other critters that would wreak havoc on their cops. Lets not forget all the insects that are poisoned and the small animals like mice that are ground up by harvesting equipment. Of course this is OK, right? I have heard this called collateral damage.
 Untill you grow all your own food without killing ANYTHING, including bugs, then get back to me.

Interesting dilemma here, if eating synthetically grown meat can remove the stigma of having the animal killed for it, and there never “was” an animal to begin with, does that open the possibility of using human stem cells to create human meat? Or would that be cannibalism despite the fact that there was never a human who was killed to produce it?

My wife and I don’t eat meat, for roughly the same reasons you don’t (also: I had no idea you were a vegetarian!). So I suppose we might give that meat a try. But honestly, we don’t really miss anything at this point (been veg for 25+ years) , so I couldn’t say for sure.

Have you ever eaten any kind of convenience food?  Doritos, Hostess snack cakes, Pop Tarts, frozen pizza… pretty much anything that comes in a package?  Where do you think those foods come from?  There’s no nacho cheese tree from which they harvest that orange powder, you know.  Sorry, but in modern America, it’s completely ridiculous to say that you wouldn’t trust “food” made in a lab.  The MAJORITY of the standard American diet consists of laboratory-processed food-like substances.  Unless your diet consists primarily of fresh vegetables and other plants, you’re likely not eating anything close to what you think of as “real food.”

I hear that surgeons smelling cauterized human flesh initially find it unpleasant, but after a few years on the job, it just makes them hungry.

I’m an omnivore who would be *thrilled* to be able to eat meat without killing animals in the process. If it tasted good, I’d be happy to pay more for it. Guilt-free and better for the environment? Count me in!

My husband I are both vegetarians, and he would eat it, I would not. He feels like if nothing suffered/died, it’s cool. I would be uncomfortable eating any animal flesh, period. I haven’t eaten meat in about fifteen years, and it doesn’t seem like food to me. I wouldn’t want to eat it any more than I’d want to eat a stone off the ground.

As an omnivore who goes to great lengths (and expense) to eat local, it would depend where it was produced.  If you had a day to kill, I could take you on a tour to all the places my family gets its protein from:  the water buffalo pasture, the alligator farm, my friend’s chicken coop, the tempeh producer a mile away.  We could go to the Atlantic and gulf coasts and look at the waters where our shrimp, fish and scallops come from.  And yes, we’d be home in time for supper. The one exception we make is sockeye salmon season, a special treat from afar, much like people buy Swiss chocolates.

Now, if you are a vegan or vegetarian who simply buys whatever veggies are at your local grocer’s, I’d be happy to drive the few hours to take you to the tomato farms where slaves (yes, slaves) pick your tomatoes.  The ethics of eating to me does not come down to what you eat, but rather where and how it is produced.  Know your producers.  Talk to the people who grow what you eat, walk on their farm. 

If I had to choose between eating bacon that was produced from a pig confined to filthy gestational crates, or a tomato that was picked by a migrant worker who is chained up at night so he can’t run away… I’d go with the bacon.

There are at least two of us out there who find the smell of bacon unpleasant.

Animals produced for meat eat an awful lot of stuff that humans wouldn’t or couldn’t.

To grow enough vegetation to support humans would require more land- in Norfolk, East Anglia, England, grazing cows play a key role in the conservation of the area. Without the impetus to keep cattle, these areas would be drained and farmed.

Keeping livestock calls for growing a range of plants for fodder. Without them- fewer types of environments and habitats for wildlife.

It’s mindblowing how many people, even skeptics (who you’d think would be questioning everything), still believe that livestock live on happy little Fisher Price farms where they merrily feast upon emerald green grass all the livelong day, and then magically fastforward past any sort of unpleasantries, until they reach the point of a tasty hamburger. No one wants to ask questions about factory farms, or where their meat comes from, because the answers are so awful, and so hard to unknow.

I never have understood the “it’s killing an animal” argument. The whole it’s “alive” argument is bunk, because your vegetables are “alive” too. Do fish count? If so, what is the arbitrary line you draw for what counts as a”life”, and it will be arbitrary. Also why are you applying a standard to the animal, the animal would not apply to you? To do so sounds like a religious belief that their is some higher morality you must obey. Morality only applies to other life forms that share your ability to comprehend said morality. So no, I probably wouldn’t eat a dolphin. But a cow, yea (going for some meat laden Pho right now!).

As an atheist meat eater, I view the killing of an animals for food as a beautiful thing, the balance that nature has in one animal giving its substance over to on other in order for that animal to flourish. Just as I will for worms, cows do for me. We are all just future poo for something else to shit out. One big beautiful cycle of poo.

The Circle of Poo (Season 4, Episode 17) – Video Clips – South Park Studios

like didn’t work!

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103963/the-circle-of-poo

The offensive part is that you’re implying I [i]haven’t[/i] thought about my choices.

I have, and I still eat meat.

Some of us don’t ask because we already know, but we don’t care because we really like bacon.

I mean, REALLY like bacon.

That’s interesting, especially in light of the comment about firefighters.  I’ve not heard of either claim before.

But what’s interesting is that the reaction of firefighters and the reaction of surgeons (according to these posts) are so different.  I can’t help but think it would be because of the very different associations each group has with the smells.  Firefighters’ experiences would be about human tragedy and gore, while the surgeons’ experience would be linked to healing.

Still, I really love bacon, but then I’m not a firefighter.

Wow! What a question, and all of the comments are insightful and different.

I am an avid cook, and meat of all varieties show up in my kitchen. However, meat is EXPENSIVE and, quite literally, we can’t afford to eat meat every day. Our semi-vegetarian lifestyle is us living within our means.

I grew up raising farm animals for the 4-H program (any 4-Hers out there? holla…) and quickly came to terms with the idea that these animals are raised for slaughter. I distinctly remember a certain prize-winning lamb that I tearfully refused to part with (for about five minutes) and a pig that I raised, like a pet, that would eat a popsicle right off the stick. I was incredibly sad to know that they went to the processing plant, but that’s how my parents stocked the freezer – that’s how we ate. A family of 5 would be fed (with meat every day as the centerpiece of every meal) with a single pig and a 1/4 beef for around a year. I was taught that the animal’s death was simply a part of my life (although I can see now that it more had to do with the way my mother cooked and not the way “that things are”).

Now, with some additional knowledge, I DO have serious ethical concerns with factory farming. It’s a contemptible practice that has been necessary because of our meat-centric society. We need to change that.

On the other hand, I know that large-scale farming is necessary to feed all of the people on this planet; although I support organic farming and local providers in theory, I know that this method can’t sustain everyone (large-scale farming, for all its hangups, is definitely more efficient, and we just don’t have the amount of arable land needed to provide for everyone on the planet) and it’s pricey. 

The way I choose to live and cook on a day-to-day basis is based on our budget and providing healthful, tasty meals for my husband and I. Sometimes that includes meat, sometimes not. Ethics are something afforded to people who can pay, in time or money, for alternatives.

“since so much grain must be fed to the animals compared to the amount of the meat yield.”

You might be interested in researching management intensive grazing, like the Stockman Grass Farmer magazine…

I should add that I think it’s great, for people who do want to eat meat, and I hope it becomes a reality.

I completely agree that factory farming is a blight and curse on our poor planet.  I do not think that means that there is only one alternative, and that is vegeterianism.

Though the above is likely true, that doesn’t negate the fact that Hemant would be far from alone in not liking the smell of bacon. I have no idea what roasted human or dog or cat smells like so I don’t know if I would like or dislike the smell. But if I were to have the misfortune of finding out what any of those smell like while knowing the source of the smell, I would quickly develop a strong negative reaction to them and never say they smell good, even if my definition is just about as arbitrary as any religious one.

Why would you assume that @facebook-1245766187:disqus eats a “standard” American diet?  She sounds like a thoughtful consumer.

I know many vegetarians who don’t eat meat, but do eat absolute garbage like you describe above.  If you’re vegetarian for health reasons, but still eat that stuff, I just can’t take your stance seriously.  If it’s for ethical reasons, that’s another story.

So what does PETA think is going to happen to the animals now bred on farms? Will they be released into the wild? If so, how are we to prevent a drastic environmental change? How will animals selected for control over thousands of years survive without protection?

I know this was posed more as a philosophical question, but I find it hard to imagine such a change happening without an accompanying envorinmental and probably economic disaster. As a side note, I predict that synthetic meat will never get any sort of government funding during my life. The agriculture lobby is too powerful.

But to answer the question in the spirit of the asking: assuming it was in fact indistiguishable from “natural” meat, I’d buy whatever was the cheapest.

What’s that about slaves?

Calves do move a certain amount before they are killed for veal (which I do not eat).  I’ve read articles though that talked about how “grown” meat did not have the repeated pulling and stretching that any moving by a living animal causes and thus made it really mushy, not just tender.  That is about the extent of my knowledge of test tube meat.  Of course young muscles are less tough than old muscles.

I was not trying to imply ecological problems by asking a question.  I was trying to lead into my next point, sorry I was not more clear.  I completely agree that current farming is unsustainable and horrible for the environment.  My point there was that the wild animals who move in would still be killed by something – is it kinder to let animals get ripped apart by predators or to kill them with a bullet to the head?  Either way animals are going to die.  I can understand the impulse not to be personally involved, but I also tend to think about which way an animal might prefer to go and that is one reason why I see no inherent unnecessary badness to eating meat.

I have major, major problems with the current state of food production at all stages, from the food they are fed to the way they are raised, killed, and processed.  I don’t mind if people don’t want to eat meat, but I would like it if the various factions of people who care about the environment and animal welfare would at least acknowledge that there are other people who eat different foods who also care about the environment and animals.

In regards to the idiot Palin – even a broken clock is correct two times a day.
Now please pass the mashed potatoes.

Really? How do you know this to be factually correct?

Agreed. I find the whole discussion snobbish, elitist and downright silly. If you don’t want to eat meat, that’s great, but my wanting to eat meat does not make me an asshole.

 I have relatives who are farmers and have visited some “factory farms”. None of them are like the farms shown in Animal Rights propaganda videos.  Yes, some of them are bad, but the reality is that mistreating the animals and keeping them in unsanitary conditions results in dead animals and the loss of revenue, so explain why a farm would “abuse” their animals.
 Most animal rights people have no clue about animal husbandry or what the normal procedures are.

A burnt human body smells a lot like pork, unless it’s been burnt deeply into the internal organs and then it smells like burnt dog shit, kidney pie…and pork.

 Oh.  It’s naive to think that you are acutally saving animals by not eating meat. It’s just like prayer. It acomplishes nothing but makes you feel good.  It’s OK for animals to die your dinner, but not for mine. Got it.
 I have cleaned the blades of the harvesting machines on my cousins farm and have had to remove blood, mouse and snake bits. Think about that when you are sitting down to your veggie meal.

Actually, I think the quickest way is to misquote the bible. 🙂

So, how do you justify taking your vegetable cousin’s life? I grew a small patch of plants for a few years and for what my thoughts are worth, I can tell you plants are not only alive, but they even have personailties. I don’t mean that in the anthropomorphic sense but just that each one was unique and beautiful and worthy of its life.

Of course that never stopped me from harvesting.

On the contrary. As an atheist, I am very skeptical. I am skeptical of everything, including unbounded skepticism. I am skeptical about your claims. Also I find your appeal to emotion to be a sure sign of a weak argument. To wit:

“…I find it frustrating…” That’s not an argument, that’s emotional blackmail. Are you really so weak that everyone must abide by your polite requests to avoid frustrating you?

“Many seem incapable…” I am much smarter than those other atheists over there. Why doesn’t anybody pay attention to *my* opinions?

“…denial state…” Why can’t everyone just agree with me?

“…Republicans…” I have a special hate on for those guys, and if you don’t obey my dietary laws I will have reserved a special hate for you, too.

“It’s so bad for the planet…” Oh, I can’t stand it, why can’t everyone agree with me on this?

“I urge everyone to give it the benefit of the doubt…” I am sure that if you just make yourself believe as I believe, you’ll be very happy. And if not, I’ve got a special circle reserved for you in the Vegan Hell.

Like I said. I am skeptical about your beliefs.

Meat has a higher caloric content that balances that ratio
and causes it to be more efficient under certain circumstances. It true that today you can get vegtables from around the world and eat pretty much anything at any time of the year, but that hasn’t always been the case and it is not the case in some parts of the world right now.
I agree that there is a lot that could be done to clean up the agriculture industry. Like less reliance on pesticides, improved transportation techniques to reduce spoilage and less focus on moncultural farms just to name a few. I don’t know as much about livestock though.

Sarah Palin? As a Canadian, I can honestly tell that I have never heard her voice in my life. I saw that in post on a picture site, which itself was a photograph of a road sign somewhere in the steppes of Canada. I think.

I, for one, have thought about all of those issues and discussed them at length with my partner.  We decided that there are more important things to worry about, like people starving in our own country, child abuse, and equal rights.  You go ahead and worry about the animals… someone obviously has to.  It takes a village to address all of the concerns of a nation (or some such pablum).

Even if that was the case, that doesn’t make it morally correct. You’re committing the naturalistic fallacy when you try to derive ought from is as you just did.

Tofu isn’t food. It’s what even food doesn’t eat.

No, but I hear Soylent Green is high in fiber.

I’m an onmivore, but I eat a fairly low-meat diet.  Partially this is economic, but it’s also about the resources required to produce the food, and about having a lower environmental impact.  As a result, I tend to prefer poultry to beef, since it takes less feed to produce each pound of poultry.  And I also try to prepare meals that stretch a small amount of meat to feed more people.  I figure that if everybody were to reduce their meat consumption by even 1/10, that would be as much of an impact as 10% of the population going vegetarian, and also much easier to achieve.

Sorry, can’t give up the bacon.  But if I eat it on BLT’s, preferably with home-grown tomatoes, I can get by on far less bacon.

A few years back, we took a friend who was raised vegetarian out to a vegan restaurant.  That restaurant does amazing things with TVP, and if you didn’t know better, you’d swear it was meat.  He tried it, but didn’t like it.  He’s never developed the taste for meat, so their amazing veggie version of it was not to his taste at all.

Test tube steaks?  Hhmmmm.

If they serve it at Ruth’s Chris Steak House with a crusted bleu cheese topping, then I’m all in.

Really, the only reason to go vegetarian is because you just don’t like eating meat. Any other reason is just elitist. I like meat. I don’t eat it every day, but when I do, it’s delicious. 

I don’t eat a lot of meat, but I do love bacon and a nice juicy cheeseburger every now and again. I’ll be surprised if a synthetic meat substitute is ever developed, at least that is indistinguishable in taste and texture etc from the real thing.

I don’t eat a lot of meat, but I do love bacon and a nice juicy cheeseburger every now and again. I’ll be surprised if a synthetic meat substitute is ever developed, at least that is indistinguishable in taste and texture etc from the real thing.

Also note how the post begins as an address to Hemant, ambiguously transitioning to a direct argument at meat-eaters.

Talking to people tends to be more frustrating in general when you avoid direct, open discussion.

Do you like spicy foods? I’m still with you about tofu, but in the last couple years I’ve learned to love vegetables.

On the chance you haven’t tried cooking or preparing them in different ways, it could pay off to experiment a little more. I recommend it.

There are veg foods that go so well with meat. Do you like mushrooms or
bell peppers? There is some work involved, but steak sauces and
marinades can almost always be replaced with your own spices and veggies. I’m getting too hungry now…

Good thing the answers aren’t hard to swallow!

Get it?

Good point, thank you.
There are several areas in the UK which could not be farmed at all, but are perfect for sheep.
Those would survive a global shift to vegetarianism as the wool would be wanted, and maybe also for milk, but if everyone went vegan there’d be no money in animal husbandry- not sure what would happen exactly… might end up with feral sheep…

Parts of East Anglia are drainable for farming, though. It’s expensive though, so cattle are the most economically viable option at the moment.

Bacon has its own cult. Outsiders are naturally disgusted.

Depends how far back you want to go. By the time we were tool using we were DEFINITLY hunting, and hunter-gatherer people were very healthy (source- comparing bones from hunter-gatherers with roughly contemporanious agrarian people’s bones at the British Museum).

That type of agriculture is even more unsustainable at the current demand for meat, as it’s much more land intensive.

Not nearly enough to offset the inefficiency of raising meat.

I was a physical anthropology major and studied human evolution.  

Here is an article from the BBC to support what I wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/prehistoric_life/human/human_evolution/food_for_thought1.shtml

The whole question is really a moot point when you consider the amount of farmland that is lost to development every year. Most of the best spots I had for hunting rabbits are now strip malls and a Wal-Mart. So, yes we would need to expand and put more land under the plow. We would need to do that meat or vegan. You are also incorrect about cattle grazing, out almost million acres of farmland, over 500 million is pasture.

I have two indentured servants and five negroes in my backyard who would never know the feel of cotton on their fingertips, a wooden roof over their heads, or the joy of a good meal of leftovers were they not intended to humanely bring food to my plate. Heck, these savages and hundreds of others wouldn’t know civilization if my ancestors didn’t own this plantation.

The argument that slavery is wrong because of the way in which big plantations treat negroes is missing the point–even if you can’t own your own negroes, there are options for whipping free, sustainable, humanely raised slave tobacco and cotton. I respect the choice to be abolitionist–my 11 year-old daughter recently decided to re-think this whole chattel thing, and we support her 100%–but don’t assume that all overseers don’t strive to make choices that are good for the negroes and for trade.

Yeah dude, it’s like, I love punching babies in the face. I know it’s probably a little messed up, but I really like it. I mean, REALLY like it.

I don’t get this argument. Can you only address one social injustice at a time? Does abstaining from eating meat somehow impair you from helping the starving people, or abused children?

It’s true.  I typically don’t discuss my vegetarianism with other people because they either 1) respond in anger, or 2) say something stupid like, “I love steak!  More cow!”  

I know that I won’t get a respectful response, so I typically avoid saying anything about my dietary preferences unless it’s necessary.  

I’ve been a vegetarian since my early teens – around 20 years. I didn’t quit eating meat because I didn’t like it, or even any health concerns, but rather for reasons akin to the ones Hemant suggested – I couldn’t justify putting animals through pain and suffering when there were so many alternatives.

Putting meat back into my diet at this point would likely be difficult. I don’t need it, certainly don’t crave it, and not eating it is a part of my lifestyle now. However, I do eat a few soy products that are supposed to be ‘meat like’ – vegetarian bacon, veggie burgers and dogs, and even the odd veggie ‘chicken breast’.

I’d definitely give no-suffering meat a try. There would be no reason not to. I’d actually be somewhat curious as to whether I would prefer it over the things I’m eating now.

“I never have understood the ‘it’s killing an animal’ argument.”

…Do you understand the “it’s wrong to kill things that are sentient and don’t want to die” argument?

“The whole
it’s “alive” argument is bunk, because your vegetables are ‘alive’ too.”

Alive, but not capable of suffering. There’s no central nervous system. Plants feel no pain. They can’t suffer.

“Do fish count?”

I never got this question. Fish are animals, are they not?

“If so, what is the arbitrary line you draw for what
counts as a ‘life,’ and it will be arbitrary.”

I don’t think “Can it suffer?” is arbitrary.

“Also why are you applying a
standard to the animal, the animal would not apply to you?”

Sounds terribly like the pro-waterboarding argument. “They would do it to us, so why should we not do it to them?!” Eye for eye, whole world blind, etc.

I love things like this, where a community that prides itself on its rationalism gets oh-so-defensive about what it is they eat. I think this sums it up pretty well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Tvmm0-NSzE

And ther elies another problem, kinda pushy aren’t we? His/their choice, not yours. Keep your preaching to yourself. Still disturbing.

Reading is fundamental. The main point of my post was the development of farmland and how we’re losing it at an alarming rate.

“Do you understand the “it’s wrong to kill things that are sentient and don’t want to die” argument?” 
Not particularly …no.  Someone who say tries to kill me in a robbery for instance does not “want to die” but I have no problem shooting them, or is it wrong. Or a solder in a foreign army who may be about to kill everyone in my town probably does not “want to die”, but I’ll kill them before they can burn my village down and that wouldn’t be wrong either.

And hell, some people want to die, how do you know a cow does not want to die? Do you speak cow?

Besides, since when does what anything “wants” have anything to do with it? I “want” a Ferrari Enzo, and a blow job from Alyson Hannigan, I guess by your logic I deserve them then?

Uh, no it’s not. An anesthetic only temporarily removes the ability to sense pain, but it doesn’t always work and it isn’t anything like a plant. Blocking pain receptors with medicine is a fundamentally different thing than not having a central nervous system.

Well, if a cow ever tries to rob you or kill everyone in your town, I think you’re completely justified in killing them.

“And hell, some people want to die, how do you know a cow does not want to die? Do you speak cow?”

How do you know a human baby doesn’t want to die? Do you speak baby? Baby-kabobs at The Captain’s place!

There, now that we’ve addressed ridiculous hypotheticals and gotten our requisite atheist snark out of our system, maybe we can move on to a real debate rooted in logic?

If it tastes good and is affordable, I would eat it. In all honesty, I just eat what tastes good. I remember one lunch at band camp, they were serving a pasta-y thing with chunks of what looked like meat in it. Turns out, it was tofu, but I couldn’t tell the difference and it tasted quite good.

Rational dialouge: “I really, really like to punch babies in the face”. What was I thinking, your a master debater!

When my five year old heard we were out of bacon he slipped off and called 9-1-1. Funny on a few levels, but needless to say we turned it into a learning experience.

It’s not a matter of wanting and deserving. You’re latching on to this word “want” (and for the record, we appear to want some of the same things). I think it’s a big leap to make from my argument of “It’s wrong to kill something that can suffer” to your argument of “I DESERVE SPORTS CARS AND FREE BLOWJOBS FROM CELEBRITIES!”

If you can successfully come up with the money to buy an Enzo and the charm to land Alyson Hannigan, then yes, you deserve it. But that’s a different thing than saying that you have to earn the right to not be killed, don’t you think?

Sentience isn’t an arbitrary line. While you view cows with disdain, in comparison with dolphins, it shows you have done no research on the sentience and intelligence of cows.

You lament about how “Also why are you applying a standard to the animal, the animal would not apply to you? “. Well it depends on the animal you are talking about, but cows are herbivores and not usually violent or in the mood to kill. That’s not always the case, as some cows have killed (most due to abuse or disease).

It intrigues me that you consider killing “animals for food as a beautiful thing…”
While I can’t see the “beauty” in it, I do understand the point you are trying to make. And at it’s root, you are completely correct. However, that “beauty” can not, and does not, apply to animal farming.

There is no beauty in controlled genocide and torture. There is no beauty in depriving a sentient animal of a wholesome life (like putting a bird in a cage). If one hunts an animal, especially without guns -sticks, spears, and wooden bows are at least easily fabricated and more akin to how our ancestors did things- while in the animals natural environment (like deer hunting in the woods), then your beauty argument would hold ground.

I can’t argue with our evolutionary past, that when we began eating meat millions of years ago that caloric boon (as well as cooking that food) helped to allow our brains to develop to the tool it is now.  However our bodies are more  tuned to a majority-filled vegetable diet. Our teeth, jaws, intestines, hands, and slow-moving bipedal nature helps to conclude that.

“…balance that nature has in one animal giving its substance over to on
other in order for that animal to flourish. Just as I will for worms,
cows do for me”

With factory farming though, that balance doesn’t exist (and with burying laws and cremation, worm-food probably won’t actually happen for you). The cows existence was unnatural, an error of time and space, since it didn’t go through the natural cycle of life instead was bred solely to die (how is not having fighting chance beautiful?). At least with hunting, “survival of the fittest” plays in, and natural evolution plays a part. Hunting, in moderation, can improve a species if we end up culling the weaker. That can never happen with factory farming.

What system we have now, factory farming and shrink-wrapped flesh, is
wholly unnatural and unhealthy- for us, other animals, and the planet as
a whole. While I will probably never eat meat again (a post-apocalyptic
wasteland changes all the rules), I don’t harbor ill-will towards those
that do. I have a problem with the over-consumption of meats, dairy,
and eggs (which is why America is so fat and unhealthy). If you haven’t inferred, I am a vegan.

I know that, even with this in-vitro food possibility, people will always eat meat. As long as people like me exist, the demand for meat is less which is a positive result of my life. I just wish that more people were less cavalier about meat (“But it tastes so good”, “It was going to die anyway”, “it’s just a X animal”, etc.). Also people need to eat far less of it, especially red meat. In reality people should only eat meat at 3-5 meals a week, and then it should be a smallish quantity and as low-fat as possible.

Also, as a note, lions, bears, wolves, alligators, and every other non-human predator don’t over-kill, produce more than needed, and they don’t kill non-stop. They, unlike humans, eat what they need and more realistically, what they can catch. If we want to be “natural”, or a meat-eater wants to make the argument that “eating meat is natural”, then factory farms must go and a co-op, community involved farming practice is needed. And, if meat-eaters are so keen on natural, then predators that we eradicated from areas (like wolves and pumas) should be re-introduced. Isn’t competition for food sources a part of the natural world? Isn’t that how our species lived for millenia, upon millenia? Yes we are “advanced”, but that doesn’t mean we can’t create a balance between our civilization and our wild past. Earth requires a balance, and we act as a parasite, a virus, on this planet.

If we can lessen the demand for meat, and thus decrease people’s consumption of it, having community based farming (imagine Central Park as a massive fauna and flora farm) is a huge step in the right direction. It can help heal the planet, create a bond between people and the Earth, and empower people by them providing for themeselves in a healthy way and creating life-long skills.

Sure this isn’t likely to happen, as our population is well beyond what it should be (7 billion people) and that alone puts an incredible stress on what the Earth provides for us. Even though that hurdle exists, that doesn’t mean we as a species can’t start making this a better world, for us human herbivores, omnivores, and our animal brethren.

P.S. – I love that episode of South Park, and I can proudly say that my body, is not in fact, covered with vaginas. You should watch the episode “Douche vs. Turd”, they lambast PETA so wonderfully (PETA is a massive joke and hinders animal-rights everyday).

OK, cool, I think we agree on quite a few things.  FTR, when I talk about eating meat I am not talking about the average American fast food style meat eating.  I often try to imagine I grew and had to kill and process or pick or dig whatever I am eating, and I want to actually be doing that at some point.  Somehow, just imagining I did the work myself the whole way has a big effect on what I eat and how thankful I am to eat it.

I would definitely try it.  If it didn’t cost significantly more than real meat, I would switch over to it.   (I’m an omnivore).

You are an animal too. You are making a bizarre distinction that doesn’t exist in nature. Human is a species of animal, not something outside of the animal kingdom.

You are confusing elitism with reality, while you may have an more advanced brain than the other 8.8 million species of animals on this planet, it doesn’t mean your not an animal. Ants are as much our distant cousin as the Bonobo and Lemur (admittedly though, we are more closely related to Bonobos than any other species).

That said, you raising your own animals for food is far more respectable and acceptable than any factory farm (be it flesh, egg, or dairy). This doesn’t change the fact though that you view other animals as distinctly lesser than you, as opposed to the reality that they are merely different.

I’m not trying to be rude or inflammatory, but it is the truth. Humans are animals and to think otherwise is a cognitive fault. We are different than all of them (save the Great Apes), but we are all still animals.

Also, I eat meat because… well, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Meat is part of our ancestral diet, and too many vegetarians seem pale and sickly. But basically I just love meat.

When lions and tigers stop eating meat so will I. Take it up with them. They kill animals under HORRIFIC conditions, chasing their prey to exhaustion.

Go and picket the jungle. Go protest on an African Savannah.

Sorry, meat is part of the human ancestral diet. I don’t see any reason to start having a modified diet now that my body hasn’t evolved for, and which would likely turn me into a pale, sickly, busy-body guilt-tripping others into living as righteously as I.

And your assumption that “any other reason is just elitist” is elitist itself. 

That’s a good point Josh. Why stop at recognizing the interests of our animal cousins? All life on this big rock in space is related so why does a particular category of life here garner the consideration? Well, since we animals have to subsist on the bodies of others it behooves us fancy monkeys to do so in a way that causes the least amount of imposition. We know the egregious harm and suffering we inflict on other animals who are closer to our own experience than any other species or kingdom. Recognizing that we should start with animals. 

No worries though beyond that. By that time we’ll all have robot bodies with solar panels and the issue will be moot. 😉

I do not subscribe to the animal rights “speciecism” BS. If you wish to believe that your children have the same worth as an ant, go for it.

yes.  according to most cannibalistic tribes it tastes just like pork, which is fantastically delicious!  then again, i’m an asshole & a misanthrope.

Saying it’s part of nature is simply committing the naturalistic fallacy. What does it matter what we ate before or what our ancestors ate before… we go back far enough and “we” were microbes consuming other microbes. What matters is what YOU do now not what someone sometime did. How is that a justification for anything? Why should that influence our current actions? We are not them and we shouldn’t compare ourselves to them. Our ancestors also raped, pillaged and kept slaves. Our ancestors used to kill or be killed. Their actions should have no bearing on your choices right now. Saying that your ancestors hunted and ate meat therefore that is the reason you do it too is a complete non sequitur.

My point was not about anesthetic.

When you hunt down your food with only the tools nature provided you (no spears, knives, guns, bows or bludgeons), then you can talk to me about how lions and tigers do things.

If you are going to make this erroneous argument you had better back it up with action. There is nothing natural about buying your meat shrink-wrapped and on Styrofoam.

Also, unlike lions and tigers, we over-kill and consume more than we need. Lions and tigers struggle to get their food, most hunts end up without success. How often do you go to the grocery store and not leave with food (barring having no funds, but if broke why even go to the store)? And cats are obligate carnivores meaning they have to eat meat- they need Taurine, which they don’t naturally produce in sufficient quantities unlike most omnivores. We are omnivores, hence, we don’t need to eat meat (or that much of it) to survive. A better example to use next time would be bears, pigs, or most any bird as they are omnivores like us.

You’re right, meat is a part of our ancestral diet but vegetables more-so. Our bodies evolved to consume more vegetable matter than meat, so when you eat meat at every meal (breakfast, lunch, dinner, 7 days a week) you are not living a natural existence. How many predators do you know of that don’t have claws or conical teeth (sometimes with serration)? We don’t have claws and our teeth are splayed like horses, meant for grinding more-so than tearing.

Look at our closest evolutionary cousins, the Great Apes -specifically gorillas and chimpanzees – both of which are omnivores but there diets consist of 85-95% vegetable matter (Gorillas and Chimps eat termites, and chimps occasionally eat other chimps).

I don’t care what you eat, I made a dietary decision for myself and that’s it. Much as the same I don’t care what people believe. I have a problem with disinformation and straight-up illogical arguments- of which you are guilty of both with this post.

The reality is, though, that with the current human population and our limited access to resources, continuing to produce meat is going to further destroy the environment. People eat WAY TOO MUCH meat and it shows (especially in the United States). You want to eat meat, that’s fine, all I care is that people start eating a healthy amount. Which means less meat over-all, that would curb the over-production and limit the continued devastation animal-farming does to the environment. In reality, based on our biology, people should only eat meat 3-5 times a week and in small quantities. And hardly ever should they eat red meat. Humans evolved eating mostly fowl and fish, which is why red meat does so much damage to our arteries.

Being chased means one has the chance to get away, so even if that gazelle’s heart is racing, and it’s mind is reeling with extreme thoughts of fear, they know they have a chance to get away (and statistically, they more do than don’t). A cow, chicken, pig, or other animal sourced for food, doesn’t have that chance. They are bred solely for death. That isn’t natural. That is HORRIFIC.

Do you think that the Jewish people fleeing from Nazi’s thought that the ones already in “labor camps” had it better off? Do you think the Jews in the death camps thought, “Hey, at least we aren’t running for our lives.”?

And no, this isn’t a strawman. I can’t speak for Jews or Gazelles or anybody else. But my point stands. Is it truly more horrific to have a chance to survive than to be locked up and have no real chance at all?  Somehow I think that having a chance to survive, using the skills nature provided, is less horrific than being penned up and having no chance at all.

My slaves are also well treated and well fed and taken care of.

You’re missing the point of the OP. Human Rights is an arbitrary line we have been extending to different groups over many years (poor, women, children, people of other ethnic origin, intelligent animals, etc). Why should that line stop at homo sapiens? Isn’t that an arbitrary criteria? What if we made contact with other alien species with the same intelligence should we not grant them the same rights? What if they were slightly less intelligent that us, should we just steamroll over them? Is that really ethical? Isn’t that what the Western Europeans did with American natives and other cultures that were less developed than them, justify it as they were not really worth that ethical consideration.

As an atheist, vegan, animal rights supporter I have this to say to this comment: Right. Fucking. On.

I despise PETA. They make people like me look like asses, when really I just want the world to be a healthier, happier place. Sometimes I think that PETA is a clandestine organization built by the meat-industry, but then I realize even they wouldn’t be this stupid.

Seriously how does throwing real/fake blood on a fur coat do any good? All it does it piss the owner off and INCREASE FUR COAT DEMAND because they have to replace the one that just got ruined.

PETA, while “loving” animals, they seriously HATE women. More so I think than Christian and Muslim extremists combined (I’m being hyperbolic, but you get the point). All of their ad campaigns are manipulative and so sexually demeaning they make me want to vomit.

If I ran PETA it wouldn’t be this extremist, counter-productive mess it is now. They should actually be developing ways to improve farming, educate people on healthy meat consumption (like less of it and lower-fat stuff and no “fast food”). If they were respectful and showed people how to continue to live their lives, but in a all-around healthier way, maybe they’d make a difference. Instead they just alienate people who may have become vegetarian, make existing vegetarians (and vegans) look ridiculous, and inspire meat eaters to eat more meat instead of less.

They judge people on superficial levels, damning us all.

I am a non-vegan vegetarian.  There many reasons not to eat meat and seafood in addition to not killing animals.
1) Would the stem-cell grown meat be safer than real meat? Would it be free of antibiotics? Would it be handled to avoid other meat/fish borne toxins and biological hazards?
2) Would it take many times more resources than other foods to create, like meat does? Lots of water, vegetation, and petrolieum in its creation and distribution? Would poor immigrants be exploited in its manufacture?
3) Would it have most of the nutritional benefits (e.g. seafood) and less of the negative effects (e.g. artery clogging fat) than the real stuff?
 

What preaching? The OP argument is clearly flawed and all he is doing is pointing it out. 

If you go back far enough, we were small shrew-like creatures that probably ate bugs and worms…

Yes, sorry, tools first, then hunting.  But it definitly happened. And it was good for us. Starting farming, on the other hand, was murderous.
So while we didn’t evolve into Homo Sapiens with livestock, we did get there with meat. Scavaged, hunted or raised, the stuff’s been part of human history for as long as there’s been human history.

Fallacious argument. See: Central Nervous System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system

How many cows, pigs, and chickens on factory farms do you think get a chance to run away? Isn’t it more “inhumane” to lock a nomadic animal in a small cage and then rank-and-file them into a slaughter room? Or to just go cage to cage and let all the other animals watch as you slaughter the only other beings they’ve known? Is it better to cramp a chicken in a pen so small she can’t stand up or spread her wings, while also having her beak cut off? What about cows that are forced to give birth, never get to see their calf, and are hooked up to machines that pump their milk from them? These are all basically standard practise for large-scale farms.

Eating meat isn’t the unethical, immoral part: factory farming is. I can’t stand it when people say “it’s natural” to eat meat when the process they go about getting it is a far from natural as we are from the other side of the universe. Humans are supposed to eat far more vegetable matter than animal matter, but the inverse is standard. Our bodies evolved that way and we fight it by eating way too much meat.

There is a reason the United States is the most obese nation on the planet. Our portion sizes are massive, we eat way too much meat and dairy (every meal, really?), not enough good vegetables (potatoes are tasty, but not so healthy once fried and battered and covered in dairy), and our physical activity has plummeted.

As per the “natural” argument, then processed dairy should be RIGHT OUT. If any person makes the “eating meat is natural” claim then I hope they don’t eat dairy. Because much like the internet and plastic, processed dairy (cheeses, yogurt, pasteurized milk, etc.) is unnatural and made by man. No single other species of animal – other than scavengers that eat our refuse – consume any type of dairy post-infancy (nor to they produce cheese). In fact the majority of the world is lactose intolerant, and really only decedents of Europeans are lactose tolerant.

You’re right though, it is a personal choice. Unfourtuantely though many make that choice wholly uninformed about the reality of it. I’m talking about the biology and health of vegetarianism, not the moral/ethical additions. Being a vegetarian (or eating FAR LESS MEAT) is the healthiest diet a human can have (Vegan is more a lifestyle, the diet being strict-vegetarian). To many meat tastes good, but so does sugar and eating too much of that is just as bad as eating too much meat (in fact, both contribute to diabetes).

You’ve missed my point. Is it okay to kill animals if they “can’t feel pain” in the same way as plants apparently do not?

This is not a rhetorical question. I eat meat and am not ashamed of it. I am at ease with the fact that animals die to provide me food. I genuinely want to know what your opinion on such a hypothetical would be.

My point is, does it matter why exactly they can’t feel pain, just as long as they don’t? I do not condone animal cruelty to get my meat, I prefer my animal to die peacefully if possible.

I have seen WAY more pale, sickly, unhealthy looking meat eaters than I ever have vegetarians. It is just as easy to be nutritionally deprived when you eat meat as it is vegetables. In fact, look at the majority of people who have diabetes, heart-attacks, and strokes: too much meat, not enough veggie.

As per the smell thing, while there may be a psychological component to it, all people smell things differently. I always found the smell of bacon to be disgusting (well before I gave up meat), as well as pretty much any aquatic-fauna food (cooked or raw, they all smell vile). I also can’t stand the smell of most perfumes which is why I don’t wear deodorant, cologne, or put product in my hair. My mother loved bacon, I wasn’t conditioned to dislike it. I just prefer the smell of vegetables to that of meat, they aren’t as pungent or offensive. I have a sensitive nose. I can’t even walk through detergent aisles in stores because I’ll get a massive headache and once I passed out, and walking by those candle stores in malls almost kills me. Or those old-ladies that dump whole bottles of perfume on themselves. Uggghhh…..

I’m a lifelong vegetarian. My mom became a vegetarian during or shortly after college for personal ethical reasons and also for her health, and because she didn’t/doesn’t eat meat, I was a de facto vegetarian growing up. I have no interest at all in eating meat. The smell makes me nauseous, I think it looks gross, I strongly suspect it would make me sick if I suddenly started eating it, etc., so I can’t imagine eating meat, even if the ethical/”it’s mean to kill animals” reasons were taken out of the equation. Because I’ve never eaten meat, I’ve never gone for meat replacement foods–Tofurkey, no-meat “chicken,” and the like–because I have never experienced those flavors in order to miss them, so I don’t think I would suddenly become curious about meat if no-harm meat became widely available.

Oh, come on. That was clearly a joke in response to a joke.

In this argument, many vegetarians forget that not all of us are financially in the situation where we can afford to eat vegetarian. 
Some people simply do not have the time, access or money to buy only non animal products and still have a fully nutritional diet.  

Some of us have personal dietary requirements, deficiencies, or allergies that do not allow for a pure vegetable diet. 
It is great that you are doing this, but you do not know everything about everyone’s situation and to assume you do and that you always know better is arrogant and very presumptive. 

Personally, I would eat synthetic meat if the option was affordable, safe, tasted the same and had a lower environmental impact. As of now I eat locally farmed eggs, fish, a lot of sea food, (mussels in white wine sauce over pasta, yum!), occasionally chicken from the same local farm,  and venison (deer) or moose my father and I hunt ourselves. I also eat other meats if they are offered to me at family or friend get togethers. 
The deer are an over populated species that cause a lot of problems in my area, and I live near the coast so I have access to fresh seafood right off the boat, paired with some great local farmers markets.  I am lucky I have access to the resources I do, not everyone does and I would not hold that against them.

You have a lot of anger (and stereotypes) for vegetarians.  You also have a lot of incorrect information.  Allow me to educate you.

Lions & tigers are carnivores.  Their bodies literally need meat to survive.  Humans are not carnivores.  Move your bottom jaw from left to right.  Carnivores can’t do that.  Their jaws only move up and down.  Jaws move sideways to process tough plant matter.

Humans did evolve eating some meat, but their diets were mostly plant matter.  In terms of meat, our ancestors evolved as scavengers.  We evolved our large brains after we incorporated bone marrow into our diet.  These early ancestors who evolved large brains did not hunt.  

There are healthy people who eat meat, and there are healthy people who don’t.  For the most part, meat adds a lot of unhealthy components to the diet, including a lot of saturated fats and cholesterol.  Many people switch to a vegetarian diet to GET healthy, not to become unhealthy.  In fact, the new dietary guidelines in the US now support a vegetarian diet as a good, healthy diet.  Famous people, like Bill Clinton, have switched to vegetarian diets to survive.  

I haven’t heard any vegetarians sound self-righteous on this blog, but if I’ve heard a lot of non-vegetarians attack them anyway.  

There is a lot of logic behind choosing a vegetarian diet, but you don’t have to do it.  The meat industry is one of the leading causes of environmental destruction in the world.  In fact, recent studies have shown that the meat industry is responsible for over half of all greenhouse gas emissions.  

People don’t need to give up meat entirely, but just decreasing consumption helps the planet.  This is why there are Meatless Monday movements.  

Now, I ask you to be respectful of other people’s decisions.  No one here is being a busy-body and forcing you into giving up meat.  In fact, only a few people have stated their reasons, and those reasons have varied drastically.  Some people choose to be vegetarian for health.  Some people choose to be vegetarian for animal rights (i.e., they don’t think it’s right to raise animals for slaughter when it’s unnecessary to survive).  Some people choose to be vegetarian because they don’t like the taste of meat or it grosses them out to think about where it comes from.  Others are vegetarian for environmental reasons.  Be respectful, don’t be so angry, and don’t write things that aren’t true.

Yeah, this is a lovely case of cognitive dissonance. You are confronted with opposing facts- Humans aren’t animals, which is scientifically incorrect and that Humans are animals, which is scientifically correct. And instead of accepting that humans aren’t special in terms of species existence (though we are advanced beyond most any other species), you continue to think humans are special, in this regard.

I’m not saying you have to value ants the way I do (as they are my favorite insect). I wasn’t talking about animal-rights or animal equality. You chose to make that claim. You made those claims, not me. All I said was that humans ARE animals, and in that regard we are equal to, and no different from, any other animal on this planet.

You ignored the whole point of that post, instead jumping on to something that wasn’t there.  at all. Humans ARE animals. That is as much a fact as gravity, evolution (actually evolution proves we are animals), and that H2O is water.

Fun tidbit: The Earth’s eco-system is more dependent upon the existence of ants and every other of the 1.6 million+ known insects than any single human being.

You place your child in a more important group because he/she/they are more important to you: their value is dependent upon your existence. There is nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, it’s that mentallity that has probably helped our species flourish. In the grand scheme of the eco-system though, a single ant is more important for the Earth than any of your children.

Animals value (including humans) is wholly dependent upon perspective. Humans are more important to us because we can fully communicate with each other, are able to share thoughts and feelings beyond words, and we are naturally inclined to favor our own species. Which is how we have survived millenia. We are not the top of the food chain (bacteria, viruses and  parasites take that cake). We are not the best species on this planet- there is an “immortal” jellyfish, which is something humans aspire to achieve. We can barely run, in fact elephants can out run us. Our eyes are a joke, the Mantis Shrimp can both polarized light and the electromagnetic spectrum. Birds can fly. Cats clean themselves (it may sound gross, but think of the cost savings on water usage). Our hearing is pathetic when compared to almost any other above-ground land mammal.

My point is this: we are not the greatest, best species on the planet. We are not better than any of them in terms of evolution or biology. Where they evolved to have great vision, or running, or flying or whatever, we evolved to have more complex brains. The one thing that truly separates us from other animals is language: and even then Macaques have been found to speak using syntax which used to be thought as solely human.

You may not ever see non-human animals the way I do, and why should you? You’re not me, you haven’t lived my life. You make decisions based on what you know and what has happened to you. That, though, doesn’t change the irrevocable fact that humans are animals. To say otherwise is foolish and incorrect. Saying that humans are “better” than other animals is a personal choice, one that all people are free to make (and usually do). But we are just evolved apes, in the homo genus, under the flying banner of Animal.

FYI – Quorn is a brand that makes meat substitutes (mostly “chicken”) 🙂  

After reading this (and doing a great deal of skimming) 1. I would probably try it at least once 2. does anyone want to talk about circumcision now?  KIDDING.  Please don’t.  Please.  

I quit eating meat about 25 years ago. Perhaps notable that I was raised in TX and my grandparents raised cattle. I quit for the obvious three reasons: environment, health, and animal welfare, in that order. I went through an “angry young man” phase and was a vegan almost as annoying as those many of you use as a reason to keep eating meat. I went back to eggs and dairy because I really like cheese and baked goods, but I try to buy from farmers’ markets. I respect hunters (assuming they eat what they kill) more than shoppers. I now sometimes buy grass-fed, organic beef, but I still pass on the Jack-in-the-Box rainforest burgers. All that is pretty irrelevant to the original question. To which I answer, depends on the resources that go into production.

What I find most interesting about this discussion, though, is that it basically became the same pro/anti veg argument that can be found all over the internet. This is one of the most educated, thoughtful, open-minded groups I’ve encountered, but when meat-eating is threatened, many of you become morons.

Listen to yourself. Look at the facts. Meat eating may or may not be a moral lapse, but there is no doubt that our collective meat-centric diet is having devastating effects on our planet. Meanwhile, I and many vegetarians I know are far from weak and pasty. My job is to climb trees and prune them, then hump the debris to a truck and load it and haul it. If you happen to be an Olympic athlete you may be able to kick my ass, but I am stronger and tougher than most people my age. Admit it. You are making a selfish choice and rationalizing it. (NOTE: “You” in this context may not mean “you” specifically. Don’t use me as another excuse to avoid the issue.)

You can decide to keep eating meat, but don’t claim it’s because you need it to be strong. Either way, you could do us all a favor and cut back a little.

I have heard meat-eating described as a cult (in vegan discussions, of course). Everyone does it, nobody really talks about it, and people get extremely defensive when it’s threatened. But, given the site, I think everyone who laid into the guy proffering the argument in favor of vegetarianism should spend a little time reflecting on how similar their arguments are to those in favor of religion. Give me a science-based argument instead of an emotional one and I’ll grant you 150 Internet points.

One thing that seems clear to me reading these comments is that vegetarians, by and large, are a little “holier than thou” in their attitudes. Is it justified? I cannot say I am enamored with modern meat production methods, but then neither are modern crop raising methods much better.
Most diets consist of killing – if not meat, then vegetables, which are just as much alive, but it is true they don’t scream as much.
Many vegetarians say they won’t eat meat because it involves killing. True, but the other side of that equation is that farm animals would not have a life at all if they were not eaten. No one is going to raise pigs because they enhance the view. Is it better to live and die or never to live? We are of course all going to die at some point.
Modern crop farming is not kind to the environment. Generally the ground is first sprayed to kill all weeds, and then the crops are sprayed several times for various pests. These are heavy doses, when you don’t wander around without protection. Generally crop fields are not good habitats for animals, and if they are pests they get dealt with. So every crop field is habitat removed from the wild where wild things might flourish.
If we try to get away from sentimental reasons to be a vegetarian, (most from what I can see) we need to consider what it good for animal life and how animals can thrive.This means allowing them habitat and not converting it all to cropland. One way is hunting. Humans were much easier on the environment when they were hunter gatherers, and even today, if you have a really large population off hunters, they provide a political force to keeping land wild where wild animals will thrive. This is positive for animal life, though most vegans may not agree. Unfortunately hunting populations are declining, and in the long rnu that is going to result in less wild habitat.
 It really does not matter what we eat. The problem is that we have out-competed other large mammals for habitat, and by taking more and more for us we have destroyed most of theirs. By far the best thing we can do for animals is to stop reproducing so much, and allow them a bit more room. Otherwise what you eat is not going to make that much difference.

forgot to mention the “meat substitutes.” I’m sure some people buy them in hopes of recovering a bit of the magic of eating flesh, but for most of us that’s not it. When you don’t eat meat, you are limited in what you can buy at restaurants and grocery stores. I think we’d all be better off if we got raw veggies and brought them home and cooked them, but sometimes we all get busy and it’s nice to have convenience foods. I don’t eat “fake meat” to recapture the meat glory, but sometimes I keep it around so I can toss it in the toaster oven a few minutes and end up with a meal that isn’t yet another plate of roasted vegetables.

How many people, honestly, eat a “balanced omnivore diet”?  It is recommended that you eat a small (palm-sized) portion of meat 3-5 times a week (not every meal, everyday), while eating mostly veggies. If meat-eaters at a balanced diet, then the United States wouldn’t be the fattest nation. Most meat-eaters don’t have any semblance of a “balanced diet”, look at that Atkins phase so long ago. That much protein is so bad for your kidneys, heart and brain.

Anyway, that was my point. No diet is perfect without work, even a meat-based one. There are more meat-eaters, so therefore by population size alone, there are more unhealthy meat-eaters than vegetarians. I couldn’t wager as to what the population percentages are [(like, say 50% of meat-eaters are unhealthy as opposed to 25% of vegetarians)<- not a real statistic, using for reference].  Though based on the fact that 2/3 of the United States is overweight (1/3 obese), and that being overweight causes more health problems, and that more people eat meat than don't, it stands to reason that more meat-eaters, by and large, are unhealthy compared to vegetarians/vegans.

 A vegetarian, vegan, or meat diet ALL require intense attention to make sure you get the nutrients you need. It seems to me, though, that vegetarians and vegans are more likely to do that than most meat-eaters, since people typically view meat as the most important part of a meal (it isn't, and shouldn't be).

I'm not saying my diet is better, or that you don't take health into consideration for yours, it's just the majority of people do not.

Pretty much anyone commenting here that hunts is doing it for ‘shits and giggles’, even if they then eat the results. None of us are subsistence hunters without readily available alternatives. 

The level of unthinking denialism that this issue brings out in meat eaters is extraordinary to see. It’s pretty widely accepted that killing people is basically wrong, though there’s a range of circumstances under which it may be an acceptable ‘lesser of two evils’ option. The same applies to killing animals – shorn of religious ideas that humans are special, or ‘chosen’, or that the world and universe revolve around us, there’s no reason to treat other creatures as qualitatively different.

So in short, yes, if you’re causing death and suffering when you don’t need to, you are a bad person. Regardless of who’s needless death and suffering you are choosing to cause.

As has been noted several times in this thread by people that are eating completely or partially vegetarian diets for financial reasons, vegetables are cheaper than meat. The only way you get around that is by comparing premium veg products with cheap crap meat.

This is interesting. My girlfriend and i (both vegetarians, for ethical reasons) have been discussing this for some time now. I think we’re both of the opinion that if it doesn’t experience consciousness, if it is not aware, it’s pretty much, er, on the table. Our general rule of thumb is that we don’t eat anything that once had a face. But meat-in-a-vat doesn’t walk around thinking. It’s not thinking meat. It’s just meat-slurry, totally disconnected from an individual conscious organism in pretty much every way.

A nervous system does not just give one the ability to feel pain, although that is a part of it. A nervous system also gives memories and personality. So by removing suffering, although that is a big motivator, I would still not eat animals.

Having personal ethic is one thing. Imposing one’s own personal ethics on others is another.

I was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian for 8 years because I’m not fond of meat and because killing animals makes me sad.  Problem is that I wasn’t healthy – had the immune system of a sickly stick.  I am now once again an omnivore and am much stronger and healthier.  That said – if they can make meat without killing I will absolutely eat it.  Bring it on!!!

You don’t like the smell of frying bacon? Wow. I have never heard anyone say that.

I would have thought that would be hard-wired into our brains: Meat, fat, salt and fire— gooooooddddddd. (Not good for us, per se, but good for our primitive ancestors who needed all three when they were very scarce in the diet).

Beer, I can understand, is an acquired taste just like wine (even good wine) has to be tried a few times before it’s really appreciated. But bacon – unpleasant? That’s almost incomprehensible.

One of my best friends growing up was Mormon and she often commented on how wonderful brewing coffee smells, although her mother (who sinned and tried a sip) told her it tasted awful, not at all like the smell. 

Since I read this far, I guess I’ll comment too. 

I like eating meat. It’s not central to my identity, but I enjoy eating it and that’s not something I’d like to change. If this fake meat was equal in quality and cost less, I’d probably buy it, but I doubt such a thing will happen.

I don’t agree with the ethical arguments for avoiding meat because I don’t agree that all suffering matters. It sounds to me like a spiritual argument. I think that human suffering matters because the oppression of my fellow humans either directly harms me or my loved ones, or it sets a precedent that increases the likelihood that me or my loved ones will be similarly oppressed. I don’t think the same thing happens when cattle are slaughtered.

If someone were to create a commercially-viable synthetic meat, the last thing they would need is a million bucks from PETA. They’d be filthy rich already. If PETA really wants to help make this happen, they should actively fund research. Telling someone you’ll fund them after they secure a multi-million dollar patent is just silly, and it doesn’t support the research.

Your ignorance of human evolution is overwhelming. Your assertions are completely unsupported by the evidence and only reflect what vegans and vegetarians spew to rationalize their dietary preference.

I’m a little skeptical as to your claim to have studied any science with your assertion phrased the way it was. Such sureness in your statement with no room for correction.
I’ve studied human evolution as well, and actually paid attention.
The evidence we have to date indicates that we evolved from scavengers into hunters. That’s a rather glaring omission on your part.

I have been a “vegetarian” for 15 years now. I don’t think killing animals is the problem. the way meat is currently produced is the problem, raising and killing in very inhumane manners. I find the notion that killing animals to eat them silly and unnatural. (animals kill animals for food. we are not different). To me, the actual solution should be a decrease in meat eaten. Meat shouldn’t be the main ingredient or the main food group. Treated as a side, not daily would be ok. Eating meat daily is a very new development mostly in rich countries. 
I also reduced the amount of sea animals I am eating, to decrease my footprint and support sustainability. thinking about these issues, yes I would eat meat that was grown in a lab. if they create delicious tuna instead of driving current bluefin tuna to extinction, bring it on!

um, just in case this is serious, we would stop raising so much livestock if we weren’t planning to eat it. It would be foolish to spend the resources otherwise. A few pet cows here and there, perhaps.

who said anything about imposing ethics? this was supposed to be about whether people would eat lab-grown meat. I’m pretty sure nobody is going to make you have any if you don’t want it.

You’re sick.

“Well, following your same line of logic, why shouldn’t I kill a fellow human for food simply because it has the capacity to suffer?”
 
Well, so much for that much vaunted rationality I hear so much about around here.
 
For the record, I did not offer any line of logic, because, ah, well, I made no claim pertaining to the subject.  Rather, my post to you was one request and two questions.
 
Be that as it may, while you do offer a conclusion of sorts, if this “conclusion” is a summation of what you have offered elsewhere, you offer no logical argument for a your claim.  Rather you offer your feelings.  You “feel” something is wrong.
 
I don’t want to know why you feel that way.  I want to know why you think that way, if in fact there is any though that approaches a rational argument.
 
Should someone cue the crickets at this point?

I stopped eating all meat 15 years ago because it physically hurt to eat it. I always say “go animals” but that’s not my reasoning. I’m glad not to support what I think is generally unsustainable, but at least the holier-than-thou meat eaters can’t argue with “it hurts”. (Seriously, I used to get a lot of flack from midwestern meat-n-potato dudes). I have since succumbed to fish, if it’s harvested consciously.

Has anyone read Oryx and Crake or The Year of the Flood? My visceral reaction to this question is “Ew, No!” but that’s based on these books, I think.

Actually, some very good meat substitutes are now provided in the form of soya products.  I like the burgers, I have no idea whether they actually taste of meat – but they are quite spicy.

Meanwhile, the local store started selling soya sausages, so I tried some, and found them disgusting!  However, others have since told me they taste just like German white pork sausages.
So I guess, if meat was cloned in vitro, I would still not like it. 

The New Humanism just posted an interesting blog on this topic.  http://thenewhumanism.org/authors/pawel-fiedor/articles/partners-in-nature
As I was reading through the comments here, one person said that if he had to kill the animals himself, he would be a vegetarian. But since he doesn’t, he eats meat. That’s interesting, because the reason I became a vegetarian was that same realization. If I had to kill an animal to eat, I would much rather eat something else. As much as I don’t want to kill an animal, I don’t want anyone else doing it for me either, especially because they may not even do it humanely. And for me, it’s not just the killing – it’s the breeding and then sticking animals in confined spaces with barely any light or fresh air. The whole industry is just cruel. But if there were a way to eat healthy meat without having anything to do with that industry or killing animals, then I would consider it.

http://letthemeatmeat.com/

Bonobos? Chimps? Wolves? Lions? Fish?
Bees? Ants?

Lots of non-human animals live and work groups – as well as have communication and social bonding. Human beings are not unique in this respect.

So, where did you hunt your dinner down?

If you got it shrink-wrapped from the super-market, there ain’t nothin’ natural about that.

 “I’m curious, are you pro-choice for abortion? ”

No.

Uh – have you had a veggie burger? they Do NOT taste like meat. they are a convenient way to eat a whole bunch of veggies in a bun.

Morality is entirely based on the feelings of individuals. If you can’t even agree that killing is wrong, I can only assume you’re a moral relativist. How am I supposed to argue from an objective point of view when morality is a subjective term? You may feel it’s wrong to do X, someone else might feel that it’s wrong to NOT do X. There’s no empirical test of moral right and wrong. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

In addition, I answered both of your questions. I’m sorry if I didn’t do it to your satisfaction, but I answered them. What you haven’t done is answer MY question. I’ve put on the table the moral stance “it is wrong to kill sentient beings for food.” You have rejected this stance. If it’s not wrong to kill a sentient being for food, where is the line drawn? How do we decide what beings are to be killed for food and what beings aren’t? How do we decide the sacred and the profane in terms of sentient food sources? My question is valid: If you reject the notion that it’s wrong to kill a sentient being for food, why SHOULDN’T I kill and eat a fellow human? Why SHOULDN’T I kill and eat a dog or a cat or whatever? Why not farm these animals? If I were to start a farm of dogs or cats or humans and treat them the way that livestock are treated on modern farms, I’d be brought in on charges of animal cruelty (or in the case of humans, unlawful detainment, assault, battery, murder, etc.) and “But Your Honor, I was going to eat those!” wouldn’t be a valid defense in a court of law. Why? Why are humans and animals that are commonly kept as pets exempt from the pool “can kill for food?” Make that moral argument for me, and keep it consistent with your “it is not wrong to kill sentient beings for food” argument. And if you’re arguing that it IS OK for me to eat human, dog, or cat, then your opinion may fall out of the mainstream and many people would consider you deranged, but at least it’s logically consistent.

Your second question, I answered pretty simply. It may have been too long, so here’s the TL;DR version: No.

 “Many vegetarians say they won’t eat meat because it involves killing.
True, but the other side of that equation is that farm animals would not
have a life at all if they were not eaten. No one is going to raise
pigs because they enhance the view. Is it better to live and die or
never to live? We are of course all going to die at some point.”

A double response here:

Firstly, the apt question is not “Is it better to live and die or never live?” It’s “Is it better to live under these conditions and die than to not live?” Context matters. Many abortion advocates bring up the social status of the hypothetical single mother that was raped and would hate her baby, and argue that the baby is better off to not be born. Many argue that it’s better for children in extreme poverty who starve to death within a month of life to have never been born and live through that suffering than it was for them to be born. I would argue that if Earth were colonized by some advanced species of alien or something and humans began to be raised as a food source, I would rather never be born than live that life. Anthropomorphizing? Sure, but at the same time it helps you see the point of view: Is it better for animals to live a life where they’re genetically modified to the point that it hampers their basic existence, fed food that they can’t digest properly, and (in the case of poultry) put in small cages leaving them immobile and having parts of them burned off or (in the case of cows and pigs) being branded, forcibly impregnated so they can produce milk, having parts of them burned or cut off, and then slaughtered after two years of life, OR, would it be better to not be born at all?

Secondly, there are some people who actually keep pigs as pets. They make pretty good pets because they’re intelligent creatures, they have personalities, and they’re generally pretty friendly. In addition, there are animal sanctuaries that keep animals like cows, chickens and pigs for no other reason than because they like them. I don’t think those places would disappear without a demand for meat, since they’re not in that market anyway.

I’m a vegetarian and I also am a cell biologist who works with mouse embryonic stem cells.  I find it kind of hypocritical that PETA won’t support animal research when it could help develop cures for human diseases (PETA always threatens our lab every year, and we’re conducting research that could help cure Alzheimer’s disease and MS), but that they will pay $1,000,000 to develop meat that gets through a loophole in the vegetarian diet?  They need to get their priorities straight if you ask me.

Appeal to ancientness. Food has meat and bones and blood. Most everything else is just filler. The rest should never be eaten, even if we can technically digest it.

“When you hunt down your food with only the tools nature provided you (no spears, knives, guns, bows or bludgeons), then you can talk to me about how lions and tigers do things.”

It’s pretty easy to catch a chicken. Just saying.

Also, when you say, “I don’t care what you eat,” and then launch into a holocaust analog, you may find that people doubt your sincerity. 

Wow. That’s a pretty big leap. I assume you avoid driving or riding in a car at night so as to avoid murdering innocent bugs. You don’t have to be religious to prefer your own species above others. Does this mean I kill puppies for fun? No, but it also doesn’t mean that killing an animal is morally equivalent to killing a person.

As a vegan for the big 3(Environmental, ethical AND health reasons) I might give it a try, but the fact that high cholesterol runs in my family(did you know ONE egg contains over half the amount of cholesterol recommended for consumption in a day? I used to eat two eggs and several strips of back back in my pre-gan days JUST for breakfast, imagine how much I was eating otherwise!) Anyway, I went veg initially for health reasons, so if it did become a common thing- cruelty free stem-cell meat I wouldn’t mind TRYING it, through I can’t see myself liking it anymore, meat smells gross enough as it is! That said, most of the time I would still eat vegan because I would’t hope for the best when eating at restaurants and such.

Of course, I’d encourage my omnivorous boyfriend to go after those options over “free range” meats any day, haha. 

That said, it still concerns me, that the original animal could have been killed and such as a result of the cell gathering. I will admit I don’t know much about stem-cell stuff, but yeah, if it harms the animal or restricts it to a crappy life, even if it’s only one or even 5 as compared to the millions of animals currently being raised for human consumption, I would still not be comfortable eating it.

That said, this seems like the ONLY thing Peta is doing right. I hate that “non-profit” so freaking much.

like all the feral hogs in TX

I’m omnivore but I’d try it at least once. My approach to food is this…moderation.  I’ve made plenty of meatless meals.  I do eat meat but do not find it necessary to eat a pound or more of it in a single sitting or even at every meal.  As I see it there is not a food item in existence that is not at first alive prior to becoming my food.  Everything must die for us to eat it.  The produce industry doesn’t exactly ease my mind in terms of food safety either considering the number of recalls of spinach, lettuce, sprouts and the like in recent years.  Besides as a Midwesterner where farms are a big part of people’s livelihood I don’t feel as though the environmental impacts of industrial farms are going completely ignored.  Seems to me that human ingenuity is taking it to a level to improve such things.  http://www.waste-management-world.com/index/display/article-display.articles.waste-management-world.waste-to-energy.2011.05.Biogas_to_Energy_from_Farm_Waste_Digestion_Showcased_at_AgSTAR.QP129867.dcmp=rss.page=1.html

Did you read the entire post and comments or just the parts that you wanted to hear? Hemant and a few others kept saying they don’t eat meat because animals have to die for us to be able to eat them, and that’s why not eating meat is ‘ethical’. (In other words, eating meat is unethical).

That’s what Sailor objected to.  Then Ewan piped up to defend the ‘I don’t eat meat so I’m more ethical than you’ stance, at which point my response came in.

You want to eat meat or not eat meat, that’s your choice and problem. Don’t go around making that an ethical problem.

If some others would like to discuss the sub topic of eating wild animals versus eating farmed animals and how one is more humane than the other or whatever else, they can have at it.

As for me, I’m a mass murderer who commits mass-genocide upon billions of microbes (also living things) everyday, but my dogs love me, so that’s okay. :oP Chicken little…

She’s probably talking about Chipotle cheese.

Or perhaps wild deer whose populations are so high that up to 50% of them may starve to death during a hard winter.

The indentations are killing me.

Reply to Stealing First Base:

“OK, what is morality based on? You’ve asked a lot about my world view, but steadily dodge any questions about yours.”
My morality?  I’m a Roman Catholic, so my morality is roundly rejected around here.  If you wish to offer specific rejections to the dogmas I follow (or even the dogmas you think I follow), knock yourself out.
However, since you claim that all morals are relative and based in feelings, I’m not sure upon what ground you stand to condemn or oppose anyone else’s morality.  After all, it’s just their morality, based on their feelings.  As valid as yours; no more, no less.I wrote: “If we hold that some non-human animals are sentient, then the answer would be, ‘It is not wrong categorically.'”You replied: “This implies that it is sometimes wrong. When is it wrong to kill a non-human animal for food? If I started my hypothetical dog farm and somehow was able to convince the legal system to allow it to stay open, would you be one of my first customers, or would you join the masses in saying ‘It’s messed up to do that to dogs’?”
Yeah, I think you need to work on your logical comprehension.
To say that it not categorically wrong to eat sentient animals (if that category includes non-human animals) is NOT to say that there is something wrong with eating non-human animals.  In fact, there isn’t anything objectively wrong with eating non-human animals.
The idea of eating dogs grosses me out.  But unlike you, I don’t make moral discernments based on my feelings.  So while I may say it’s messed up to eat dogs, I would not support any laws against it.
I wrote: “Draw the line between human | non-human.If you need an argument as to why people are in a different category, then I pity you.”You replied: “Since you want to throw relativistic morals out the window in this discussion, fine: Explain to me why, purely rationally speaking, we shouldn’t practice cannibalism. It’s practiced in other parts of the world, and while there is some problem with disease, there’s also disease risk in the animals that we do eat. So where is the rational argument for not eating fellow humans when you remove morals from the equation?”
Ah, this is funny, because I want to type this slowly, thinking it might help you comprehend better, but that’s just a silly feeling, so I’m typing at my usual pace.
Simply put, I don’t remove morals from the equation.
 

Sorry, I’ll try again.

Stealing First Base wrote: “OK, what is morality based on? You’ve asked a lot about my world view, but steadily dodge any questions about yours.”
 
My morality?  I’m a Roman Catholic, so my morality is roundly rejected around here.  If you wish to offer specific rejections to the dogmas I follow (or even the dogmas you think I follow), knock yourself out.
 
However, since you claim that all morals are relative and based in feelings, I’m not sure upon what ground you stand to condemn or oppose anyone else’s morality.  After all, it’s just their morality, based on their feelings.  As valid as yours; no more, no less.
I wrote: “If we hold that some non-human animals are sentient, then the answer would be, ‘It is not wrong categorically.'”
You replied: “This implies that it is sometimes wrong. When is it wrong to kill a non-human animal for food? If I started my hypothetical dog farm and somehow was able to convince the legal system to allow it to stay open, would you be one of my first customers, or would you join the masses in saying ‘It’s messed up to do that to dogs’?”
Yeah, I think you need to work on your logical comprehension.
 
To say that it not categorically wrong to eat sentient animals (if that category includes non-human animals) is NOT to say that there is something wrong with eating non-human animals.  In fact, there isn’t anything objectively wrong with eating non-human animals.
The idea of eating dogs grosses me out.  But unlike you, I don’t make moral discernments based on my feelings.  So while I may say it’s messed up to eat dogs, I would not support any laws against it.
 
I wrote: “Draw the line between human | non-human.
If you need an argument as to why people are in a different category, then I pity you.”
You replied: “Since you want to throw relativistic morals out the window in this discussion, fine: Explain to me why, purely rationally speaking, we shouldn’t practice cannibalism. It’s practiced in other parts of the world, and while there is some problem with disease, there’s also disease risk in the animals that we do eat. So where is the rational argument for not eating fellow humans when you remove morals from the equation?”
 
Ah, this is funny, because I want to type this slowly, thinking it might help you comprehend better, but that’s just a silly feeling, so I’m typing at my usual pace.
Simply put, I don’t remove morals from the equation.
 
 

Yeah, and finding pure Mole sauce is difficult.

I always get strange looks at the market when I ask for a jar of Wholly Mole.

“…but what if you could harvest meat from livinganimals without inflicting pain? ”

There would be lots of recipes.

“My morality?  I’m a Roman Catholic, so my morality is roundly rejected
around here.  If you wish to offer specific rejections to the dogmas I
follow (or even the dogmas you think I follow), knock yourself out.”

Ah, OK gotcha. So to you it’s OK to eat meat because the invisible man in the sky said so. Now it makes sense.

“However, since you claim that all morals are relative and based in
feelings, I’m not sure upon what ground you stand to condemn or oppose
anyone else’s morality.  After all, it’s just their morality, based on
their feelings.  As valid as yours; no more, no less.”

It’s the old concept of the marketplace of ideas. Morals are subjective, and they’re based largely on individuals and culture, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t hold their views strongly. Just as I’m sure you hold your religious faith strongly, most people hold at least some areas of their world view very dear. This is one that I hold dear. It would behoove me, then, to try to bring others around to my way of thinking. Because morals are subjective rather than set in stone, people can change their minds about moral issues. A pro choice person can become pro life. A racist can become accepting of all races. (Just ask the Mormons! HIYO!) A theist can become an atheist, an atheist a theist, and a meat eater a vegetarian. However, to get from point A to point B you have to have your perceptions challenged. To get someone else from point A to point B you have to challenge their perceptions. You don’t do that by not talking about the issue.

“In fact, there isn’t anything objectively wrong with eating non-human animals.”

And humans? Why is it objectively wrong to eat humans? I would argue it’s wrong, you would argue it’s wrong, but where’s the objective standard?

“Simply put, I don’t remove morals from the equation.”

Maybe not, but you seem to rely on them only when it’s convenient, offering an objective view in some parts of the discussion and falling back on morals when asked a question like “what’s objectively wrong about eating humans?” So why is it right for you to use your morals in this discussion but wrong for me to do so?

“The idea of eating dogs grosses me out.”

What about it grosses you out? Could it be that because you’ve grown up in a culture where dogs are kept as pets and not eaten, your morals have developed in a way similar to that culture and now you find eating dogs to be an unpleasant thought? Do you allow for the possibility that had you grown up in a culture where dogs were eaten but not kept as pets you may feel very differently?

“But unlike you, I don’t make
moral discernments based on my feelings.”

Maybe not, but like everyone else you make them based at least partly on your culture.

“So while I may say it’s messed
up to eat dogs, I would not support any laws against it.”

Where did I say I would support laws banning meat production? The only time I brought laws into the equation is when I said that if I raised dogs as meat and treated them the way that farmed animals are treated I’d be charged with animal cruelty. I never said I’d ban meat production. I happen to be a libertarian.

“I don’t think those places would disappear without a demand for meat, since they’re not in that market anyway.”
No, but that is a very small number. Consider, if everyone went vegetarian tomorrow, how many millions of animals would have to be killed as they are not useful?
Having raised animals for food, I can tell you in he time they have allotted to them they seem to get a good kick out of life. Most small farmer that raise animals are very fond of them. But they must make a living too, and while I don’t know of anyone who enjoys killing farm animals, it is done as quickly and painlessly as possible. Think of a farm that raises only vegetables, then think of a farm that is a mixture of veggies, some chickens, a few cows in the field, a few pigs. Which is the most appealing? I like the diversity of the latter, and cannot see it as any less moral than the former.

You’re not one of those atheists who claim to be really smart are you?

Even your anti-theist snark is pretty lame.

“Where did I say I would support laws banning meat production?” you ask.

Where did I say you said such a thing?  I was making a statement about myself, not you.

You really should study formal logic (specifically the distinctions of universal, particular, positive, and negative propositions, and their relative convertabilities), and then you should work on parsing statments properly so as to recognize which of these a particular proposition happens to be.

Oh, and maybe try not to let your feelings compel you to make lame (i.e. invalid) inferences.

These suggestions presume your posts accurately relfect you cognitive ability.  If, however, you’re just trollishly snarky, nevermind.

To make such a statement one must be infinitely dense, or a liar.

Valid point, but they’re also not mutually exclusive things. Do you deny that your culture has any influence on your feelings?

At any rate, as you continue to have nothing substantial to say re: eating animals, I’m going to go ahead and end this discussion. Good day.

“My morality?  I’m a Roman Catholic”  What has that got to do with your morality?  It is like saying “My morality?  I’m a member of the gym.”  Being in a club or chapter of club Christian doesn’t say anything about your morality at all other than that you are willing to defer your own moral judgements to an authority figure.

Do you have any proof to back this claim, or is this the same rhetoric you accuse vegetarians of spewing?

What aspects of evolution are you talking about, since it is a rather broad topic (biologically, sociologically, culturally, technologically)?

I have made steps towards a vegetarian diet such as soy milk instead of cow’s milk along with more fruits & vegetables partly because of the live exports scandal down here in Australia.
To those who may balk at a vegetarian diet I can assure you it’s not bland as it sometimes is sterotyped & helps the planet as well too as a bonus.

Our teeth attest to our need for more vegetables and less meat, not what you seem to think. When you get a chance, take a look at your average omnivore/carnivore’s teeth. You see that one called the canine that is conical in shape? Yeah, we don’t have that. Ours are splayed, not conical, nor do they have any serrations like many predators.

Look at their backs molars. Notice how they are spiked, with sharp ridges on the top? Yeah, ours are flat and fat, not thin and jagged.

Reality: Our teeth are more akin to horses and cows (herbivores) than most all meat-heavy omnivores (like dogs, cats, etc.). We CAN eat meat, and in SMALL quantities, it MAY be helpful and positive for our health. However our bodies are meant to process HIGHER amounts of vegetables than meats, which is the natural diet for our bodies (as evolution resulted).

Our ability to eat meat is more of a result of our tool use and fire making skills. Our jaw is meant for grinding and chewing, like one does with plant matter, not for tearing and slicing like most omnivores.

Also our jaw is further proof of our greater need for vegetables instead of meat. As with our teeth, our jaw is meant for grinding and chewing. Our lateral motion is common in herbivores, whereas a most omnivores and carnivores have jaws that simply open and close; you know, for catching onto the prey they chased down and to keep it from getting away. Then they use their conical-shaped teeth to tear small bits of flesh and muscle away to swallow un-chewed into their short intestinal tracts.

Like most herbivores, we have a quite long intestinal tract. This serves to process and break down plant matter, which is not an easy thing to do always (ask a cow). Carnivores and meat-heavy omnivores usually have much shorter intestinal tracts.

I know humans are omnivores, I never said we weren’t. That doesn’t mean
we should eat more meat than vegetables. We aren’t obligate carnivores; which means we don’t HAVE to eat meat like, say, cats. Our bodies prefer
vegetables, as our physiology shows.

Regarding the “natural” argument,  I was merely pointing out the way that it is, in fact, natural. Buying your meat in a store is not natural in any sense of the term. Many meat-eaters make the claim that eating meat is “natural”, my point was that how they procure it isn’t natural so the fact that eating may be is irrelevant; unless they get the meat a way that is actually “natural”.

You’re right we do live in a world where all humans hunting for their individually needed food supplies is impractical. So is wasting massive land resources, food resources, water resources, and manpower on an overabundance on an unneeded food supply.

Humans don’t NEED to eat meat, as the millions of surviving vegetarians can prove. We don’t live in a world where wasting the resources on a horrible cost to outcome scale the amount of resources it takes to get a cow to slaughter weight is MORE than what the same amount for the people that would benefit from the cows meat; it’s WORSE for the world to continue these (rising) levels of meat farming.

Where did I ever say I am more “ethical” than someone else? Can you show that to me, ’cause I’m pretty sure I’ve never claimed to be “more ethical” than someone else. I have always said I have a “different” set of ethics.

And, FYI, I actually said “Being a vegetarian (or eating FAR LESS MEAT) is the healthiest diet a human can have…” Which is the truth, as most doctors and nutritionists would agree. Less meat, or no meat, is better for your heart and brain health.

Which makes it FAR more fucked up, if you ask me.

Women can’t be misogynist?

Your counter-argument is irrelevant. You equate the sexual practices of humans with cows, pigs, and chickens (not even a mammal!); while also ignoring WHY cows, pigs, and chickens in the wild become pregnant every year.

Forcing an animal to become pregnant for monetary gain is no different than rape; it’s still a violation. Sure, in the wild, rape occurs- but so does consensual mating. Is that really too different from humans?

Medical care?! Such a pointless non sequitur. Animals being farmed receive medical care for one reason: profit. If a cow develops diabetes do you think they’d receive daily injections of insulin, or one injection of a metal bolt to the brain? They are being sustained merely to provide profit; a life-extension that continues their exploitation and suffering.

I love that you think it’s okay for an animal that’s ‘Just going to get pregnant anyway’ to be forcefully impregnated. Not to be crass but I have heard men say the same thing about women; some religions even write into the scripture. It’s called “making excuses for rape”. You justify it by thinking non-human animals are distinctly lesser than you. In reality they are simply this: different.

The only species humans are “better” than are the ones that died out in the evolutionary arms race. And the only reason we are better than them (for now) is that we’re still alive (Ha!, take that Great Irish Elk).

She’s probably talking about the fast food restaurant chain.

There’s an interesting book on this subject: The Covenant of the Wild.  Basically the author argues that species that have been domesticated are much more successful than species that have not been.  For example, there is only a very small population of wild horses left in the world (true wild horses, not feral ones that roam the American southwest) while domesticated horses number in the millions.  

Would you rather live the life of a typical farmed animal or not live at all?

Deliciousness is NOT lack substance.

hoverFrog,

Do I agree with your post?  In a way yes, in a way no.

Mentioning my faith was intended as shorthand for where I stand on certain issues.

My faith is not is not a case of deferring my moral judgments to an authority figure.  No doubt many, perhaps even most, Catholics do just that.

But for the record, I came to my moral judgements as an agnostic who was very close to being an atheist.

In other words, the Catholic Church had zero influence on the conclusions I had made and which I still hold today.

So, your are right to object that my being a Roman Catholic has anything to do with making the moral judgments I have made.

But you would be wrong to think that the conclusions have nothing in common with Catholicism; they mirror them.

Ah. So for all your faith in a higher power, at the end of the day it’s your base senses that inform your decisions.

Your apparent total lack of any ability to recognize irony or sarcasm is astounding.

As astounding as it is, it is rivaled by your penchant for non sequitur.

Have you lived anywhere with deer, or that they have reintroduced their natural predators? I have lived in MT and WY. I support the reintroduction of wolves, but um, wolves, cougars, etc  can be very dangerous to people. I don’t assume you want to send your kids to schools with huge fences around them to keep out huge “natural predators”.  We are natural predators of deer too. 

That is the stupidest argument I’ve ever heard, and your equating homesteaders and farmers with slave-owners is nothing short of douche-tastic.

The people who used the “slaves are not human” argument to support slavery were A) clearly wrong in both the factual and the ethical sense and B) in many cases, on to the fact that they were wrong, but for economic reasons continued to spout the mantra (think of Jefferson’s “peculiar institution”). My pigs are clearly not people. Your argument not only falls flat, but offends.

And I have to wonder why, if we are to equate people with wolves, cows, and chickens…why is it perfectly okay for carnivorous animals to eat other animals, but not okay for people? Or are hunters off the hook?

Regarding meat and the evolution of the brain, have a look at this post that calls into question the “Expensive-Tissue Hypothesis”:
http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/2010/08/rip-eth.html

Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories:
http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/

Chrissy Jones is right.
Number of Animals Killed to Produce One Million Calories in Eight Food Categories: 
http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/

By Oden’s beard…… I love watching atheists fight.  They’re all so self righteous and “have science on their side.”  

This is one of the reasons I said I would be the faculty adviser for the student group on my campus.  

Even if it tasted great, I would still prefer meat from animals.
I raise a lot of my own meat, and my animals appear to be happy.
Better to have a good life, albeit shorter than possible, than to have no life at all.

Electroencephalography suggests the capacity for functional pain
perception in premature infants probably does not exist before 29 or 30
weeks; this study asserted that withdrawal reflexes and changes in heart
rates and hormone levels in response to invasive procedures are
reflexes that do not indicate fetal pain.[2]

Also in 2005, Mellor and colleagues reviewed several lines of
evidence that suggested a fetus does not awaken during its time in the
womb. Mellor notes that much of the literature on fetal pain simply
extrapolates from findings and research on premature babies. He
questions the value of such data:

Systematic studies of fetal neurological function suggest, however,
that there are major differences in the in utero environment and fetal
neural state that make it likely that this assumption is substantially
incorrect.

The whole world isn’t going to go vegetarian at once.  Production of food animals would simply dwindle down through the normal cycle of supply and demand.

At this point I probably wouldn’t care. I really don’t have any cravings for real meat products, and the animal cruelty factor was never my only concern.  Even if labratory-grown meat got to the point where it was cheap and ubiquitous, it’s still probably not that good for you.

I’ve been an atheist for 24 years and a vegetarian for 3. I arrived at the decision to cut out the meat after years of knowing it was probably the best thing for my health and the environment but lacking the willpower  to do it.  Eventually I began eating meat only once a week (Meatful Mondays, anyone?), and about a year later I cut that out too.

The environmental effects of meat production are pretty clear cut and well documented. Requiring 8 pounds of grain to create one pound of meat just isn’t good math, and meat production has a more damaging effect on the climate than the entire transportation industry.

Healthwise, let’s just start with the fact that factory farms are pretty disgusting (google Meet Your Meat). Aside from that, the consumption of animal protein has been linked to cancer, and the high percentage of meat in the Western diet is the most direct cause of heart disease, obesity and the concomitant type 2 Diabetes.