INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

This forum is set aside for the BHA Humanist Vegetarian Group. All of Think Humanism's registered users are welcome to participate. If you wish to receive news and announcements from this group, please register with the HVG user group. See instructions near the top of the HVG forum.

Moderator: clayto

Message
Author
User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#41 Post by Paolo » September 24th, 2008, 6:10 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Back to the topic - apologies for the previous mini-rant.

I have a very good friend who has been vegetarian or vegan for all of his adult life and we regularly engage in conversations about eating meat (I personally enjoy eating meat), particularly when we lived together and shared a kitchen (during which time he wavered about his long-term veganism and eventually caved in to the joys of cheese, whilst I maintained an mostly vegetarian diet when at home).

He has been wavering about trying meat (organic, free range, humanely reared, etc.) but one of the big barriers he has identified with this is that he considers his vegetarianism as part of who he is (Emma, you are not alone). One big influence is that he recently married an Italian, so he is being exposed to a different social perspective on eating meat than the one he grew up with. That and the fact that he is a fantastic cook and a bit of a "foodie" and he feels he is missing out on whole spectrum of cuisine.

His original concerns about welfare and sustainability have become less important since demand by a wider section of society has moved towards making humanely reared and slaughtered meat more widely available.

My personal opinions about eating meat come down to my views on morality. I think that causing another organism to suffer is bad, but I also think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable. I think that people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves (not just buy it in a sealed plastic tray). Meat can taste wonderful. Meat is not bad for you if it isn't eaten too often and it provides a great source of amino acids that can be harder to get from a vegetarian diet. Most importantly, meat is increasingly available from humane sources, mostly due to increased demand. By only eating humanely sourced meat the power of the pound (or dollar, or Euro, or...) makes positive changes towards increasingly humane farming practices. Since the vast majority of the population still eat meat (and are unlikely to change their minds anytime soon) I think that supporting humanely farmed meat will improve the lot for farm animals more than vegetarianism can.

User avatar
Kevin Saldanha
Posts: 4
Joined: September 24th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#42 Post by Kevin Saldanha » September 24th, 2008, 7:29 pm

An interesting read on the philosophy of vegetarianism is 'Deep Vegetarianism' by Canadian professor Michael Allen Fox http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1399_reg.html

Another book I found interesting but a more difficult 'historical' read was 'The Bloodless Revolution' by Tristram Stuart
http://www.amazon.com/Bloodless-Revolut ... 0393052206

At our last humanist meeting, I was the only practicing vegetarian, although many members were 'tending towards' vegetarianism, having reduced their meat consumption radically or changed over to locally reared, organic (ie. farm raised) meats.

It is a very personal choice for most people and not something that can be rationalized or religiously demanded as is the case with many eastern religions. Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread on this topic.

Kevin

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#43 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » September 25th, 2008, 8:42 pm

Paolo wrote:I think that causing another organism to suffer is bad, but I also think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable.
For any organism? I mean, obviously you don't think a quick (and involuntary) death is "perfectly acceptable" for a human being. What about for a healthy chimpanzee? Or a healthy golden eagle? Or a healthy wolf, one that's not causing any harm to anyone? Or a healthy (and equally harmless) dog or cat? Do you really think there's absolutely nothing wrong with shortening an animal's life when it's not necessary? Do you think that any animals are entitled to any of the kinds of freedoms that we grant to human beings? The freedom, perhaps, just to be left alone to get on with their lives in a suitable habitat and not be interfered with, if it's not necessary? If not, why not? And if it's only cattle, sheep, pigs, chicken and turkeys who aren't entitled to those freedoms, why do they get the short straw?
Paolo wrote:I think that people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves (not just buy it in a sealed plastic tray).
Why?
Paolo wrote:Meat can taste wonderful.
Many people think that dogs taste wonderful. And that horses taste wonderful. And that various other animals that the average Brit or North American would not consider as potential food ... taste wonderful. But people can, and do, get by without eating dogs, horses, monkeys, kangaroos, etc. They don't need to eat them. Just as they don't need to eat cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or turkeys. Does that fact that something tastes (or sounds, or looks, or smells, or feels) wonderful provide justification for an act that deprives a sentient creature of its life and causes it at least some pain and distress?
Paolo wrote:Meat is not bad for you if it isn't eaten too often ...
Yes, I agree.
Paolo wrote:... and it provides a great source of amino acids that can be harder to get from a vegetarian diet.
But it's not at all hard to get your full complement of essential amino acids from a vegetarian diet, or even from a vegan diet. So this really isn't an issue [---][/---] at least, not in the developed world, where people tend to eat more protein than they need anyway.
Paolo wrote:Most importantly, meat is increasingly available from humane sources, mostly due to increased demand. By only eating humanely sourced meat the power of the pound (or dollar, or Euro, or...) makes positive changes towards increasingly humane farming practices. Since the vast majority of the population still eat meat (and are unlikely to change their minds anytime soon) I think that supporting humanely farmed meat will improve the lot for farm animals more than vegetarianism can.
Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. :D I do think it is possible that one day meat will be available from humane sources (see, for example, "Scientists aim for lab-grown meat"), although I suspect it will be expensive to produce and that those most able to afford it will be also most likely to turn their noses up at the very idea. But I reject the notion that organic, free-range meat is from "humane sources", if that's what you had in mind. Yes, it's less cruel. It's a better option than meat from intensively reared animals. But unless it's done on a very small (and hence uncommercial) scale, it's not going to be truly humane. Slaughter, on the kind of scale necessary to meet existing demands for animal flesh (let alone growing demands) is going to cause suffering. It's unavoidable. If we treat animals like crops, like commodities, if we exploit them as natural resources, then the scope for humane considerations is very limited.

In any case, while I do agree that the vast majority of the population who still eat meat are unlikely to change their minds any time soon, I doubt that the vast majority of them, let alone the people in places like China and India who are swiftly increasing their meat consumption, are going to be willing to pay a premium for organic, free-range meat. People want cheap food, understandably. Cheap meat means more suffering for animals.

What is necessary, in my view, is an overall reduction in meat consumption, and that can be achieved both through an increase in vegetarianism and an increase in the number of people reducing their meat consumption. If the demand for meat remains steady, or increases, then the least cruel (or most "humane") methods of livestock production and slaughter cannot possibly meet that demand. If the developed world reduces its meat consumption significantly, then we might find it slightly easier to discourage the developing world from increasing theirs to levels that necessitate the cruellest and most intensive methods of livestock production. And of course, if people reduce the amount of meat they eat, they'll find it easier to afford the free-range organic stuff. :)

Emma

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#44 Post by Alan C. » September 25th, 2008, 9:26 pm

Emma
Do you think that any animals are entitled to any of the kinds of freedoms that we grant to human beings? The freedom, perhaps, just to be left alone to get on with their lives in a suitable habitat and not be interfered with, if it's not necessary? If not, why not? And if it's only cattle, sheep, pigs, chicken and turkeys who aren't entitled to those freedoms, why do they get the short straw?
Emma, I have pointed out (more than once) in this forum.
If we didn't eat cattle, sheep, pigs, and chickens, they wouldn't exist (Turkeys would probably still survive in the wild)
The 325,000 sheep here in Shetland, wouldn't survive one winter without somebody forking out the cash to buy them food, the people providing this food are not going to do it just because they like to see sheep in the fields, they need a return on their investment.
In short, if we all stopped eating meat there would be no sheep, cows, pigs, goats, or chickens, would that be a good thing? (and no, this isn't my justification for eating meat, I eat it because I like it)
When I had to return to Cumbria for my sisters funeral during the foot and mouth fiasco, it was heartbreaking driving past mile after mile of empty fields, the animals having all been slaughtered and burned.
In conclusion, to advocate vegetarianism for all, you would be condemning a whole range of animal species to extinction.

As Nick (I believe) said a while ago, "our way they get a life (albeit a shortened one) the vegetarians way, they never get a life at all"
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#45 Post by Paolo » September 25th, 2008, 10:08 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:I think that causing another organism to suffer is bad, but I also think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable.
For any organism? I mean, obviously you don't think a quick (and involuntary) death is "perfectly acceptable" for a human being.
You assume too much here, I actually do think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable for human beings and is preferable to a slow painful death. You added "involuntary" and although I do not think it is right to go around killing people, I do think that too much value can be placed on life (after all, we are just disposable transport vessels for our DNA) and under some circumstances (and with approval from society) it is acceptable for a human life to be taken.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:I think that people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves (not just buy it in a sealed plastic tray).
Why?
By willing I mean they should understand what is involved and still be willing. Many people eat meat who would not dream of having to slaughter or butcher (or sometimes even cook) it. If the only people who ate meat were those who willing to kill and process it there would be more vegetarians.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:Meat can taste wonderful.
Many people think that dogs taste wonderful. And that horses taste wonderful. And that various other animals that the average Brit or North American would not consider as potential food ... taste wonderful. But people can, and do, get by without eating dogs, horses, monkeys, kangaroos, etc. They don't need to eat them. Just as they don't need to eat cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens or turkeys. Does that fact that something tastes (or sounds, or looks, or smells, or feels) wonderful provide justification for an act that deprives a sentient creature of its life and causes it at least some pain and distress?
Yes, but with provisions. If something is rare (endangered rather than undercooked), don't kill it. If something is wild and not a pest, don't kill it. If something is domesticated or has a population large enough to render it a nuisance (to individuals of it's own population in particular) then I would consider it fair game for a humane kill and then eat it. Dog, cat, horse, rabbit, even humans in some cultures - they're all food and I for one am not confident enough that our society is righteous enough to say that people who eat them are wrong.[/quote]
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:Meat is not bad for you if it isn't eaten too often ...
Yes, I agree.
Hooray! That's one thing we agree on!
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:... and it provides a great source of amino acids that can be harder to get from a vegetarian diet.
But it's not at all hard to get your full complement of essential amino acids from a vegetarian diet, or even from a vegan diet. So this really isn't an issue [---][/---] at least, not in the developed world, where people tend to eat more protein than they need anyway.
Paolo wrote:Most importantly, meat is increasingly available from humane sources, mostly due to increased demand. By only eating humanely sourced meat the power of the pound (or dollar, or Euro, or...) makes positive changes towards increasingly humane farming practices. Since the vast majority of the population still eat meat (and are unlikely to change their minds anytime soon) I think that supporting humanely farmed meat will improve the lot for farm animals more than vegetarianism can.
Unsurprisingly, I don't agree. :D I do think it is possible that one day meat will be available from humane sources (see, for example, "Scientists aim for lab-grown meat"), although I suspect it will be expensive to produce and that those most able to afford it will be also most likely to turn their noses up at the very idea. But I reject the notion that organic, free-range meat is from "humane sources", if that's what you had in mind. Yes, it's less cruel. It's a better option than meat from intensively reared animals. But unless it's done on a very small (and hence uncommercial) scale, it's not going to be truly humane. Slaughter, on the kind of scale necessary to meet existing demands for animal flesh (let alone growing demands) is going to cause suffering. It's unavoidable. If we treat animals like crops, like commodities, if we exploit them as natural resources, then the scope for humane considerations is very limited.

In any case, while I do agree that the vast majority of the population who still eat meat are unlikely to change their minds any time soon, I doubt that the vast majority of them, let alone the people in places like China and India who are swiftly increasing their meat consumption, are going to be willing to pay a premium for organic, free-range meat. People want cheap food, understandably. Cheap meat means more suffering for animals.

What is necessary, in my view, is an overall reduction in meat consumption, and that can be achieved both through an increase in vegetarianism and an increase in the number of people reducing their meat consumption. If the demand for meat remains steady, or increases, then the least cruel (or most "humane") methods of livestock production and slaughter cannot possibly meet that demand. If the developed world reduces its meat consumption significantly, then we might find it slightly easier to discourage the developing world from increasing theirs to levels that necessitate the cruellest and most intensive methods of livestock production. And of course, if people reduce the amount of meat they eat, they'll find it easier to afford the free-range organic stuff. :)

Emma
To be honest, I do agree with you that people should eat less meat. The meat that people do eat should be as humanely produced as possible. However, we evolved as meat eaters, our society is geared up towards eating some meat (and has been for a very, very, very long time). My personal view is that the human population needs to be reduced quite dramatically for any farming, cereal or meat, to be morally justifiable, when one considers the environmental damage and suffering to wildlife that they both cause. Perhaps I should go fruitarian? Joking aside, all agriculture has an massive impact on the planet, so if it's a case of drawing an arbitrary line somewhere, I choose to draw it where I want.

clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#46 Post by clayto » September 26th, 2008, 9:19 am

Alan C yet again repeats his claim that various animal species would not exist if they were not reared for meat but as various contributors here have explained why this is false on manyocassions I am not going to go round that circle again. However I was interested to note on last week's Country File a vegetarian sheep rearer was featured, a farming business which reared sheep only for their wool and did not kill any of them for meat, claiming they had a successful business model which did not involve slaughter.

I live near to a major zoo full of numerous different species of animal none of whom will be killed and eaten by humans (although if the lions and tigers escape humans might be eaten by them).

Chris
clayto

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#47 Post by Paolo » September 26th, 2008, 9:47 am

Farming for wool would not work for cows or pigs. Milk production inevitably leads to calves that are surplus to requirement (after all, cows only lactate just before and for a while after they've given birth) so a similar system wouldn't work for these animals.

As for zoos, who wants to start a discussion about the ethical implications there? A sustainable and humanely run free range farm isn't so different to a zoo, except the animals on the farm have been bred to live in captivity over thousands of years, rather than being wild animals (often with huge natural ranges) which have been shoved in a pitifully small enclosure. At the end of their stay the animals in zoos usually have a fatal injection or are shot due to disease (which may or may not include old age) whereas the animals on a farm will be killed sooner using a boltgun or electrocution. Noone here seems to be arguing that intensive and inhumane farming techniques are desireable, so the issue of battery hens and crated cows is not pertinent to this discussion.

clayto
Posts: 384
Joined: July 22nd, 2007, 6:34 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#48 Post by clayto » September 26th, 2008, 9:52 am

"Farming for wool would not work for cows or pigs." Now there is a revelation, did anyone really not know that! :laughter:

Chris
clayto

MedMae
Posts: 167
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 9:46 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#49 Post by MedMae » September 26th, 2008, 11:08 am

I have a friend who lives in the new forrest, they often eat venison from deer which they hunt themselves. The reason that they have to kill the deer is to prevent the population form growing too big because all the natural predators have been eradicated except for humans. If we did not control the populations of deer in the uk then there would soon be too many deer leading to a great deal of damage to the environment and most if not all of the deer dieing of starvation.

So which is the more ethical solution to let the deer population go out of control and let them starve or control the population by killing them? and if you kill them is it more ehtical to eat them ourselves or leave them to rot? Bearing in mind that leaving them to rot would result in a glut of food for scavengers potentially creating a excess population of scavengers which would then have the same overpopulation problems.

Paolo wrote:
since instead of fathering future generations I am currently sitting here on a computer typing out concepts...
But you type out such interesting concepts much better that I could.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#50 Post by Paolo » September 26th, 2008, 11:32 am

MedMae wrote:I have a friend who lives in the new forrest, they often eat venison from deer which they hunt themselves. The reason that they have to kill the deer is to prevent the population form growing too big because all the natural predators have been eradicated except for humans....

Paolo wrote:
since instead of fathering future generations I am currently sitting here on a computer typing out concepts...
But you type out such interesting concepts much better that I could.
Great example MedMae and thanks for the comment about concepts - not sure it's entirely true though! I'm sure my mother would prefer that I was fathering offspring, since I got married she's become obsessed with the idea of grandchildren (an example of how we are still slaves to evolutionary processes I guess).

User avatar
Kevin Saldanha
Posts: 4
Joined: September 24th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#51 Post by Kevin Saldanha » September 26th, 2008, 6:51 pm

clayto wrote:However I was interested to note on last week's Country File a vegetarian sheep rearer was featured, a farming business which reared sheep only for their wool and did not kill any of them for meat, claiming they had a successful business model which did not involve slaughter.
Slaughter would be the least of their problems.... there are so many alternatives to wool and silk available today that breeding animals, whether sheep or moths for fabric is unnecessary except for our own vanity. I was glad to hear that muesling sheep is not practiced in the UK but if animals are being bred to provide us with food or clothes, a certain amount of responsibility for their comfort must be ensured. (How comfortable is a pupa that is steamed out of its cocoon?) The Humane Society of the US has been accused of disapproving of pet ownership, which is another way we exploit non-human animals. At least, for the most part, we make sure that they live their lives in relative comfort and security.

Kevin

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#52 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » September 26th, 2008, 11:33 pm

Kevin Saldanha wrote:I was glad to hear that muesling sheep is not practiced in the UK
:laughter: Sorry, Kevin. I just had visions of sheep being dipped in muesli ... a safer alternative to organophosphates, perhaps? But I knew you meant to type mulesing. Perhaps you had breakfast on your mind?

Emma

User avatar
Kevin Saldanha
Posts: 4
Joined: September 24th, 2008, 4:49 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#53 Post by Kevin Saldanha » September 26th, 2008, 11:56 pm

sorry for the typo... milspaced L :deadhorse:

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#54 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » September 27th, 2008, 1:15 am

Paolo wrote:
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:... obviously you don't think a quick (and involuntary) death is "perfectly acceptable" for a human being.
You assume too much here, I actually do think that a quick death is perfectly acceptable for human beings and is preferable to a slow painful death. You added "involuntary" ...
I added "involuntary" because we were talking about slaughtering animals for meat, and as far as I know the Ameglian Major Cow from the Restaurant at the End of the Universe is not yet a reality, and animals are not yet offering themselves up to be slaughtered, cooked and eaten.
Paolo wrote:... and although I do not think it is right to go around killing people, I do think that too much value can be placed on life ...
Yes, I agree. Nevertheless, just as I don't think it is right to go around killing people, unless it's absolutely necessary or unavoidable, I also don't think it is all right to go around killing other animals, unless it's absolutely necessary or unavoidable.
Paolo wrote:(after all, we are just disposable transport vessels for our DNA) ...
:sad: Is that just a flippant throw-away comment, or do you really think that?
Paolo wrote:... and under some circumstances (and with approval from society) it is acceptable for a human life to be taken.
And under some circumstances it is acceptable for the life of a non-human animal to be taken. But what you said was that a quick death is "perfectly acceptable", not that it is acceptable in certain circumstances.
Paolo wrote:By willing I mean they should understand what is involved and still be willing. Many people eat meat who would not dream of having to slaughter or butcher (or sometimes even cook) it. If the only people who ate meat were those who willing to kill and process it there would be more vegetarians.
I can't deny that. But surely that's not your reason for thinking that "people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves (not just buy it in a sealed plastic tray)". You haven't explained why you think that way. There are plenty of people in this world who do essential jobs that other people are not willing to do. If the only people who flushed their bodily wastes into the sewage system were those who were willing to clean and maintain and repair said sewage system, risking gastroenteritis, hepatitis, Weil's disease, skin and eye infections and occupational asthma, then ... well, some of us would install our own composting toilets, which would be great, but the rest of us would be knee-deep in shit. If the only people who bought and ate food of any kind were those who were willing to grow it and process it and package it and transport it and sell it in supermarkets, then most of us would starve. If the only people who went to hospital were those who were willing to empty bed pans ... You get the idea. Most people "wouldn't dream" of doing all sorts of things that are essential in an effective society. So I ask again, why do you think that people willing to eat meat should also be willing to rear it, slaughter it and butcher it themselves? If other people are willing to rear meat, slaughter it and butcher it for them, why should they have to worry about it? After all, some people are squeamish, or clumsy, or weak, through no fault of their own. Why should it be only the strong-armed and strong-stomached who are allowed to tuck into a juicy steak or succulent turkey breast? :sick:
Paolo wrote:
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Does that fact that something tastes (or sounds, or looks, or smells, or feels) wonderful provide justification for an act that deprives a sentient creature of its life and causes it at least some pain and distress?
Yes, but with provisions. If something is rare (endangered rather than undercooked), don't kill it. If something is wild and not a pest, don't kill it. If something is domesticated or has a population large enough to render it a nuisance (to individuals of it's own population in particular) then I would consider it fair game for a humane kill and then eat it.
In the case of cattle, sheep, pigs, chickens and turkeys, "domesticated" means "bred for food". And when it comes to killing and eating animals that are bred for food, the issue isn't just about people killing and eating those animals; it's about them being bred for food in the first place. Being bred to provide a "high yield", being bred to maximise profitability. What right to do we have to artificially select animals for breeding, to tinker with their DNA, which clearly you think is very important, primarily for the purposes of making money, and not for the sake of the health of those animals?
Paolo wrote:Dog, cat, horse, rabbit, even humans in some cultures - they're all food and I for one am not confident enough that our society is righteous enough to say that people who eat them are wrong.
Again, I kind of agree with you. And I'd go further, and say that many of the people who eat whales, antelope, monkeys, scaly anteaters and even gorillas :supershock: are not wrong. But still, I'm not sure that I understand your perspective. You said that your "personal opinions about eating meat" come down to your "views on morality". So it is a moral issue for you, not merely a personal matter of drawing an arbitrary line where you want to (see below). The implication is that you think that eating meat is morally right, or at least morally acceptable [---][/---] with the provisos you give: that the meat should be "humanely" reared and slaughtered, and that wild animals should not be eaten unless they have large and unsustainable populations. What exactly is it that we owe non-human animals, do you think? What responsibilities do we have? What is your objection, exactly, to killing wild animals with small populations for food? Is it all about DNA?
Paolo wrote:To be honest, I do agree with you that people should eat less meat. The meat that people do eat should be as humanely produced as possible. However, we evolved as meat eaters, our society is geared up towards eating some meat (and has been for a very, very, very long time). My personal view is that the human population needs to be reduced quite dramatically ...
But we evolved as enthusiastic sexual reproducers. Our societies are geared up towards enthusiastic sexual reproduction (and have been for a very, very, very long time)...
Paolo wrote:My personal view is that the human population needs to be reduced quite dramatically for any farming, cereal or meat, to be morally justifiable, when one considers the environmental damage and suffering to wildlife that they both cause. Perhaps I should go fruitarian? Joking aside, all agriculture has an massive impact on the planet, so if it's a case of drawing an arbitrary line somewhere, I choose to draw it where I want.
Evidently. But could you be drawing it in a better place? After all, the choice is not simply between eating meat and eating cereal. People who eat meat eat cereal too, directly and indirectly. The evidence seems to be pretty overwhelming that a largely plant-based diet for the planet's population would be much more sustainable, in terms of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, energy use, water use and land use, than a diet that includes a significant amount of meat. But farming of some kind is, surely, morally justifiable because there is, at present, no alternative. We can't go back to being hunter-gatherers. Without farming, billions of people would die. Even if you think we're just temporary vessels for DNA, that would surely be a bit of a tragedy, no? I mean, trying to reduce the population through improving education and women's rights and living standards is one thing, but mass starvation can't be an attractive option.

Emma

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#55 Post by Paolo » September 27th, 2008, 8:36 am

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Paolo wrote:(after all, we are just disposable transport vessels for our DNA) ...
:sad: Is that just a flippant throw-away comment, or do you really think that?
Paolo wrote:
Yes, I really do think that. It is not a "flippant throw-away comment", it is a description of exactly how things are. It is a fundamental concept that people do not seem to appreciate.

The quality of the vessel can be better or worse and as a vessel myself I can appreciate others of higher quality (and others with which I have some interaction), but that does not alter the simple and fundamental truth of what I am (along with every other living organism).

Perhaps this is part of the reason I'm not overly bothered about eating other (fluffier) vessels.

User avatar
LilacHamster
Posts: 209
Joined: August 1st, 2008, 11:54 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#56 Post by LilacHamster » October 3rd, 2008, 2:04 pm

I regard the suffering of animals as a bad enough thing that I believe human liberty should be curtailed to stop the atrocities, so I do not agree with you Paolo that forcing vegetarianism would necessarily be wrong.
If we had a majority of people already vegetarian I think it would be quite reasonable to enforce it, just as we have a ban on hunting. More animals suffer for meat than foxes suffered for hunting. I think it would be right to ban it now but just not possible or realistic yet. Sometimes some of us have to lose freedoms to allow others their lives and freedoms, and I would put an animal's life above a humans right to kill and eat it. You have to weigh up the levels of suffering on both sides. I believe that animals suffer far more the way things are now than humans could possibly suffer by being forced to give up meat. I would like to see the slaughter of animals for meat become illegal and hope it will happen in my lifetime although I don't believe it actually will.
Let the battle commence..
but it had to be said, why should people be free to kill and eat animals, no-one has shown me a good argument why it should even be allowed, certainly in a society where we can live perfectly well without..

Edited to add, link to meat abolition article for anyone who is interested in reading about the concept,

http://www.cahiers-antispecistes.org/sp ... article369

User avatar
Paolo
Posts: 1474
Joined: September 13th, 2008, 9:15 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#57 Post by Paolo » October 3rd, 2008, 4:05 pm

I would like to hold off on the detailed conversation with Chris until it can be shifted to a different thread - it may not be totally off-topic, but it is certainly highly tangential to it at the moment!
LilacHamster wrote:I regard the suffering of animals as a bad enough thing that I believe human liberty should be curtailed to stop the atrocities, so I do not agree with you Paolo that forcing vegetarianism would necessarily be wrong.
And I think that coercing people who don't agree with your opinion is wrong. What makes vegetarianism/veganism any different to a religion if its principles are based on what the members of the group believe? Look at it from a different perspective - should all cars be banned? I say yes, because I personally don't like cars and I don't drive. Cars kill and maim hundreds of thousands of animals (including humans) every year, they pollute the environment, they use resources that provoke wars, they necessitate road networks that eradicate swathes of the countryside - and we don't need them, since we have trains, bicycles, boats, etc. The reasons for banning cars are just as valid as the reasons you cite for banning meat.

How would a ban on eating meat be enforced without causing an increase in suffering of humans? You'd need a punishment for those who broke the rules, what will you do? Lock them up in overcrowded jails? What happens to the vast numbers of people who's livelihood depends on animal derived produce? Most of these people are not demons who cackle wildly as they prod cattle bloody with pitchforks - they are people who are doing a job to feed their family (few people want to work in an abbatoir, you'll be surprised to find out). Where do the new jobs come from? Ban combine harvesters and get people to do it by hand? Well that will keep them busy for a couple of months a year at most. Plant food production is highly seasonal and cannot provide steady employment for large numbers of people. Meat products are hugely varied and less seasonal.

On a pragmatic level, how do you expect people to react - just accept it? People would continue to eat meat, but production would be driven underground, creating even worse conditions for the animals involved and increasing the risk of disease due to loss of standards. I personally would fight for the right to eat meat (even if I agree with the some of the reasons for banning it) and I hate to sound like a fascist, but if it came to a fight/riots between the vegetarian minority and the meat-eating masses (which would include most of the military and police forces) I think I know what the outcome would be.
LilacHamster wrote:I regard the suffering of animals as a bad enough thing...
The only way to stop the suffering of any living organism is to kill it or to prevent it from being born. Everything suffers. In the wild animals suffer when ill, when fighting, during childbirth, when attacked by predators, when they have accidents, when they starve, etc. etc. Much of human life is about suffering too. We may not like it, but it happens. At least animals reared for meat are treated when they are ill or injured, are fed and watered regularly, have assisted births, are prevented from fighting and have a relatively quick and painless death compared to their wild counterparts (I'm not talking about intensive farming here, because as I've said before, I disagree with such practices and I refuse to defend them). Given a choice I'd rather have a boltgun in the brain than die of pancreatic cancer - of course I don't have a choice about how I die (unless I commit suicide) and neither does anything else.

I fail to see why humans shouldn't have the right to kill another organism when every other organism that is able is "entitled" to kill. Humans are constantly dying due to the actions of other organisms - mosquitos transmit Plasmodium that kill over a million people a year, bees sting, snakes bite, peanuts poison. Life is harder for those who are not middle-class, educated and moderately affluent (the socio-economic status of the majority of people who are vegetarians by choice rather than necessity) - it can be a nasty struggle and those who are lucky enough to have a bit of cushioning against that tend to forget it.

I don't consider the argument of stopping suffering to be sufficient (or even valid when humane farming techniques are employed, given the universal nature of suffering), as described above. You can disagree with me on that (I know you will - and it is your right to do so), but your disagreement is not enough to provide a rational justification for the curtailing of human liberty without a rational argument to back it up.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#58 Post by Nick » October 3rd, 2008, 5:41 pm

Your response to Lilachampster is spot on, Paolo! :clap:

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9306
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#59 Post by Maria Mac » October 4th, 2008, 12:25 pm

Several posts have been split from this thread to make two new topics:

Can humans rise above their origins?

We are just disposable transport vessels for our DNA

User avatar
LilacHamster
Posts: 209
Joined: August 1st, 2008, 11:54 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#60 Post by LilacHamster » October 4th, 2008, 4:03 pm

Paolo,

I'd actually agree with you about cars and the harm they do although it would not be realistic to ban them until public transport is improved a lot in this country. In London it's not so bad but in many rural areas it is non-existent, this is why I would not condemn everyone who uses cars. It is far easier to be vegan than not to have a car, even though I don't drive, I personally find it more inconvenient with a family to be a non-driver than it is being a vegan family (my husband also does not drive).

I believe vegetarianism and veganism is different from religion, eating meat causes a huge amount more suffering and early death than religion, if you consider animals in the wider picture. The numbers killed for food are 1680 a second, or 53 billion land animals worldwide, so that is not even counting the fish.

How do you ban murder without causing some suffering to those who break the law? Obviously there has to be some way of dealing with murderers. It's the same with meat. Your argument is meaningless to me because you are a speciesist while I try at least to be less speciesist than most people (I don't claim to always get it right because of killing headlice when the kids get them because they are parasites and I don't see any alternative).

The article I linked to does discuss the issue of people whose livelihood depends on animal farming. But again justifying meat in this way makes as much sense as justifying weapons production and war just because it creates jobs. People will still need to be fed even when we are all vegan or vegetarian, so there will always be jobs in the food industry.

At some point in the future yes I do believe people will accept it, and it will happen, even if not in our lifetime.

I also agree that to stop the suffering many of the animals should never come into existence, fewer would exist if we had only non-animal agriculture, and it is better that fewer should exist. The world cannot sustain mass meat production, this is what is wrecking the environment even more so than transport.

I guess you do not agree with my views becuase you do not see speciesism on the same level as racism, sexism and other discrimination, but people will come round to this view, it is already gathering momentum, thanks to Peter Singer and more recently others such as Gary Francione who is even more radical than Singer.

I want to see animal slavery totally abolished, I don't see anything wrong with asserting that position but I know it will take a long time because we have still not banned human slavery everywhere.

MedMae
Posts: 167
Joined: March 14th, 2008, 9:46 am

Re: Why are some thoughtful people vegetarian and others not?

#61 Post by MedMae » October 4th, 2008, 10:11 pm

Firstly.
So what about all the pest species that get poisoned for the plant crops? You mention 1680 animals killed per second for meat, it is likely that the number of animals poisoned as pests would be in the millions or more per second.

Secondly.
LilacHamster wrote:
Your argument is meaningless to me because you are a speciesist while I try at least to be less speciesist than most people.
But don't you think it is speciesist to expect Humans (which are evolved to be omnivores) to not eat meat and yet it is ok for pigs and bears (Other omnivores) to eat meat. Thats double standards, one for them and a different one for us.
Complexity is just simplicity multiplied to a point which exceeds a particular level of comprehension. - Theowarner

Post Reply