Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 299

Thread: Vegetarianism

  1. #1
    Jai Keshava NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,286
    Blog Entries
    451

    Vegetarianism

    Hello, I wanted to bring this up. I'm not judging people for their diet-choice of non-vegetarianism, because that would be hypocritical since I ate meat off and on for a few years. However I wished to share some thoughts (in quotes) which struck me. I'm excluding quotes which are more graphic or which attempt to shock, as I don't think it's necessary or necessarily effective. My goal is simply to encourage people to become or at least think about becoming vegetarian.


    To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body.
    Mahatma Gandhi

    Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.
    Albert Einstein

    One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle.
    Henry David Thoreau

    Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay.
    George Bernard Shaw


    Truely man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.
    Leonardo da Vinci

    If he be really and seriously seeking to live a good life, the first thing from which he will abstain will always be the use of animal food, because ...its use is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an act which is contrary to the moral feeling -- killing.
    Leo Tolstoy

    The Utopians feel that slaughtering our fellow creatures gradually destroys the sense of compassion, which is the finest sentiment of which our human nature is capable.
    Thomas More

    People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times.
    Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904- )

  2. #2
    In a rainbow. Mortis Anarchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Tulsa
    Posts
    1,206
    Blog Entries
    39
    I've been an on/off vegetarian for the past few years...whenever I do eat meat, I avoid red meats, especially pork and beef. But I do eat chicken now...but where I buy my groceries they have a lot of cage-free products as well as hormone free. My vegan friend calls me a conscious eater, which I would agree with. It really isn't that hard, especially with all of the options now for vegetarians/vegans.

    I really like that Singer and Gandhi quote. Very powerful.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    26
    I've been a lacto-ove vegetarian for I think seven months and it's probably one of the best decisions I've made in my life so far. Although it does mean going through a conversation about it every time someone finds out I'm a vegetarian, but I deal with it. Ha.

  4. #4
    Devotion PierreGringoire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    154
    Blog Entries
    1
    I've thought about this. Have you ever thought about what I'm about to say?:
    There are many main classes of animals.
    You have: reptiles, amphibians, birds (animals that lay eggs),... and mammals.
    Mammals are most like us. So don't eat mammals but eat everything else. (very incomplete argument).

    I think eating a diet of vegetables is very stimulating for your moral values (It makes you a better person), (provided you don't eat twinkies and doritos as substitutes). Its very plain and its humbling because of that. It also promotes consciousness of everything else you eat. And sometimes all you need is a little stimulus to do the "right thing" in life, and feeling refreshed all the time becasue of a super healthy vegetarian diet can limit the negative effects you have on other people because of poor eating choices/habits which may promote a certain amount of irritablility. Life is about limiting the variables.

  5. #5
    Asa Nisi Masa mayneverhave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by NikolaiI View Post
    Think of the fierce energy concentrated in an acorn! You bury it in the ground, and it explodes into an oak! Bury a sheep, and nothing happens but decay.
    George Bernard Shaw
    This is absurd rhetoric. The act of burying an acorn in order to grow it into an oak is the reproduction cycle of trees - what amounts to two sheep copulating to produce a new sheep.

    That's as stupid as saying "If I inseminate a fertile sheep with an acorn, nothing comes of it (except sheer discomfort). How useless acorns are!"

    Quote Originally Posted by PierreGringoire View Post
    Life is about limiting the variables.
    How un-Falstaffian of you.
    Last edited by mayneverhave; 12-14-2008 at 06:06 AM.

  6. #6
    Jai Keshava NikolaiI's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    heart
    Posts
    7,286
    Blog Entries
    451
    Quote Originally Posted by PierreGringoire View Post
    I've thought about this. Have you ever thought about what I'm about to say?:
    There are many main classes of animals.
    You have: reptiles, amphibians, birds (animals that lay eggs),... and mammals.
    Mammals are most like us. So don't eat mammals but eat everything else. (very incomplete argument).

    I think eating a diet of vegetables is very stimulating for your moral values (It makes you a better person), (provided you don't eat twinkies and doritos as substitutes). Its very plain and its humbling because of that. It also promotes consciousness of everything else you eat. And sometimes all you need is a little stimulus to do the "right thing" in life, and feeling refreshed all the time becasue of a super healthy vegetarian diet can limit the negative effects you have on other people because of poor eating choices/habits which may promote a certain amount of irritablility. Life is about limiting the variables.
    Kind of. I feel strongly about it anyway, that it's so much, so much better not to eat any animals at all. When I did become fully vegetarian it was such a relief, and it helped me grow a lot. Are you a vegetarian then too?

    Quote Originally Posted by mayneverhave View Post
    This is absurd rhetoric. The act of burying an acorn in order to grow it into an oak is the reproduction cycle of trees - what amounts to two sheep copulating to produce a new sheep.

    That's as stupid as saying "If I inseminate a fertile sheep with an acorn, nothing comes of it (except sheer discomfort). How useless acorns are!"
    You may be right that it's out of place. I probably should have used a different quote from Shaw. Do you think the rest of the quotes are equally meaningless/stupid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mortis Anarchy View Post
    I've been an on/off vegetarian for the past few years...whenever I do eat meat, I avoid red meats, especially pork and beef. But I do eat chicken now...but where I buy my groceries they have a lot of cage-free products as well as hormone free. My vegan friend calls me a conscious eater, which I would agree with. It really isn't that hard, especially with all of the options now for vegetarians/vegans.

    I really like that Singer and Gandhi quote. Very powerful.
    No, no, it's not that hard at all, although it does exclude the majority of restaurants (at least in America). That's how I was for a couple of years but I really regret it and I won't eat meat anymore.. thanks for your reply!

    Quote Originally Posted by AshleyMare
    I've been a lacto-ove vegetarian for I think seven months and it's probably one of the best decisions I've made in my life so far. Although it does mean going through a conversation about it every time someone finds out I'm a vegetarian, but I deal with it. Ha.
    I feel that way about my decision too. Thanks for the response.

  7. #7
    Devotion PierreGringoire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    154
    Blog Entries
    1
    I am not a vegetarian. But I realize its potential.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Little Paris in Decay
    Posts
    93
    In order to provide vegetal food for consumers, crops and orchards must replace natural ecosystems. Even the animals that thrive in such environments, such as rodents, insects and birds have to be kept in check, otherwise the harvest would be compromised.
    The plants' lives and evolutionary paths are also controlled by humans; less productive species and subspecies will be weeded out. Extensive agriculture is a much more sinister human activity than, let's say, hunting, as it asserts control over entire species rather than individuals, and entire habitats are siezed for the better manipulation of said species.

    Regarding the benefits of green food, Einstein is certainly entiteled to his opinion, but note that he said "evolve" rather than "suddenly change". Also note that the planet's most resourcefull species are omnivores, followed by carnivores and insectivores. Our lifestyles demand a lot of energy and a variety of nutrients. An ox may be strong (he isn't as smart as a tiger though), but he also has a different metabolysm than humans. We can't survive on grass. We are not ruminators and such a diet would get us sick in a short time. Even if we go for green food, which I consider to be a good and healthy idea by the way, we require diversity and complexity in the menu.
    But if all the globe's human population switches exclusively to such a menu, it would be very hard or impossible to supply for the demand, especially without further harming the environment.

    I think the situation is far more complex than thinking wether or not the thing in your plate was able to move and had to be killed to get there (plants are alive too by the way, when you eat a carrot you destroy the whole biological entity). Life feeds on life, such is the natural way. What should actually concern us is susteinability and genetic future of the species involved in our food chain. I think that's the trully responsible/enlightened perspective.

  9. #9
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    In order to provide vegetal food for consumers, crops and orchards must replace natural ecosystems. Even the animals that thrive in such environments, such as rodents, insects and birds have to be kept in check, otherwise the harvest would be compromised.
    The plants' lives and evolutionary paths are also controlled by humans; less productive species and subspecies will be weeded out. Extensive agriculture is a much more sinister human activity than, let's say, hunting, as it asserts control over entire species rather than individuals, and entire habitats are siezed for the better manipulation of said species.

    Regarding the benefits of green food, Einstein is certainly entiteled to his opinion, but note that he said "evolve" rather than "suddenly change". Also note that the planet's most resourcefull species are omnivores, followed by carnivores and insectivores. Our lifestyles demand a lot of energy and a variety of nutrients. An ox may be strong (he isn't as smart as a tiger though), but he also has a different metabolysm than humans. We can't survive on grass. We are not ruminators and such a diet would get us sick in a short time. Even if we go for green food, which I consider to be a good and healthy idea by the way, we require diversity and complexity in the menu.
    But if all the globe's human population switches exclusively to such a menu, it would be very hard or impossible to supply for the demand, especially without further harming the environment.

    I think the situation is far more complex than thinking wether or not the thing in your plate was able to move and had to be killed to get there (plants are alive too by the way, when you eat a carrot you destroy the whole biological entity). Life feeds on life, such is the natural way. What should actually concern us is susteinability and genetic future of the species involved in our food chain. I think that's the trully responsible/enlightened perspective.
    I'm sorry, but this is entirely wrong. What your argument ignores, Petronius, is how very much more intensive animal farming is than arable farming. It's not hard to work out at least one reason why: farm animals have to be fed on something, so vast tracts of land are used to farm grains and grasses to feed them when the same land could have been used to farm crops for human consumption. And that's not to mention all the acreages of rain-forest destroyed to make way for ruminants, predominantly cows, to graze, a double or even triple environmental whammy: destruction of the rain-forest contributes to global warming, cow dung releases methane - more warming - numerous other species lose their habitats and indigenous people lose their traditional sources of sustenance; and finally, the soil in these areas is actually unsuited to growing grass, so, after a while, the cattle farmers have to move on, destroying more forest and leaving the land effectively barren (and highly susceptible to flooding). Did I say triple? Forget it. I've lost count. It's just like, really ****ing totally ****, basically.

    As the (vast) population of China becomes wealthier as a whole, their demand for meat increases and this is one of the factors commonly cited to explain increasing food shortages globally. Not that westerners with their extraordinarily high consumption of meat have any right to point the finger. Under current conditions, there is a direct correlation between the number of meat eaters in the world and the number of people going hungry. And the latter, resulting from the former, are by far the larger number, increasing exponentially. If sustainability is really what you're concerned with, a vast increase in vegetarianism globally would be a major step towards this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius
    Life feeds on life, such is the natural way.
    By which you mean that eating meat is natural. Be very very cautious about using nature to justify anything. As Brecht said, 'We should never mistake what is common for what is natural.' There are many many incidences of humans surviving very well indeed without meat. In fact, they tend, in the main, to live longer without it, perhaps because a diet dependent on vegetables, especially one that includes a lot of nuts and pulses, is liable to contain a much more varied range of nutrients than one dependent on meat. Ever hear of the wealthy woman who would eat nothing but chicken - and died of malnutrition? Besides, meat is certainly harder for humans to digest.

    It's quite right what you say about omnivores being the most resourceful species - and it gives the lie to your later remarks about different metabolisms. The point is that ours are adaptable. We're lucky enough to be able to gain nutrition from a huge variety of foodstuffs. Distinct from other animals, we're also able to make rational and ethical choices.

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Little Paris in Decay
    Posts
    93
    I'm sorry, but this is entirely wrong. What your argument ignores, Petronius, is how very much more intensive animal farming is than arable farming. It's not hard to work out at least one reason why: farm animals have to be fed on something, so vast tracts of land are used to farm grains and grasses to feed them when the same land could have been used to farm crops for human consumption. And that's not to mention all the acreages of rain-forest destroyed to make way for ruminants, predominantly cows, to graze, a double or even triple environmental whammy: destruction of the rain-forest contributes to global warming, cow dung releases methane - more warming - numerous other species lose their habitats and indigenous people lose their traditional sources of sustenance; and finally, the soil in these areas is actually unsuited to growing grass, so, after a while, the cattle farmers have to move on, destroying more forest and leaving the land effectively barren (and highly susceptible to flooding). Did I say triple? Forget it. I've lost count. It's just like, really ****ing totally ****, basically.
    Very good points. However, agriculture includes animal farming, at least where I come from, so I did not exclude it from being anti-environmental.
    That doesn't mean though that crops are entirely eco-friendly and they don't involve any destruction of life.
    Exclude milk and eggs that these animals produce for us, as well as their meat, and you would only replace one kind of farm land with another (you said it yourself). There is a difference between irresponsible agricultural habits and the unsustainability of that branch of agriculture. The problem with south american countries is that they have relatively little land for planting crops; they mostly produce coffee, cocoa and soy (which some vegetarians use), for which there is more world-wide demand and helps their economy. That they feel entitled to practice animal farming in such unusual and destructive ways is a consequence to this.

    If sustainability is really what you're concerned with, a vast increase in vegetarianism globally would be a major step towards this.
    No, the only thing that would help sustainability is decrease of human population. Vegetarianism might, on short term, seem like a good idea (although I have severe doubts that an entirely plant-based diet would be as healthy as it is claimed and that it would not require a similarly strict control to prevent negative side effects), but even if it is sustainable now, it would only lead to a new wave of ignorant confidence and relief, further increasing the rate of growth for human population and eventually straining our natural resources.

    By which you mean that eating meat is natural. Be very very cautious about using nature to justify anything. As Brecht said, 'We should never mistake what is common for what is natural.' There are many many incidences of humans surviving very well indeed without meat. In fact, they tend, in the main, to live longer without it, perhaps because a diet dependent on vegetables, especially one that includes a lot of nuts and pulses, is liable to contain a much more varied range of nutrients than one dependent on meat. Ever hear of the wealthy woman who would eat nothing but chicken - and died of malnutrition? Besides, meat is certainly harder for humans to digest.

    It's quite right what you say about omnivores being the most resourceful species - and it gives the lie to your later remarks about different metabolisms. The point is that ours are adaptable. We're lucky enough to be able to gain nutrition from a huge variety of foodstuffs. Distinct from other animals, we're also able to make rational and ethical choices.
    Some people are allergic to things like nuts, berries and citrics, which makes me wonder if extensive, sustained consumption can't at some point be harmful for a healthy person as well.
    I never claimed humans can't survive without meat, or that we shouldn't eat less meat and more fruits/vegetables, but why exclude animal products entirely? According to a study, vegetarianism helps lower the risk for heart disease, but has a higher risk for stomach cancer than a meat-eating diet. In fact, it was found that fish-eaters actually have the healthiest lives, followed closely by diary & egg-including vegetarians and occasional meat eaters (these two having the same overall mortality ratio). Vegans actually fare just as bad as regular meat-consumers in terms of mortality rates.

    Omnivores are resourceful precisely because they can combine and switch between multiple diets and gain benefits from either or both, not because they can regress right back to being herbivores (or carnivores for that matter).
    I think not eating animal products for moral issues linked to the killing of individuals is a bit silly, because those animals will still be part of a food chain, being hunted or fighting for resources, wether we intervene or not and yes, that is very natural.

  11. #11
    biting writer
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    when it is not pc, philly
    Posts
    2,184
    Oh come on. Life, in order to be sustaining, is a process of consumption, and primates eat meat, not all of them, but it is in the species. One can take issue with the morality of industrialized farming of herd animals, like cattle and horses and pigs, and I have an intrinsic distaste for blood sport, though I accept hunters who hunt to put food on the table, but plants have a right to life as well, if one is going to take it that far, but if the grass isn't cropped, the herds starve, and if the herds aren't stalked, the health of the herd suffers. What humans do badly is to compete unfairly, and slaughter our high end competitors and herds alike in too vast a quantity, and the irony of that will be we're setting the stage for our own vast die off, because we eliminate diversity. I do not think we can ultimately survive on corn force fed to cattle, as is done in the US, which has an epidemic of heart disease due to it.

    Respect for life is one thing, but accepting that life has to die for life that needs to eat is just as valid. I don't like it when my cats kill mice, but as carnivores that is what they do, and I dispose of said remains, however unpleasant, but if someone killed my cats I'd probably do my damnest to commit murder in return--it is killing in malice that humans have to answer for.

    Well, lions kill in malice, but that is balanced biological competition, and we won that game before recorded history, and should have the decency to keep our aggression in check. This doesn't mean an all green diet is right for our design type.

  12. #12
    Something's Gone hoope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Dad's Heart
    Posts
    1,026
    Oh God Nikolai! ... Do u mean eating Meat is not good ?
    Even chicken :-( ............i love grilled chicken but lamb meat not much i can stop that .

    well .. lets get to the point ! Ok i agree with the idea that eating more vergetables is healthier & better for us ( medical side ) But that doesn't mean we should stop eating meat at all.. our body need special proteins that are present in meat, components that we need for our survival that are not available in vegetables. Now that is why Eating meat was never forbidden, eating other animals might be quite harsh but its not a crime . And God has created all these creature for helping human being .
    Though , I guess its not hard to stop eating meat & becoming a vegetarian. But honestly i have never tired so, nor i met someone who is.?
    Do vegetarian eat egg ? lol ( well i know they don't eat chicken but what about the egg) .
    "He is asleep. Though his mettle was sorely tried,
    He lived, and when he lost his angel, died.
    It happened calmly, on its own,
    The way the night comes when day is done."



  13. #13
    Ataraxia bazarov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    In spleen
    Posts
    2,219
    Once when I get why is homo homini lupus, they I will think with why is homo lupo lupus!

    Killing of an animal for food and leather is a moral crime, but wearing diamonds that made some kid suffer and being tortured somewhere in Africa is OK? Vegetarianism is one of the most hypocritic issues in todays society; if it isn't from health or ''I don't like it's taste'' reasons.
    At thunder and tempest, At the world's coldheartedness,
    During times of heavy loss And when you're sad
    The greatest art on earth Is to seem uncomplicatedly gay.

    To get things clear, they have to firstly be very unclear. But if you get them too quickly, you probably got them wrong.
    If you need me urgent, send me a PM

  14. #14
    unidentified hit record blp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,436
    Blog Entries
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    Very good points. However, agriculture includes animal farming, at least where I come from, so I did not exclude it from being anti-environmental.
    That doesn't mean though that crops are entirely eco-friendly and they don't involve any destruction of life.
    My argument wasn't about the ethics of destruction of life and I wasn't trying to put forward a plan for perfectly eco-friendly farming. All I was trying to do was refute the idea you seemed to be putting forward that, if we switched as a global population to a vegetarian diet, it would be very difficult to meet the world's needs. The point is, land used for farming plants can feed many many more people than land used for farming animals and there is a direct relationship between the demand, in wealthy countries, for meat, and food shortages in poorer countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    Exclude milk and eggs that these animals produce for us, as well as their meat, and you would only replace one kind of farm land with another (you said it yourself).
    Did I? You'd replace very low-yield farmland with very high-yield farmland.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    There is a difference between irresponsible agricultural habits and the unsustainability of that branch of agriculture. The problem with south american countries is that they have relatively little land for planting crops; they mostly produce coffee, cocoa and soy (which some vegetarians use), for which there is more world-wide demand and helps their economy. That they feel entitled to practice animal farming in such unusual and destructive ways is a consequence to this.
    That rich countries have a very high demand for meat is what perpetuates this. Take away the demand and the practice would stop.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    No, the only thing that would help sustainability is decrease of human population.
    The only thing? Sorry, but this is a simplistic argument and it touches on subjects too big to go into here. Suffice it to say, populations increase most rapidly in conditions of poverty. In wealthier countries, indigenous populations are actually in decline. Ergo, increase wealth in the poorer countries and the likelihood is, populations would shrink there too. How to do this is what's too big to go into here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    Vegetarianism might, on short term, seem like a good idea (although I have severe doubts that an entirely plant-based diet would be as healthy as it is claimed and that it would not require a similarly strict control to prevent negative side effects), but even if it is sustainable now, it would only lead to a new wave of ignorant confidence and relief, further increasing the rate of growth for human population and eventually straining our natural resources.
    Like wha-?

    OK, it's true you can't eat just any veggie diet and be OK. You need to make sure you get your basics: protein, B12, iron, calcium etc. But that's not that hard and a lot cheaper than getting it from meat. Anyway, tons of meat eaters are malnourished because they don't know the right things to eat either. Just making sure you've got a lot of meat in your diet is not the way to ensure health.

    'increasing the rate of growth for human population'? Er, so what you're saying is, a global veggie diet might be too beneficial for humanity? I'm really really tempted to break Godwin's law at this point. No, wait, I can get around it: Well hark at you, Mr. Malthus. Perhaps you'd like to put forward your own modest proposal for addressing both over-population and food scarcity.

    The following piece, by a leading environmentalist, tackles the population question head on and deals specifically with the question of food production near the end, backing up my points about the wastefulness of large-scale meat production. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf....greenpolitics

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    Some people are allergic to things like nuts, berries and citrics, which makes me wonder if extensive, sustained consumption can't at some point be harmful for a healthy person as well.
    Sustained consumption of...what? Vegetable matter? Sorry, but this is just empty scaremongering. The world of edible plants is extremely varied. There isn't a nutritionist in the world who'd suggest going without any vegetable matter because there's no way you could get enough nutrition if you did. Everything you get from meat, however, can be got without eating meat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    I never claimed humans can't survive without meat, or that we shouldn't eat less meat and more fruits/vegetables, but why exclude animal products entirely? According to a study, vegetarianism helps lower the risk for heart disease, but has a higher risk for stomach cancer than a meat-eating diet.
    That's flat-out not true. The following is a direct quote from the paper:

    For the other causes of death examined (lung cancer, stomach cancer, cerebrovascular disease, and other causes) no overall association with vegetarianism was expected and none was observed.
    And furthermore

    In conclusion, vegetarians had a 24% lower mortality from ischemic heart disease than nonvegetarians, but no associations of a vegetarian diet with other major causes of death were established.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    In fact, it was found that fish-eaters actually have the healthiest lives, followed closely by diary & egg-including vegetarians and occasional meat eaters (these two having the same overall mortality ratio). Vegans actually fare just as bad as regular meat-consumers in terms of mortality rates.
    Could you point to where these finding occur in that paper? I didn't even see any reference to vegans.


    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    Omnivores are resourceful precisely because they can combine and switch between multiple diets and gain benefits from either or both, not because they can regress right back to being herbivores (or carnivores for that matter).
    Just because you call it 'regress' doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Petronius View Post
    I think not eating animal products for moral issues linked to the killing of individuals is a bit silly, because those animals will still be part of a food chain, being hunted or fighting for resources, wether we intervene or not and yes, that is very natural.
    There's nothing natural about current industrial farming practices of either animals or vegetables and they have very little to do with food chains or bio-diversity in general. You'd be on a stronger footing if you pointed out that domesticated animals such as cows and pigs wouldn't survive in the wild at all. The only reason they're alive at all at this point is because they're farmed to be used for meat and dairy. None of that, however, addresses my points about the environmental harm of meat farming, as compared with that of farming crops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jozanny View Post
    Oh come on. Life, in order to be sustaining, is a process of consumption, and primates eat meat, not all of them, but it is in the species. One can take issue with the morality of industrialized farming of herd animals, like cattle and horses and pigs, and I have an intrinsic distaste for blood sport, though I accept hunters who hunt to put food on the table, but plants have a right to life as well, if one is going to take it that far, but if the grass isn't cropped, the herds starve, and if the herds aren't stalked, the health of the herd suffers. What humans do badly is to compete unfairly, and slaughter our high end competitors and herds alike in too vast a quantity, and the irony of that will be we're setting the stage for our own vast die off, because we eliminate diversity. I do not think we can ultimately survive on corn force fed to cattle, as is done in the US, which has an epidemic of heart disease due to it.

    Respect for life is one thing, but accepting that life has to die for life that needs to eat is just as valid. I don't like it when my cats kill mice, but as carnivores that is what they do, and I dispose of said remains, however unpleasant, but if someone killed my cats I'd probably do my damnest to commit murder in return--it is killing in malice that humans have to answer for.

    Well, lions kill in malice, but that is balanced biological competition, and we won that game before recorded history, and should have the decency to keep our aggression in check. This doesn't mean an all green diet is right for our design type.
    The writer on religion Karen Armstrong theorises that the origin of religious ritual, specifically blood sacrifice, is humankind's attempt to come to terms with the uncomfortable fact that it it's impossible to live without, in some measure, participating in cruelty and even killing. Blood sacrifice becomes both atonement and a way of facing and formalising the problem head-on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jozanny View Post
    This doesn't mean an all green diet is right for our design type.
    By 'all-green' I assume you mean vegetarian (though the two things aren't really synonymous).

    No, but the 24% lower rate of ischemic heart disease among vegetarians cited by Petronius above might be more of an indicator of what we're 'designed' for. I'll say it again: there are numerous instances of human beings, throughout history, surviving very well indeed, often better than the meat eaters, without meat consumption.

  15. #15
    it is what it is. . . billyjack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    twin cities
    Posts
    474
    i tried go vegetarian for a few months a while back. i didnt notice any beneficial health affects so i gave it up.

    i still rarely eat meat, mostly bc i dislike doing dishes (at least not right away after a meal and leaving greasy meat pans around is stanky) and cooking meat involves just that.

    ethically, which should be synonymous with physiologically, there is nothing wrong with eating meat. its kingdomism to consider consumption of veggies more ethical than consumption of beast.

    as far as overpopulation goes, type of food has nothing to do with it. people need to stop ****ing. we can still have our fun, but come on...there's ways around planting a seed
    Last edited by billyjack; 12-15-2008 at 11:16 AM.

Page 1 of 20 12345611 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vegetarianism Poll
    By Lote-Tree in forum General Chat
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 09:49 AM
  2. Ethical dilemma
    By Bakiryu in forum General Chat
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 07:07 AM
  3. Meat Eaters Club
    By Virgil in forum General Chat
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 01-21-2007, 06:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •