Vegetarianism

I'm surprised that the argument for eating plants wasn't that plants aren't sentient beings. I've heard convincing arguments for vegetarianism for moral reasons based on not killing things that think. It would actually be better economically if everyone were a vegitarian. I've heard that it takes much more land to feed cows unitil adulthood than it does to grow enough crops to have the same mass as an adult cow(I've seen the sources too, but I forget what they were). I've thought about becoming a vegetarian before, but not because you have to kill animals to eat meat. I see no real problem with killing sentient beings(including humans), but I do believe that there's something wrong with malice. As much as a lion isn't being malicious by killing to eat, a person isn't either. However, I don't see how raising an animal(and forcing it to live how you want it to) and then killing it could be anything but malicious. Maybe that's an arbitrary distinction, I certainly don't see impeding on the liberty of dogs by keeping them as pets as a bad thing, but there's just a feeling of insanity that I get when I think about raising something with the ultimate goal of killing it. Maybe it's some kind of primitive pack instinct, like if I'm raising something, it's part of my family. Anyway, I'm not a vegetarian. I never buy meat but if somebody offers me some meat, I'm not going to turn them down, and I do really like the taste of birds and shellfish. I may become a vegetarian one day, but it would probably be less a moral issue and more because I wish to live self sufficiently at some point, and I can likely achieve this goal much easier without a bunch of animals around. I know that I'll NEVER give up milk though.

i'm not vegetarian, though i like very few things with meat in them.

As an American I find it pretty hard to not eat meat at all as like you kind of said it's just a part of the culture kind of, but often times I can go months without eating meat simply out of mere taste. Like I go downstairs and what I usually want to eat is a PBandJ

Although I eat meat on a very small amount, like the poster above mentioned, i do not like the raising of animals just to be killed. However, often times i've dreamed of living in a cabin out in the middle of the woods for a couple of years. There are a lot of places in the midwest like this, where you'd be a long way from the nearest town, and in such cases I do not see anything wrong with that person hunting and gathering for survival

Instead of arguing with posts I disagree with on this thread, I'll simply say WHY I am a vegetarian, and leave it at that. Agree, or disagree: each of us has our own opinion.

I do not eat meat for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, I grew up on a farm, with cattle, chicken, geese, sheep, pigs, etc. I had many pets, and whenever we went to the grocery store, my grandmother would point out packages of beef on the shelves, and say to me, 'That is what Selene is going to be when she gets too old.' Now, I didn't think it was right to have something as a pet for it's lifetime, then kill and eat it. If you name something, it is no longer nutrition, it is a life, and a companion, and killing and devouring it is one of the most barbaric things a human being can do.

Here in North America, at least, we wouldn't eat a dog, or a cat: what makes those lives more valuable than those of cattle, or pigs? Who decides what species of life deserve more rights and respect?

Because I do not personally kill my own food, I do not think I deserve to eat it. I don't think anybody deserves to eat meat unless they kill the animal providing the meat themselves. People don't seem to realize that meat came from an animal, and that is the fault of grocery stores, which provide people with neatly pre-packaged meat, some distance from the blood and slaughter. We're able to entirely disassociate the meat from the animal. I believe some thanks should be given when we take a life for ourselves, and you don't get that with things pre-packaged in plastic. We EARN the right to eat our meat when we kill it ourselves.

Also, there is the fact that eating meat provides much less energy than eating plants.
Simple explanation (Trophic levels). The more trophic levels there are, the more energy is lost. The first trophic level in the chain of meat-our digestive system is the sun causing photosynthesis to occur in the plants. I can't tell you off the top of my head what percentage of sunlight actually reaches the plants on earth, but it is very small. Then, when a cow/sheep/pig eats the plant, only 10% (roughly) of that energy is passed on to the consumer. Then, when we, the humans, eat that meat, we only get 10% of the animals energy.

How much time, energy and farmland could we save if we just ate the plants?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

There are various health issues connected with vegetarianism. For instance, Vegans and vegetarians often have stunted growths, and other growth related problems because of their lack of meat in their diet. Perhaps they can be supplemented, but in truth, meat seems to be quite healthy, especially meats like venison.

---

The only reason anybody would experience stunted growths and other issues would be because they are not properly supplementing their diet with other proteins. The vegetarians that have issues are the ones who quit eating meat and survive solely off of pasta and junk food.

Meats like venison aren't actually very healthy. Venison has little to no nutritional value, and is less of a hearty, healthy meat than a meat that hunters like to eat for pleasure, and out of pride of having killed it themselves. I do actually have a firm basis for this, having grown up in quite a poverty stricken family who hunted venison for nutrition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko

I became a vegetarian from a moral standpoint, and I remain a vegetarian from a philosophical standpoint. We're just one animal among many, and I think it's pure speciesism to draw a moral distinction between humans and other animals.

I think yours is a fair question, and one I've asked myself. For me, it comes down to balancing the need to live against the need to avoid harming another creature. I don't eat anything that comes from a dead animal, because it's pretty easy to do that without any detriment to my health or quality of life. I tried a vegan diet, but it made me so miserable I starting eating dairy again. I try to avoid leather shoes, but struggle to find a comfortable alternative, so I reluctantly wear leather, although I'm always on the lookout for an alternative. At the very minimum I have to eat plants if I want to survive. I have come to a compromise with myself; it's necessary sometimes to act counter to my principles in order to survive.

---

Really? Why didn't you just respond: Because plants do not have a central nervous system and can't feel pain?

It was a ludicrous question anyway to try and give plants equality to animals when it comes to a philosophy of reducing the infliction of unnessasary suffering.

The source of these facts are from Diet For A New America by John Robbins. They underline the vein of argument associated with the environmental benefits of becoming vegetarian, which may prove more convincing in todays climate (excuse the pun):

Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80
Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95
Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250
Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16



The Environmental Argument

Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels
Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more
Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85
Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million
Amount of meat imported to U.S. annually from Central and South America: 300,000,000 pounds
Percentage of Central American children under the age of five who are undernourished: 75
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 square feet
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year



The Cancer Argument

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a week: 3.8 times
For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times
For women who eat butter and cheese 2-4 times a week: 3.25 times
Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times.



The Cholesterol Argument

Number of U.S. medical schools: 125
Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
Nutrition training received by average U.S. physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours
Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack
How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds
Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent
Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat: 15 percent
Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of meat, dairy and eggs by 10 percent: 9 percent
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption by 50 percent: 45 percent
Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent
Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl
Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is 210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent



The Natural Resources Argument

User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production
Amount of water used in production of the average cow: sufficient to float a destroyer
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000
Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13
Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260
Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calorie of protein from beef: 78
To get 1 calorie of protein from soybeans: 2
Percentage of all raw materials (base products of farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels) consumed by U.S. that is devoted to the production of livestock: 33
Percentage of all raw materials consumed by the U.S. needed to produce a complete vegetarian diet: 2



The Antibiotic Argument

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban
Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support



The Pesticide Argument

Common belief: U.S. Department of Agriculture protects our health through meat inspection
Reality: fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues
Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99
Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8
Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher
Amount of Dieldrin ingested by the average breast-fed American infant: 9 times the permissible level



The Ethical Argument

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000
Occupation with highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker
Occupation with highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker



The Survival Argument

Athlete to win Ironman Triathlon more than twice: Dave Scott (6 time winner)
Food choice of Dave Scott: Vegetarian
Largest meat eater that ever lived: Tyrannosaurus Rex (Where is he today?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

The source of these facts are from Diet For A New America by John Robbins. They underline the vein of argument associated with the environmental benefits of becoming vegetarian, which may prove more convincing in todays climate (excuse the pun):

---

Those would probably convince me if I weren't already a vegetarian. Thank you for posting them.

Most of my friends are either vegetarian or vegan. I find it interesting that in some circles they are confronted with a stigma? I have often thought about becoming a vegetarian, though admittedly, It would be for environmental reasons before anything else. I grew up in a thirdworld country and used to help out killing our dinner chickens, or watch animals be halal butchered, which is a very bloody affair. It neither disgusts me, nor do I feel any particular empathy with the animals; rather it is a sense of gratitude and respect.
I think it is shocking to see how much CO2 emmission is involved in producing a steak, not to mention the meat producing business in general. Furthermore, perfectly good land is butchered to make pastures, or to produce animal feed instead of crops for human consumption. That doesn't make much sense to me; especially since I agree with Becca, and the irresistable logic of the throphic cycle.
At the end of the day, I would become a vegetarian in a hearbeat, all it would require is a minimal change in diet, and a consultation with a doctor or nutritionist to make sure I was getting poper food. In fact I don't think it is unlikely that I became a vegetarian even in the near future.

I feel pretty similar to Chava. I am not a vegetarian, though the majority of my friends are vegan or vegetarian. I have never become vegetarian for the pure fact of I just usually eat what I'm given. If someone makes me food and it has meat in it i eat it, but generally on my day to day I don't really have any significant craving for meat at all. So I could easily be vegetarian, but I just like the ease of not being vegetarian. I LOVE vegan restaurants and vegan food and If there were many of those around here I would eat at them everyday. But if a bunch of my friends are going and getting fast food, I want to eat something that is going to fill me up that is not salad or french fries. I don't like burgers, I don't like chicken, but if i'm at a place that has few vegetarian options, i'll eat that over nothing any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cellar Door

An overhaul of the meat industry wouldn't hurt anyone, either. In my corner of the world, lots of people were concerned about getting sick from tainted meat. This wouldn't be happening if there were more conscientious ways of conducting said business.

---

A complete overhaul of the meat industry certainly would hurt!! How familiar are you with the meat industry?

A complete overhaul, by which I'm assuming you mean drastic, immediate changes to how animals are treated, handled, fed, transported, housed, slaughtered, dressed, and processed would cause serious harm to the animals, the farmers, and the consumers.

Animals are incredibly sensitive to sudden changes in their routine, and very prone to stress-related illnesses. An overhaul would lead to more illness, which is obviously bad for the animals, bad for the farmers in that they lose money, and bad for the consumers because they're buying poor quality product.

To say that the meat industry should be conducted more conscientiously is an uninformed position. There are extreme precautions taken in every single aspect of producing the meat you see in the grocery store. Of course there is always going to be an exception- illness is something that happens everywhere- it happens with your vegetables as well.

As well, the improvement of all these factors of the industry is a constant priority. The health and welfare of the animals is of the utmost importance.

I'm studying animal biology in university (pre-vet), and there is a huge emphasis put on education about the meat industry. Basically, I'm tired of being told that:

a) if I really love animals, I wouldn't want to eat them/ if I'm going to be a vet, eating meat is a contradiction
and
b) the meat industry is careless and does not take into account the health and welfare of the animals. Meat producers are a bunch of heartless uneducated killers.

(I'm not saying that you are saying these things, but that it what I often encounter from vegetarians- a lack of education about the actual meat production side of the issue)

Edited to Add: I do not discourage vegetarianism, no in the least! I just wish that those out to convert others were more educated than they often are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

A complete overhaul of the meat industry certainly would hurt!! How familiar are you with the meat industry?

A complete overhaul, by which I'm assuming you mean drastic, immediate changes to how animals are treated, handled, fed, transported, housed, slaughtered, dressed, and processed would cause serious harm to the animals, the farmers, and the consumers.

Animals are incredibly sensitive to sudden changes in their routine, and very prone to stress-related illnesses. An overhaul would lead to more illness, which is obviously bad for the animals, bad for the farmers in that they lose money, and bad for the consumers because they're buying poor quality product.

To say that the meat industry should be conducted more conscientiously is an uninformed position. There are extreme precautions taken in every single aspect of producing the meat you see in the grocery store. Of course there is always going to be an exception- illness is something that happens everywhere- it happens with your vegetables as well.

As well, the improvement of all these factors of the industry is a constant priority. The health and welfare of the animals is of the utmost importance.

I'm studying animal biology in university (pre-vet), and there is a huge emphasis put on education about the meat industry. Basically, I'm tired of being told that:

a) if I really love animals, I wouldn't want to eat them/ if I'm going to be a vet, eating meat is a contradiction
and
b) the meat industry is careless and does not take into account the health and welfare of the animals. Meat producers are a bunch of heartless uneducated killers.

(I'm not saying that you are saying these things, but that it what I often encounter from vegetarians- a lack of education about the actual meat production side of the issue)

Edited to Add: I do not discourage vegetarianism, no in the least! I just wish that those out to convert others were more educated than they often are.

---

i completely agree with you. I find the same people in this thread who judge others for their inability to accept other people's religions in the religion thread come here and they go from being impartial to stating and preaching their opinions as fact. Seems like humility and accepting the views and practices of other cultures doesn't matter unless it applies to religion. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

i completely agree with you. I find the same people in this thread who judge others for their inability to accept other people's religions in the religion thread come here and they go from being impartial to stating and preaching their opinions as fact. Seems like humility and accepting the views and practices of other cultures doesn't matter unless it applies to religion.

---

Mathor who, what, when? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathor

Seems like humility and accepting the views and practices of other cultures doesn't matter unless it applies to religion. :D

---

yep. it gets old doesn't it?

Seriously who and what are you guys talking about?

Classic, you said no one here was saying that, if you loved animals you would be a vegetarian, and the person you were replying to said twice in their post they don't, and they weren't, trying to convert anyone.

Riesa, no it doesn't get old. Not because it's okay but because, from what I can see, I don't see it happening. I just.. I didn't see any problem between anyone, and then suddenly come these accusations of shameless vegetarians browbeating everyone. Where did this come from, and if I missed someone's post, and someone was speaking like this, why would you take that and immediately jump to giving up all together? :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

Here in North America, at least, we wouldn't eat a dog, or a cat: what makes those lives more valuable than those of cattle, or pigs? Who decides what species of life deserve more rights and respect?

---

This is a good point. And if it's not unhumble for me to say, this is not unhumble. It's not abrasive in the least, it's not upbraiding in the least, and it is not browbeating, in the very least.


Again.... even if I missed a post that was upbraiding... it is greatly in the minority. Have faith Riesa and Mathor. :)

Nik, I wasn't talking about vegetarianism, sorry, I was only focusing on the irony in "Seems like humility and accepting the views and practices of other cultures doesn't matter unless it applies to religion". I apologize for the misunderstanding. I applaud your thread, and vegetarianism.

Some of those quotes really are fantastic. :) I am a vegetarian and have been for nearly all my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Seriously who and what are you guys talking about?

Classic, you said no one here was saying that, if you loved animals you would be a vegetarian, and the person you were replying to said twice in their post they don't, and they weren't, trying to convert anyone.

---

The first part of my post in in response to statements such as "A complete overhaul of the meat industry wouldn't hurt anyone" regardless of whether that person eats meat or doesn't, or tries to convert others or doesn't. I'm saying that the majority of people I've come across, on both sides of the argument, do not have a very thorough understanding of the meat industry but make claims like this one.

The statements I offered as examples of things I have had said to me are often opinions that stem from this lack of education and the extreme views people take towards vegetarianism. This was not a response to the specific poster, but to people in general.

Make more sense?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

The first part of my post in in response to statements such as "A complete overhaul of the meat industry wouldn't hurt anyone" regardless of whether that person eats meat or doesn't, or tries to convert others or doesn't. I'm saying that the majority of people I've come across, on both sides of the argument, do not have a very thorough understanding of the meat industry but make claims like this one.

The statements I offered as examples of things I have had said to me are often opinions that stem from this lack of education and the extreme views people take towards vegetarianism. This was not a response to the specific poster, but to people in general.

Make more sense?:)

---

Of course. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Of course. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

---

No worries:)

Oh, how many times I must have overlooked this thread! Fascinating quotes, NikolaiI - thanks for sharing them. :)
As an ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegetarianism to me does not seem so much a choice as to what we put into our gastrointestinal tracts, as how someone orders either a soup or salad for an appetizer at a restaurant, but deeply a lifestyle, and I take it very seriously. Most people in the world do not eat grass. Why? Because most people do not consider it food, even though, if consumed, it would likely have some nutritional value. I refuse to eat meat; if I did eat it, it may have some nutritional value to me, though after almost 8 years of not eating it I have likely stopped producing the necessary enzymes, but, just as most people do not consider grass a food, I no longer consider meat a food. Meat does not disgust me, and, while cooking for other people, I do not wince in the least while cooking meat for them, yet I would sooner consume the cast-iron skillet or baking sheet before the contents.
Why did I become vegetarian years ago? I get this question a lot and it gets a bit repetitious and annoying from time to time. I feel that I never 'became' vegetarian, on the contrary, and I never pronounced myself vegetarian when deciding to stop eating meat; it felt very natural that one day, at age 19, I stopped eating meat. From childhood to age 19, I would frequently get very ill, and doctors attempted to rule out diagnoses like irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), lupus (SLE), and Crohn's disease, but all results proved negative; not once since age 19 have I had even one episode of excruciating abdominal pain after eating - one could blame it on meat, or on my gastrointestinal tract lacking the necessary enzymes to digest meat, perhaps both.
I did not 'become' vegetarian for health reasons, animal rights, environmentalism, spirituality, religion - nothing - it just felt natural, and these contingencies seem to 'come with the territory,' so to speak. We live in a world much more accepting of vegetarian and vegan ways, as opposed to Ralph Waldo Emerson's time, another notorious vegetarian, and, compared to starving children in less-industrialized countries who have little to eat, let alone much to choose from, we have a lot of choice - sometimes too much that we favor junkfood on the grocery store shelf for its taste over the organic produce.
I have put a lot of thought into what resulted in my ending up a vegetarian by almost no choice or valid reason. In applying Arthur Schopenhauer's idea of the Will and Determinism, I feel that nothing had a significant influence on my vegetarian ideas besides myself. I recall once, at about age 5, my father raised cattle and pigs; as afraid as I felt of them, due to their immense size, I loved watching them graze their fields, helped feed them, and clean after them. When my father had them slaughtered for food, I would associate a negative connotation with consuming something I helped tend; I could grow a garden of various vegetables and fruit, but an apple tree survives getting one apple plucked from its branches; once the cows and pigs, that I helped name, got slaughtered, they lay dead on the serving platter. After multiple times encountering this negative connotation and its subconscious cascade, I think Schopenhauer's determinism made me forever associate, in a non-religious animal rights manner, animals as companions rather than food.
As a note to other vegetarians and omnivores, let us not turn this into a battle. Just as no one enjoys wearing the same clothing, no one carries the same beliefs of what we consume, and preaching what seems best to introduce to the stomach hurts more than aides your cause. Even as a vegetarian, the preachy types of vegetarians and vegans irritate me to no end; on the other end of the spectrum, I have gotten asked to leave a restaurant in the midwest U.S. by the waitress because I asked if one specific soup had a meat base, since "we dun't serve yer kaind here." Between the same hunters and gatherers we all evolved from, we all require nourishment, and, at the Thanksgiving dinner table, the more turkey you eat leaves me more potatoes and cranberry sauce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

and, at the Thanksgiving dinner table, the more turkey you eat leaves me more potatoes and cranberry sauce.

---

haha. I've actually never eaten turkey on thanskgiving. I always try to pretend i did, like I remember back in the day I would get a plate and put not much on it and finish it in like a minute and say "well i guess i've had my fill of turkey, i should probably move on to something else". It fooled people for a while, till finally my relatives caught on that I do not like turkey in the least bit. Nor do I really like any meats, though I'm not vegetarian. I'm a meat eater but I do not like meat. It's interesting. I just don't want to say "i do not eat meat", cause that's like saying "i do not eat mushrooms", i do not like mushrooms, but it'd be rude if someone asked me if i wanted mushrooms with my meal and i said "i do not eat mushrooms". And that's why i'm not vegetarian. I have no religious reasons to not like meat, I simply just don't like it, but at times there are occasions when I'm required to force it down, the same goes for mushrooms. So i wouldn't call myself a meat-eater, just like i wouldn't call myself a "mushroom-eater". But I certainly eat it, when my parents make it etc etc. Thanksgiving is nice cause it's usually more buffet style, and i don't have to be like "no i don't want that". I eat what i'm given, but i wouldn't select meat per say if i had another option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Oh, how many times I must have overlooked this thread! Fascinating quotes, NikolaiI - thanks for sharing them. :)
As an ovo-lacto vegetarian, vegetarianism to me does not seem so much a choice as to what we put into our gastrointestinal tracts, as how someone orders either a soup or salad for an appetizer at a restaurant, but deeply a lifestyle, and I take it very seriously. Most people in the world do not eat grass. Why? Because most people do not consider it food, even though, if consumed, it would likely have some nutritional value. I refuse to eat meat; if I did eat it, it may have some nutritional value to me, though after almost 8 years of not eating it I have likely stopped producing the necessary enzymes, but, just as most people do not consider grass a food, I no longer consider meat a food. Meat does not disgust me, and, while cooking for other people, I do not wince in the least while cooking meat for them, yet I would sooner consume the cast-iron skillet or baking sheet before the contents.
Why did I become vegetarian years ago? I get this question a lot and it gets a bit repetitious and annoying from time to time. I feel that I never 'became' vegetarian, on the contrary, and I never pronounced myself vegetarian when deciding to stop eating meat; it felt very natural that one day, at age 19, I stopped eating meat. From childhood to age 19, I would frequently get very ill, and doctors attempted to rule out diagnoses like irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), lupus (SLE), and Crohn's disease, but all results proved negative; not once since age 19 have I had even one episode of excruciating abdominal pain after eating - one could blame it on meat, or on my gastrointestinal tract lacking the necessary enzymes to digest meat, perhaps both.
I did not 'become' vegetarian for health reasons, animal rights, environmentalism, spirituality, religion - nothing - it just felt natural, and these contingencies seem to 'come with the territory,' so to speak. We live in a world much more accepting of vegetarian and vegan ways, as opposed to Ralph Waldo Emerson's time, another notorious vegetarian, and, compared to starving children in less-industrialized countries who have little to eat, let alone much to choose from, we have a lot of choice - sometimes too much that we favor junkfood on the grocery store shelf for its taste over the organic produce.
I have put a lot of thought into what resulted in my ending up a vegetarian by almost no choice or valid reason. In applying Arthur Schopenhauer's idea of the Will and Determinism, I feel that nothing had a significant influence on my vegetarian ideas besides myself. I recall once, at about age 5, my father raised cattle and pigs; as afraid as I felt of them, due to their immense size, I loved watching them graze their fields, helped feed them, and clean after them. When my father had them slaughtered for food, I would associate a negative connotation with consuming something I helped tend; I could grow a garden of various vegetables and fruit, but an apple tree survives getting one apple plucked from its branches; once the cows and pigs, that I helped name, got slaughtered, they lay dead on the serving platter. After multiple times encountering this negative connotation and its subconscious cascade, I think Schopenhauer's determinism made me forever associate, in a non-religious animal rights manner, animals as companions rather than food.
As a note to other vegetarians and omnivores, let us not turn this into a battle. Just as no one enjoys wearing the same clothing, no one carries the same beliefs of what we consume, and preaching what seems best to introduce to the stomach hurts more than aides your cause. Even as a vegetarian, the preachy types of vegetarians and vegans irritate me to no end; on the other end of the spectrum, I have gotten asked to leave a restaurant in the midwest U.S. by the waitress because I asked if one specific soup had a meat base, since "we dun't serve yer kaind here." Between the same hunters and gatherers we all evolved from, we all require nourishment, and, at the Thanksgiving dinner table, the more turkey you eat leaves me more potatoes and cranberry sauce.

---

OMG, this was a fantastic post. Mono, I salute you. You have said so very much in such a small space, bravo. Bravo. :)

I agree, that is the best explanation I think anyone has ever given me for their vegetarianism or omnivorism (if that's a real word, which I doubt).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kiz_paws

OMG, this was a fantastic post. Mono, I salute you. You have said so very much in such a small space, bravo. Bravo. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I agree, that is the best explanation I think anyone has ever given me for their vegetarianism or omnivorism (if that's a real word, which I doubt).

---

Thanks, you two. :blush:

I think the simplest reason for me is that I don't require, in my moral system, a being to have an intellect equal to mine, or the powers of reason, for them to have the right to life, and for me not to have the right to kill them. There are humans who fit this description, for instance, and yet they are still protected by law. In fact, it's possible for a human to have no skills in language or reason, either because they have atrophied or because they never learned them at all, or because of mental damage done by an accident, drugs, or even a mental illness. All of these are protected by law. Animals have an equal right in my eyes.

To put myself in the place of the animal; if some alien species came to earth, and they were more intelligent, had better reason, and could over power us, and then they started killing us and eating us, even breeding us and keeping us from moving about or leading anything remotely similar to our accustomed lives, at the end of which again killing us for food; no human would agree with this, no human would give their life willingly. Why should we? Because they have a higher intelligence? Two things: what we are doing with animals is absolutely no different. And second, a race more intelligent han us would probably not do this to us, because good traits in general run together: kindness, intelligence, discipline, etc.

So just to put myself in the place of the animals is enough for me. And again, I find it absurd to justify it by saying, it is the natural order. No being wants to die, or live in captivity, or suffer - and, as it happens, unnecessarily. One quote when I was looking for them to start this thread said, "some people say we've been doing it for thousands of years. But then we've also been killing each other for thousands of years, and it is not a good thing."

But my main philosophical reason for it is, again, simply by considering it from the animals point of view. And my knowledge that vegetarianism is healthier. I would like to be a three-time Triathlon winner. :)

Simply put: higher intelligence does not give the right to kill the life of those with lesser intelligence. I am not a vegetarian because of the good moral arguments for it. I am a vegetarian, and I cannot reconcile myself to the philosophical idea, which seems debunkt, that intelligence greater intelligence gives a right to kill those with lesser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

Because I do not personally kill my own food, I do not think I deserve to eat it.

---

Interesting opinion. But it's true. Don't get others to do the dirty work for you-- if you couldn't slaughter a chicken, you shouldn't be eating one. A few years ago, my biology class was dissecting pigs, and several people in the class (whom I knew to be meat-eaters) got red-faced and watery-eyed when they saw the cute little dead piglets. I don't understand that-- if you eat pork, you should have no problem seeing or dissecting a dead pig! If you're squeamish, how on earth can you eat the flesh of an animal?

Now, cute dead animals don't bother me (I have seen many a deer skinned and butchered in my garage), but I'm still a vegetarian, and that's because there are a bunch of other good reasons for abstaining from eating meat, most of which have been mentioned in previous posts.

But seriously-- when people argue that humans are natural omnivores and that our primitive ancestors ate meat, they're overlooking the fact that our ancestors wouldn't have been eating meat every day. You have to work pretty hard to hunt something-- imagine hunting something twice a day every day. Not easy. Primitive humans would have considered meat a special treat, and their typical diet would have consisted of plants and grains and such. So we are natural omnivores, but we're not supposed to be eating meat in abundance.

All that lives is born to die. That includes bean sprouts, carrots and things with cute little eyes. Only humans give special preferences to certain forms of life.

I am neither for nor against vegetarianism, I think if some one chooses a lifestyle for their own personal reasons, so be it. My only objection is when some seem to think they know better what life is and what is important and shoves it down my throat while expounding the virtues of saving the earth and life while they stand there with there bottled water, the Starbucks coffee made from paper where life was lost in the process of the making along with the plastic lid on the cup and they are wearing an entirely plastic wardrobe.

The earth doesn’t need us to save it, it has been going on for millions of years, continually reinventing it self. Since when do we humans think that we know what is best for everyone and everything?

NikolaiI, you quote many people in defense of vegetarianisms. I have no problem with that and this isn’t meant to be mean, but your tag quote from Alan Watts doesn’t come from a vegetarian, if you like Mr. Watts, read “Murder in the Kitchen”, a chapter in the book, “Does it Matter”.

Plant an acorn and you get a mighty oak! Very true! Is it murder if I eat the acorn and kept it from being a mighty oak? Kill a sheep and it gives nothing but decay? Oh a very wrong and simplistic view! There are many life forms that will flourish in the decay process including the acorn that will use the decay as food to become a mighty oak.

We will all return to the earth by some means and at some time, our bodies are not immune to the process, no matter how hard we try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

To put myself in the place of the animal; if some alien species came to earth, and they were more intelligent, had better reason, and could over power us, and then they started killing us and eating us, even breeding us and keeping us from moving about or leading anything remotely similar to our accustomed lives, at the end of which again killing us for food; no human would agree with this, no human would give their life willingly. Why should we? Because they have a higher intelligence? Two things: what we are doing with animals is absolutely no different. And second, a race more intelligent han us would probably not do this to us, because good traits in general run together: kindness, intelligence, discipline, etc.

---

Interesting analogy, NikolaiI. A lot of things separate humans and other animals, and intelligence, yes, seems among them, even amid dolphins and chimpanzees, two exceptionally intelligent other animals; with that, it gives us the ability to organize, prioritize, and plan, for example, a hunting tactic. Lions have this ability in hunting as well, explaining another reason why they subsist in prides; various birds of prey also have amazing hunting abilities, but they do this entirely alone, amazingly. Their hunting abilities, as well as ours, cannot fully come from intelligence, but in addition instinct, want, need, and superior physical health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Helen of Troy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeccaT

Because I do not personally kill my own food, I do not think I deserve to eat it.

---

Interesting opinion. But it's true. Don't get others to do the dirty work for you-- if you couldn't slaughter a chicken, you shouldn't be eating one.

---

Unfortunately this seems the way a supply-demand economy functions. If you want a saran-wrapped, headless, plucked chicken you can purchase one at a grocery store for the mark-up price of the farmer's work, manufacturing, producing, packaging, etc. In addition, if you want artichoke hearts for some sort of vegetable dish, I would not feel too happy to have to go through all of the immense labor of cutting them from their branches, clipping them, steaming them, then digging through their sharp leaves to get one heart per artichoke. As we have evolved we have learned to rely upon each other, and pay prices, sometimes in monetary value, for favors. I agree, however, and so would Immanuel Kant, in his application of Universal Ethics, that to wish something done, you ought to have the ability and moral to do it yourself, too.
Even as a vegetarian (and I consider myself a good sport), I laughed at first reading this response of yours, Helen of Troy, because I thought of one of the definitions of 'vegetarian' from UrbanDictionary.com:

Quote:

---

vegetarian
A bad hunter. Someone who survives by consuming not food, but the stuff that food eats.

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

Interesting analogy, NikolaiI. A lot of things separate humans and other animals, and intelligence, yes, seems among them, even amid dolphins and chimpanzees, two exceptionally intelligent other animals; with that, it gives us the ability to organize, prioritize, and plan, for example, a hunting tactic. Lions have this ability in hunting as well, explaining another reason why they subsist in prides; various birds of prey also have amazing hunting abilities, but they do this entirely alone, amazingly. Their hunting abilities, as well as ours, cannot fully come from intelligence, but in addition instinct, want, need, and superior physical health.

---

My argument is an ethical one. For me a bird has as much right to life as a human. Why should it not? Because we have the ability to shoot it from the air? Or because it cannot understand reason, art, music, higher mathematics? The same is true with all animals. It is not necessary for others to have our same level of intelligence to still feel pain, fear, suffering, and the desire to live. I have never seen a good reason to think it's okay. Not when it is not necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

My argument is an ethical one. For me a bird has as much right to life as a human. Why should it not? Because we have the ability to shoot it from the air? Or because it cannot understand reason, art, music, higher mathematics? The same is true with all animals. It is not necessary for others to have our same level of intelligence to still feel pain, fear, suffering, and the desire to live. I have never seen a good reason to think it's okay. Not when it is not necessary.

---

This is absolutely key here.

Intense factory farming is the single biggest contributer to global warming, with an 18% contribution. The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

---

Are you suggesting that the animals suffer? Where's your evidence, please?

Death itself does not equate to suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Are you suggesting that the animals suffer? Where's your evidence, please?

Death itself does not equate to suffering.

---

Factory farming cattle

Quote:

---

Around 20% of British dairy cows are lame at any one time. In fact, inspections of the feet of cull cows at slaughter reveal evidence of past or present foot damage in nearly all animals. Lameness is caused by a number of factors. These include the quantity of bedding available, the move towards cubicle housing and the now near universal practice of feeding animals wet, fermented grass (known as silage), rather than dry hay. Silage produces wet faeces and acidic slurry in the dunging passageway, which eventually softens the feet and causes infection.

---

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMP...anism/ALL/477/

Quote:

---

Dairy cows are prone to infection of the udder caused by bacteria and other environmental pathogens entering via the teat canal. This acutely painful condition is known as mastitis. Incidence varies from between 30 to more than 60 cases in every 100 cows during a year.

---

Quote:

---

Male calves reared for beef are often castrated, despite being slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity. Methods commonly used include surgical castration, tight rubber rings that restrict blood flow, and appliances that crush the spermatic cord of each testis - the so-called "bloodless castrator".

Both dairy cows and beef cattle are de-horned - a painful procedure - to prevent animals injuring each other. Horns contain both blood circulation and nerve endings, and so local anaesthesia and cauterisation are necessary to stem bleeding. If horns have already developed, they are removed with saws, horn shears or cutting wire.

Young animals whose horns are not established can be disbudded. A hot iron is applied to the horn-forming tissue when the calf is 4-6 weeks old, permanently preventing growth.

---

The Suffering of Farmed Pigs

Quote:

---

The piglets are moved from the farrowing unit into concrete pens, or metal cages with perforated concrete or slatted metal floors. These newly-weaned animals, desperate for their mother's teats, often frantically try to suckle their young penmates or indulge in tail biting. The industry's "remedy" is to amputate the lower part of the tail - a painful mutilation. Many piglets also have their pointed side-teeth clipped down to the gum in the first few days of life. This is said to prevent them from lacerating either the sow's udder or the faces of their litter mates. Once again the industry ignores the real problem - namely, the piglets are being forced to compete for teats in an unyielding metal and stone environment with an unnaturally large number of litter mates.

After about six weeks, the young pigs are moved to similarly unsuitable rearing pens for final fattening on a high protein diet. An estimated 15 per cent suffer painful leg and joint problems. This is caused partly by standing on hard floors, but also because they're bred to grow unnaturally fast, and are unable to support their own weight. Heart and respiratory problems are also endemic.

After four to seven months, pigs not selected for breeding purposes are sent for slaughter. Some die during transit due to stress caused by overcrowding, long journeys, rough handling, extremes of temperature.

---

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMP...anism/ALL/514/

Now this is only about factor farmed animals, but those definitely suffer. Even if they did not have disease from the different results of the practice, it is still inhumane to keep an animal in a pen where it cannot move.

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life, I've been enjoying my meat ever since, although I do admit it would taste better if animals were treated better.

Less stress and better nutrition = better tasting meat.

Ooh Nik I can't wait to take on your post of evidence! I'll have to do it in a couple days though, once I have more time! I'll be back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Ooh Nik I can't wait to take on your post of evidence! I'll have to do it in a couple days though, once I have more time! I'll be back!

---

As soon as you've attempted to you'll face a second wave :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life.

---

This can be cured by more people going vegetarian.

So, if we take away their main purpose, what do we do with all the excess animals once everyone turns vegetarian? No animal is smart enough to stop reproducing after they've been bred solely to reproduce, and without people eating them, there will be no other sufficient means of keeping their numbers in check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skib

So, if we take away their main purpose, what do we do with all the excess animals once everyone turns vegetarian? No animal is smart enough to stop reproducing after they've been bred solely to reproduce, and without people eating them, there will be no other sufficient means of keeping their numbers in check.

---

I would never advocate for everyone to "become" vegetarian; rather let us allow each other to live and consume within their own means.
In the extraordinarily rare and hypothetical, and somewhat absurd, case that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, I feel quite convinced that if India, one of the most populous nations in the world, can live in harmony with animals subsisting among them, so can the rest of the world with enough tolerance. I would think it quite surprising to see a herd of cattle or a pig pen in Times Square of New York City, but much of the world could conform.
I would like to ask you, skib, why you would imply that the "main purpose" of an animal seems for consumption? Sure, dairy cows exist mostly for producing milk, but I have personally witnessed wild turkeys exist in their natural habitats without ending up on a serving platter (*gasp*). Not to belittle your statement, but I would like to think that cows, swine, chicken, and turkeys have existed before we thought of placing them in our mouths; neither the first single-celled organism, nor Adam, nor Eve (depending on which stance you prefer) looked at the first cow and called it food. Claiming that they exist only for human consumption sounds about as ridiculous as saying that human fingernails exist only for biting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mono

I would never advocate for everyone to "become" vegetarian; rather let us allow each other to live and consume within their own means.
In the extraordinarily rare and hypothetical, and somewhat absurd, case that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, I feel quite convinced that if India, one of the most populous nations in the world, can live in harmony with animals subsisting among them, so can the rest of the world with enough tolerance. I would think it quite surprising to see a herd of cattle or a pig pen in Times Square of New York City, but much of the world could conform.

---

Yes, but Mono there's a distinct difference between wild turkeys and domestic bread-for-consumption turkeys, and between all domestic animals and their wild predecessors or current wild family members. It's simply not possible to just turn them all loose and say "Be Free, my Beauties!" For the most part, they would not know how to survive. And by this I don't just mean the generation we have turned loose, but their offspring as well.

Turkeys are actually a perfect example! The most valuable part of a turkey for consumption is the breast (the Pectoralis muscle). It makes up on average 50% of the bird's muscle mass, and is so large that most male turkeys are no longer physically capable of mating. Turkey fertilization is done through artificial insemination. The only possible matings that would occur would involve wild males, and if they cross with domestic females, there is still the distinct possibility that the offspring would have this muscle mass and not be able to fly or breed either. The population would decrease severely, and for what? So that the turkey could be killed by a prey animal rather than the quick, relatively painless death it would have experienced in an abattoir?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDave

This is absolutely key here.

Intense factory farming is the single biggest contributer to global warming, with an 18% contribution. The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

---

Your post reflects a quote of Jeremy Bentham, saying the same. I didn't know it was by him but I saw it the other day. I did not state it but it was a thought in my mind as I posted. Thanks for your posts!

I agree with you that it is key. It is the center or basis of my philosophical approach to vegetarianism. Bentham puts it this way, “The morally relevant question about animals is not, Can they reason? or Can they talk? But can they suffer?” No, it is not a thesis, it is not a book, it does not have the force and power of the coorporations in the restaurant industry, which are connected to the slaughterhouse industry. But hopefully it will overturn those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AimusSage

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life, I've been enjoying my meat ever since, although I do admit it would taste better if animals were treated better.

Less stress and better nutrition = better tasting meat.

---

I would challenge your assertion that animals' reason for being is to die by our whim and for our taste. I can find no reason to think this is true. The same thing has been said about black slaves. - Not to be eaten, but to be used and sold as property.

I am not trying to villify your position. Perhaps you meant that we require animals in our diet to live healthy. But this is not true, if I may take a position contrary to the vaster majority of population in the country in which I inhabit. I mean no disrespect to you, Aimus, but your statement is not sound.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

Yes, but Mono there's a distinct difference between wild turkeys and domestic bread-for-consumption turkeys, and between all domestic animals and their wild predecessors or current wild family members. It's simply not possible to just turn them all loose and say "Be Free, my Beauties!" For the most part, they would not know how to survive. And by this I don't just mean the generation we have turned loose, but their offspring as well.

Turkeys are actually a perfect example! The most valuable part of a turkey for consumption is the breast (the Pectoralis muscle). It makes up on average 50% of the bird's muscle mass, and is so large that most male turkeys are no longer physically capable of mating. Turkey fertilization is done through artificial insemination. The only possible matings that would occur would involve wild males, and if they cross with domestic females, there is still the distinct possibility that the offspring would have this muscle mass and not be able to fly or breed either. The population would decrease severely, and for what? So that the turkey could be killed by a prey animal rather than the quick, relatively painless death it would have experienced in an abattoir?

---

Agreed, good point. Wild and domestic turkeys have vast differences - size, for one; I felt astounded at seeing the impressive mass of feathers when seeing a wild turkey for the first time as a child on my grandparents' farm. With domestic turkeys, I agree, one could never set them free, like the Confederacy did in the 19th century southern United States, and say "now go try to live," as they have likely ended up unaccustomed to fight and fend for themselves, let alone to avoid a wolf, for example. I mentioned the citizens of India and animals many Americans would consider food living together, but I undoubtedly believe, as I have never visited there (someday . . . oh, one fine day), that the citizens take care of the animals, such as in preventing prey from attacking them.
Again, I hold true to what I replied to skib that I would never advocate for everyone to choose vegetarianism; simply said - live and let live. In the hypothetical situation that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, it would likely not seem a sound transition for all; suddenly, we would have a vast, overwhelming quantity of cows, chickens, pigs, and turkeys, farms would go out of business, subsequently oat fields, for one example, would overgrow and rot, and eventually we would have an abundance of animals of prey, having soon fed off of the large quantity of predators. The world would turn upsidedown in terms of economy (perhaps rightside up, in this case, as it could not seem more upsidedown, but that seems another subject), agriculture, capitalism, etc.

Yes, my statement was quite vague, but I'm pleased that you were able to understand what I was trying to get across about the drastic transition.

After reading the caliber of the rest of your posts, I've decided my intellect is not sufficient to adequately participate with you all on this subject.:( I shall bow out and bid you all good day! (or night)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grotto

All that lives is born to die. That includes bean sprouts, carrots and things with cute little eyes. Only humans give special preferences to certain forms of life.

---

This is not philosophically sound either. It means absolutely nothing upon our relative morals to say that all is relavitive. I am not sure if this is what you meant but it's what I took from your post. You said, "all that lives is born to die," as a justification for living beings whose only fault is not being human. This just doesn't hold up for me, it is meaningless. It is true that after the animal dies, its suffering is ended, and it may not know of it anymore. But this is also true of humans - would you say therefore it is okay to kill humans because all is born to die? Absolutely not.