Vegetarianism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

Ok, I'm sorry you feel that way.

---

I am not trying to make anyone sorry Niko--just trying to bring age, and experience to bear, and maybe I fail, in bringing that age and experience to the young, as a challenge to think.

This is off-topic, but I use it as an analogy: After years of being carted around by my parents from one hospital after another, and other institutional environments of interest, I was courted by Disabled In Action, and they did me some good, sued my school district, and even gave me a career. I became something of a True Believer in the movement (sound familiar?) and then I got burned, and I am still getting burned by this ideology even though I'd like to flee from it as far and as fast as I could.

Nothing to do with vegan as lifestyle--but, it does point to what I'm trying to convey: Changing the world is hard, and that goes for the sincerely religious faithful, the serious activist, advocate, and those who are serious about scaling back on what they need in their social environment. What are you willing to give up to conserve the planet? Meat? That is easy. Greenpeace risks the lives of its members to save whales from our modern killing technology, but those who are really invested in raping the sea could care less. It is something to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I am not trying to make anyone sorry Niko--just trying to bring age, and experience to bear, and maybe I fail, in bringing that age and experience to the young, as a challenge to think.

This is off-topic, but I use it as an analogy: After years of being carted around by my parents from one hospital after another, and other institutional environments of interest, I was courted by Disabled In Action, and they did me some good, sued my school district, and even gave me a career. I became something of a True Believer in the movement (sound familiar?) and then I got burned, and I am still getting burned by this ideology even though I'd like to flee from it as far and as fast as I could.

Nothing to do with vegan as lifestyle--but, it does point to what I'm trying to convey: Changing the world is hard, and that goes for the sincerely religious faithful, the serious activist, advocate, and those who are serious about scaling back on what they need in their social environment. What are you willing to give up to conserve the planet? Meat? That is easy. Greenpeace risks the lives of its members to save whales from our modern killing technology, but those who are really invested in raping the sea could care less. It is something to think about.

---

You are not trying to make people feel sorry-- great. I am not trying to make them feel guilty. Nor am I trying to get them into anything New Age or American chic. I brought this up to discuss- vegetarianism. That is all, nothing more or less. It was not a Buddhist I quoted, but I quoted it because you mentioned that one living entity is the food of another, and I thought you might find this verse in scripture interesting, since it was saying the same thing. It was Prabhupada's purport to this verse I quoted. The main idea here is that there is suitable food we can make from nuts, fruit, beans, grains, and milk, and it is not necessary or good to kill animals as well.

Please understand this is all I am trying to say, and I am not saying that if you become a vegetarian the rest of the world will as well, or that nobody will ever suffer again. If someone thought that because they were vegetarian, they were going to solve everything; this would be an instance of them fooling theirself-- but the choice of not eating meat does not carry with it implicitly some kind of self-delusion, which is what I understood you to imply. Please respond or not as you wish.

Also I would say that the discussion of what would happen if the entire world became vegetarian is not very relevant or helpful, for one because it is pure speculation, and secondly it is 100% unlikely to happen. I agree very much with Petronius about world-population (which by the way is about 6.7 billion, not 10). He makes a good point that we have increased in 5 billion in the last century. This should alert us or make us try to be careful and aware of what is going on. The absolute best thing for humanity would be to stop, or slow down... I mean in a general sense... slow down society, stop racing around, and try to find some peace. We need to do this collectively. Aren't the older, wise people of our society always telling the young ones to calm down, that things will be alright, to slow down? If this is the wisdom of our elders, then why isn't society following their advice?

Okay, finally there should be nothing wrong with a calm discussion of vegetarianism. We are all mature enough to discuss like this. All I want people to do is think, not to change their views without thinking or if it goes against what they believe in. I quoted nothing to try to gain some kind of moral superiority. As I said in the opening post, my reason for my approach is that I was not a vegetarian for every meal of my life, and so I am not judging harshly those who, by a span of time, are doing nothing I didn't do. That's why I am forced not to be judgemental. :) At the same time, I will defend the right to be vegetarian or to speak of it. William Blake is quoted to have said "When I tell any truth it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those who do." Therefore part of this is to present vegetarianism and to encourage people to always consider thoughtfully their actions, and the other part is to assure you that vegetarians are not fooling themselves, as the only thing they (as vegetarians) have in common as a group is that they do not eat meat.

If there's some reason you don't wish to discuss vegetarianism, you don't have to alert us to your last post, just don't post anymore. We will see that you quit the discussion. At the same time, you are more than welcome as far as I am concerned.

I was a vegetarian for some time, but it seemed like a ready made philosophy. The motives behind my actions, although the involved the same dietary practice, was not the same. PLants live too and a strict consumption of them is excessive. I am interested in a balance, but am also interested in playing on an equal playing field. I only eat wild animals that I hunt myself, which is how animals obtain their food. I don't eat the domesticated.

Pythagoras believed it was indecent for men to eat the flesh of animals, fattening the one on the destruction of another, especially since nature provided all that man needs to live and thrive in the fruits of the soil. This is perhaps the most convincing argument I have encountered in favor of vegitarianism. It still falls short of the mark, I think.

Quote:

---

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

---

This statement seems to me to be in dire need of proof. If a building were on fire, and a child and a lamb were inside, and the Mahatma could save only one of them, are we seriously to believe that he would not have immediately chosen to save the child?

I am very fond of animals. I consider my 2 cats practically family-- practically! But there really are such things as higher and lower animals. My cats are very intelligent-- considering they have brains the size of a brussels sprout-- and they are higher creatures than a fly or a bacterium. But I am still more intelligent, for unlike them I have the ability to think abstractly and the foresight not to bite into electrical cords or chase rabid squirrels. I am a higher animal than a chicken or a cow or a lobster.

It does bother me (a little) that chickens and cows die so that I may have a nice meal. I hope that they are killed as painlessly as possible, and raised in a humane manner. (Lobsters, being basically giant bugs, I care less about.) Gratuitous or selfish cruelty is, I believe, unquestionably wrong.

Beyond a certain point, I believe, compassion for animals becomes essentially irrational. There is nothing wrong with this: my fondness for my cats is mostly irrational. But because it is irrational, I don't think it's possible to formulate a philosophical argument in favor of vegetarianism.

To be honest, for me the whole debate is settled when I think of the hippie from Futurama saying "We taught a lion to eat tofu!"

To my mind, man is, to quote (though perhaps misuse) Aristotle, a 'political animal', but an animal nonetheless. If it is acceptable for animals to eat meat, I see no reason why people shouldn't.

I mean, for example, as a vegitarian, would you buy cat food for your cat? Dog food for your dog? Is that any worse than buying meat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I am very fond of animals. I consider my 2 cats practically family-- practically! But there really are such things as higher and lower animals. My cats are very intelligent-- considering they have brains the size of a brussels sprout-- and they are higher creatures than a fly or a bacterium. But I am still more intelligent, for unlike them I have the ability to think abstractly and the foresight not to bite into electrical cords or chase rabid squirrels. I am a higher animal than a chicken or a cow or a lobster.

---

So you wouldn't mind taking a bite out of an autistic person or a comatose patient with little or no brain activity. If the importance of a creatures life is based on their intellect then those who are pro-life on the issue of abortion and PVS are completely irrational. A similar hierarchy where one believed that they were superior to another group and there for their life was not as significant can be seen in Nazi Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEEMAN

To be honest, for me the whole debate is settled when I think of the hippie from Futurama saying "We taught a lion to eat tofu!"

To my mind, man is, to quote (though perhaps misuse) Aristotle, a 'political animal', but an animal nonetheless. If it is acceptable for animals to eat meat, I see no reason why people shouldn't.

---

I don't think that animals, non-human, have acquired the capabilities for agriculture. It makes sense for animals, who can be related to our nomadic ancestors, to hunt for food; eating what is needed and moving on. We are settled in modern society and have the luxury of supplements. We are not on equal grounds with animals. We eat animals that have grown defenseless because of domestication, and the killing of these animals is slaughter. Their meat goes bad in stores, in our homes and with throw unwanted portion into the garbage. Aristotle had a theory on virtue also with excess on one side and deficiency on the other.

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.

On moral grounds - that is all relative. If not eating meat is, as Jozanny pointed out, used as a new age load of crap to pretend to oneself that they are saving the world, then I am all against it. If someone doesn't like the taste of meat, and doesn't eat it on those grounds, I can see that, but in terms of morality, in the long run it makes no difference, as less cows will be brought into this world if less people are eating them.

That is the strange thing - cows are bred - and therefore, they are calculated in terms of amount to fill the demand of the market. If people stop eating, cows will stop being bred, and generally the herd size will diminish significantly.

It costs money to have a cow, unless you are using it for milk. You need a field for it to graze on, and other things to sustain it. If there is no profit involved, the cow simply will not be brought into life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

There are various health issues connected with vegetarianism.

---

Deficiency.

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.

---

This requires rather a lot of substantiation. Actually, I suspect it's just not true. I've known many many vegetarians and none of them had stunted growths, including those who'd been raised vegetarian from birth and never eaten meat in their lives. There are also areas of the world such as Southern India where meat just isn't eaten at all, without apparent detriment to the population's health. As my previous remarks about China's changing diet indicate, meat is, in fact, a luxury for many people and is eaten either rarely or not at all among many of the world's poorer people.

I'd be surprised if you could name a single vital nutrient you can get from meat that you can't get from other sources. As far as I know, pulses - beans and lentils - are the most healthy staples you can eat and contain the protein, iron and B vitamins frequently obtained from meat. There are many other sources of iron too, including dried fruits such as raisins and prunes and certain green leafy vegetables such as spinach.

A recent study found that the most nutritious foods, at least in the English diet, by which they meant the foods with the highest concentrations of the widest possible variety of vital nutrients were broccoli and runner beans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

On moral grounds - that is all relative. If not eating meat is, as Jozanny pointed out, used as a new age load of crap to pretend to oneself that they are saving the world, then I am all against it. If someone doesn't like the taste of meat, and doesn't eat it on those grounds, I can see that, but in terms of morality, in the long run it makes no difference, as less cows will be brought into this world if less people are eating them.

---

I refer you to my numerous remarks elsewhere in this thread about the environmental damage caused by cattle farming. It would be a far far better thing if 'less cows [were] brought into the world...'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

That is the strange thing - cows are bred - and therefore, they are calculated in terms of amount to fill the demand of the market. If people stop eating, cows will stop being bred, and generally the herd size will diminish significantly.

---

Sound both plausible and desirable for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

Fair enough blp, since you and I are at least having a discussion which is adjusting itself to various parameters. You know, I changed my diet in about 03 to eat healthier, and my ex-fiance insisted that was why I was getting *sick*, and I dismissed this. My power chair died over Thanksgiving, and though I now can make limited excursions in the piece of junk I am sitting in now (getting a new chair takes a process) I have indulged some in rich processed food because I cannot drive to grocery as conveniently, and I seem much more stable, which makes not a lick of sense. I suppose internal medicine will look at their batty cripple askance when I ask them what is going on... (sigh); all I have is the colitis theory, which is difficult to confirm, but associated with cerebral palsy in some instances.

---

I'm all for adjusting parameters and I sympathise with this in particular, having been physiologically self-sabotaged a few years ago in my attempt to go vegan by the fact that I suddenly couldn't digest pulses. I won't go into disgusting detail, but horrible times were spent in toilet cubicles. No doctor treated the problem seriously. ****ing doctors, I swear, sometimes... Even supermarket bread brought it on to my bafflement and distress. I eventually realised it was probably because it all contained soya flour. Eventually, I solved the problem - don't ask me how I worked this out, it just suddenly made sense - by scarfing down large quantities of citrus fruits. But I'm also aware that, for a lot of people with more serious health problems such as yours, diet's no simple matter. A friend of mine was diagnosed diabetic a few years ago and it's still an ongoing source of anxiety to him trying to figure out what he can and can't eat to feel OK.

What did your healthier diet consist of? If you don't mind my asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jozanny

Maybe I should have been a biologist. However, it is not that I do not appreciate nobel sentiments, but I do insist on looking at what is real, even in the aspiration of the possible. Public radio this morning had a mildly alarming segment on species loss due to human activity, and they said it might be too late for X number of species--and I am not sure how putting 10 billion people on a diet of rice, greens, and roots, even if it could be done, changes that our extraordinary success has done almost incalculable harm.

---

But I've spent a lot of this thread arguing that vegetarianism is more than possible for most people. You're not sure how 10 billion people could be put on a vegetarian diet, but I've spent a lot of this thread explaining that it's cheaper and easier to produce this food than to farm livestock (while conceding that some animal husbandry would probably have to continue). Still, I'm not sure we've quite worked out whether the possibility of a 'global vegetarian diet' needs to be a predicate for every individual decision on this matter. Are we saying, uh oh, if everyone did this, it might cause a lot of damage? Is it likely that everyone is going to do this? Are we trying to subject vegetarianism to some version of Kant's categorical imperative?

Look, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, but, seriously, curtail beef farming and and you free up vast quantities of land for things like soya and wheat and feed about twenty times more people thereby. I posted a more exact figure and a source elsewhere in this thread.

You still seem to be saying, jozanny, that the fact that we can't solve all the problems caused by our evolutionary success, we shouldn't even try to solve any of them - no matter how much bloody sense it makes or how easy it is. Anyway, I'm getting blue in the face making all this sense and I'm about ready to quit. Any veggies who want to fight the tide of arguments I've already refuted, feel free repost my comments. Ciao kids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I refer you to my numerous remarks elsewhere in this thread about the environmental damage caused by cattle farming. It would be a far far better thing if 'less cows [were] brought into the world...'

---

I was going to mention that but I wasn't sure of its validity.

Quote:

---

So you wouldn't mind taking a bite out of an autistic person or a comatose patient with little or no brain activity. If the importance of a creatures life is based on their intellect then those who are pro-life on the issue of abortion and PVS are completely irrational. A similar hierarchy where one believed that they were superior to another group and there for their life was not as significant can be seen in Nazi Germany.

---

I don't think anything in my post suggested that I am pro-cannibalism. Or a Nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I don't think anything in my post suggested that I am pro-cannibalism. Or a Nazi.

---

I didn't say you were either, but your argument was based on the hierarchy of intelligence and superiority. You can have said that you have a biased as a human to value human life and left it at that instead of an attempt at objective reasoning.

Following excerpts are from Dennis Leary's no cure for cancer. I thought they were controversial and interesting enough to post...you could extract some truths through it...its satire

Red meat, white meat, blue meat, meat-o-****ing-rama. You will eat it. Because not eating meat is a decision. Eating meat is an instinct! Yeah! And I know what it's about. "I don't want to eat the meat because I love the animals. I love the animals." Hey, I love the animals too. I love my doggy. He's so cute. My fluffy little dog.. He's so cute- There's the problem. We only want to save the cute animals, don't we? Yeah. Why don't we just have animal auditions. Line 'em up one by one and interview them individually. "What are you?" "I'm an otter." "And what do you do?" "I swim around on my back and do cute little human things with my hands." "You're free to go." "And what are you?" "I'm a cow." "Get in the f***ing truck, ok pal!" "But I'm an animal." "You're a baseball glove! Get on that truck!" "I'm an animal, I have rights!" "Yeah, here's yer f***ing cousin, get on the f***ing truck, pal!" We kill the cows to make jackets out of them and then we kill each other for the jackets we made out of the cows.

You will eat the meat folks, because this country was founded on two things. Meat, and war. You eat enough f***ing meat, you wanna kill somebody. That's the way it works. That was the ultimate American dream. During that Persian Gulf War, I was sitting in my living room, naked, with a can of Budweiser and a three inch stake watching the war, live, on TV. I had a six foot "expletive" with a giant cheese burger on the end of it. I ate so much meat during the war that by the time the war was over three weeks later, I was like, "No no no. We need to keep fighting."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PierreGringoire

"You will eat the meat folks, because this country was founded on two things. Meat, and war."

---

Yeah. Don't even get me started on the arms industry. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

Pythagoras believed it was indecent for men to eat the flesh of animals, fattening the one on the destruction of another, especially since nature provided all that man needs to live and thrive in the fruits of the soil. This is perhaps the most convincing argument I have encountered in favor of vegitarianism. It still falls short of the mark, I think.


This statement seems to me to be in dire need of proof. If a building were on fire, and a child and a lamb were inside, and the Mahatma could save only one of them, are we seriously to believe that he would not have immediately chosen to save the child?

I am very fond of animals. I consider my 2 cats practically family-- practically! But there really are such things as higher and lower animals. My cats are very intelligent-- considering they have brains the size of a brussels sprout-- and they are higher creatures than a fly or a bacterium. But I am still more intelligent, for unlike them I have the ability to think abstractly and the foresight not to bite into electrical cords or chase rabid squirrels. I am a higher animal than a chicken or a cow or a lobster.

It does bother me (a little) that chickens and cows die so that I may have a nice meal. I hope that they are killed as painlessly as possible, and raised in a humane manner. (Lobsters, being basically giant bugs, I care less about.) Gratuitous or selfish cruelty is, I believe, unquestionably wrong.

Beyond a certain point, I believe, compassion for animals becomes essentially irrational. There is nothing wrong with this: my fondness for my cats is mostly irrational. But because it is irrational, I don't think it's possible to formulate a philosophical argument in favor of vegetarianism.

---

Not the point. Gandhi's argument lies more in the belief that the murder of an animal should be as severe as that of a human. Animals have the same capacity for love and pain as humans (animal psychology and brain wave studies prove this! Anyone who has had a pet should confirm this). Of course anyone would save the life of a human over an animal if they had to, but to be able to torture millions of animals daily and call it a legal industry is ludicrous.

The thing is, all meat you purchase in the grocery store has been crammed in tiny trucks in either scorching hot or freezing cold weather with hundreds of other panicked animals, driven for hundreds of miles without break, beaten and tortured into movement, and in the end stunned (if lucky) and slaughtered. Whether they're sick, lame, blind, deaf, old, it makes no difference. THAT is the reality of the meat industry. You can hope and dream that the food on your plate has had a painless death, but by continuing to purchase such products you are funding this legal cruelty.

On a side note, my father has been a vegetarian for about twenty years. He's about 45 now, and is a 3rd dan black belt in karate, and excels in hockey, tennis, snowboarding, and basically any other sport you can name. He's in top shape all around for his age, and he believes a vegetarian diet made a huge difference in his health.

Gladiators were almost all vegetarians. They got their protein from beans and legumes, and obviously had the muscle strength to perform amazing feats of athleticism.