Vegetarianism

[cl154576]

Everyone needs to choose a focus that appeals most to him/her individually.

This reminds me somewhat of a raw food Vegan woman I knew once who was most conscientious about researching the farms that produced everything she ate, wore only cotton clothing and was well-versed in yoga, transcendental meditation, and whatever else the "healthy" people nowadays consider supremely beneficial. I asked her one day if she researched the factories her clothes came from, knowing that some factories in other countries have child labor, low wages and hazardous conditions. She told me that when possible she would buy organic, fair trade cotton clothes, but that in the end she could only concentrate most on one thing and she sympathized more with animals than with humans.

But I think the way to change this is not primarily through individuals' decisions. Most people will just keep eating meat anyway. That's why projects like 'New Harvest' are important, producing meat in the lab, without suffering. Healthier, better for the environment, cheaper, and cruelty-free! So one just has to work against people's irrational aversion to 'artificial stuff', and then the world will hopefully change for the better

Didn't the Japanese scientists discover a way of making "meat" out of human feces some time ago? I suppose you will say we should all eat that in the future?

Do you aim to eliminate suffering?

[Dodo25]

This reminds me somewhat of a raw food Vegan woman I knew once who was most conscientious about researching the farms that produced everything she ate, wore only cotton clothing and was well-versed in yoga, transcendental meditation, and whatever else the "healthy" people nowadays consider supremely beneficial. I asked her one day if she researched the factories her clothes came from, knowing that some factories in other countries have child labor, low wages and hazardous conditions. She told me that when possible she would buy organic, fair trade cotton clothes, but that in the end she could only concentrate most on one thing and she sympathized more with animals than with humans.

One does not have to be into esoterics and new age stuff to recognize that it's an atrocity what we are doing to animals. Human suffering counts too, obviously. And by being vegan, one is contributing towards there being more / cheaper food to feed starving people in third world countries. Since we're at it, whoever cares about human suffering please also check out: http://www.givingwhatwecan.org/resou...-charities.php

Didn't the Japanese scientists discover a way of making "meat" out of human feces some time ago? I suppose you will say we should all eat that in the future?

I don't care what people eat, as long as they don't cause unnecessary suffering. One can live perfectly well without meat. Or one can wait till meat is grown in the lab, or made out of feces or whatever. If it helps more people choosing a lifestyle that doesn't cause suffering, it is a good thing.

Do you aim to eliminate suffering?

Yes, it seems the most obvious thing to do for me. No sentient being wants to suffer. So suffering should be minimized.

[cl154576]

Would life have any meaning if the world were perfect?

[Dodo25]

Would life have any meaning if the world were perfect?

I see you like Dostoevsky.

After describing in graphic details the immense suffering a child had gone through, being tortured by her parents, Ivan Karamazov said the following to Alyosha:

"Why recognize that devlish good-and-evil, when it costs so much? I mean, the entire universe of knowledge isn't worth the tears of that little child addressed to 'dear Father God'."

And if, for some reason, some amount of suffering really is necessary, we can keep THAT amount, but definitely not more.

And torturing animals certainly isn't what gives meaning to our lives, is it?

[Rores28]

It is interesting the way that one's logic twists in order to justify their normal habits.

If you think that animals are sentient then you must admit that there is something wrong with factory farming them. End of story. Sentience is the marker of morality, without it there is no good or bad.

And this comes from someone who eats meat

The Blue Zones is a book about the longest lived populations in the world and the commonalities they share. Guess what one of them is....

[keilj]

Vegetarianism is the philosophy of the privileged

If you were a pilgrim making his way across the Midwest in the 1700's (substitute year if you want, I'm no expert on America's migratory history), you would eat anything that moved

Same with a guy during the Great Depression - you wouldn't be sitting around waxing philosophic about the souls of chickens, you would be eating them

I've been a vegetarian for many years and I am very healthy. I'm healthier than all of the meat eaters I know. I cook all of my own meals. Most people don't want to cook all the time. I don't tell anyone to be vegetarian, even though the benefits are clear to me, because I came to the decision on my own. Personally, I can't knowingly be responsible for the death or torture of any living creature.

If this is true, then I hope you don't live in any industrialized society. Because currently we are living on the backs of many suffering people. From factory workers in India and China, to the "death and suffering" that we are exporting to foreign countries with our wars (and the harm we are doing to our own youth by sending them to fight those wars).

I hope you live out in the woods and pay no taxes - otherwise you are complicit with many acts of cruelty daily

[Dodo25]

Vegetarianism is the philosophy of the privileged

If you were a pilgrim making his way across the Midwest in the 1700's (substitute year if you want, I'm no expert on America's migratory history), you would eat anything that moved

We do not live in the 17th century, so this is utterly irrelevant. We can live healthily and happily without meat. Even without any other animal products too. All the suffering caused to animals in food production is unnecessary suffering. And this should be avoided. Veganism is the option with the least amount of suffering.

If the stuff done to animals were done to human infants or late-stage Alzheimer patients, would you still talk about 'philosophy of the priviledged' and stuff? In their emotional and cognitive capacities, there is no difference. Why treat some different than others? Pain is pain, and suffering is suffering, no matter how the being experiencing it looks like.

Same with a guy during the Great Depression - you wouldn't be sitting around waxing philosophic about the souls of chickens, you would be eating them

Incidentally, vegan food is cheaper, or at least not more expensive. Exceptions are countries like the US (with 99% of their food animals being raised in factory farms!) where the subsidize the hell out of animal products. But if you count health costs too, veganism will probably still be cheaper overall. (And even if it weren't, how much money is it worth to torture for?)

If this is true, then I hope you don't live in any industrialized society. Because currently we are living on the backs of many suffering people. From factory workers in India and China, to the "death and suffering" that we are exporting to foreign countries with our wars (and the harm we are doing to our own youth by sending them to fight those wars).

I hope you live out in the woods and pay no taxes - otherwise you are complicit with many acts of cruelty daily

Sometimes it's better to work within a flawed system than to exit the system. Aside from the 53'000'000'000 land animals (and billions of sea animals) being slaughtered each year, there's of course more to care about, some of them being the things you mention. Let me add that, since it takes about 7-16 pounds of soy (or wheat) to produce 1 pound of beef, the 'distribution problem' as one cause of world poverty and starvation (more than 20'000 children die unnecessary deaths every day) is to a large extent caused by our consumption of meat. If the plant food was directly eaten instead having to inefficiently pass through cruelly treated animals, there would be much more food to distribute, and the prices would be payable for poor people too.

[keilj]

We do not live in the 17th century, so this is utterly irrelevant. We can live healthily and happily without meat. Even without any other animal products too. All the suffering caused to animals in food production is unnecessary suffering. And this should be avoided. Veganism is the option without the least amount of suffering.

Again, you're coming from some kind of privileged suburbanite background and viewing the world that way. There are still plenty of people starving around the world, and starving right here in the U.S. The religion of vegetarianism is a religion for the privileged. Go tell some homeless kid that they are doing evil by eating a hamburger.

Or, if you're saying that all us privileged suburbanites are the only ones who should give up meat - then I'm not sure I'm interested in a philosophy that only applies to certain groups. Well-formed philosophies should be able to be applied across the board

[keilj]

Sometimes it's better to work within a flawed system than to exit the system. Aside from the 53'000'000'000 land animals (and billions of sea animals) being slaughtered each year, there's of course more to care about, some of them being the things you mention. Let me add that, since it takes about 7-16 pounds of soy (or wheat) to produce 1 pound of beef, the 'distribution problem' as one cause of world poverty and starvation (more than 20'000 children die unnecessary deaths every day) is to a large extent caused by our consumption of meat. If the plant food was directly eaten instead having to inefficiently pass through cruelly treated animals, there would be much more food to distribute, and the prices would be payable for poor people too.

I think those are pretty admirable goals. But those kind of utopian outlooks ignore the realities of human nature. It won't happen, because human beings are selfish, petty, brutes and they always will be

[cyberbob]

Vegetarianism is not a philosophy. People have different reasons for doing it like for religious, nutritional, (and yes) ethical purposes, as well as to impress a cute vegeterian gir or just out of personal taste.

That's like calling physical exercise a philosophy.

I guess Veganism may be called a philosophy and maybe it is easier for people with money but the same could be said about environmentalism, giving to charity, adopting children from 3rd world countries, etc.

You could even take it further and say that it's comparatively easier to do any "good" thing with money. It's easier to go to a church if you have money for transport (for the bus or gas money for a car), it's easier to clean yourself if you can afford soap and shampoo and money to do laundry, it's easier to go to college if you can afford it, etc.

The fact that doing something is impractical for people in certain economic situations does not take away from the virtuosity of that thing. I don't ever expect African tribesmen or hobos in America to go Vegan out of compassion for animals. I don't expect them to start recycling either. However, that does not mean that recycling isn't a good thing to do for people who CAN do it, and for big corporations to be responsible and recycle.

Anyway, the tribesman and the hobo are not the major cause of the problem. I don't think they are directly the cause of environmental degradation and I don't think they're the cause of animal suffering on a massive scale, even if they do participate in these things because of their personal needs.

I think most Vegans would PREFER if people didn't WANT to eat any meat at all, but they don't expect that'll ever happen and they wouldn't want to impinge on people's civil liberties to do so. What Vegans are against is the wanton and excessive cruelty caused by the massive food industry and the apathy of the general public. In particular the treatment that animals receive in factory farms and animal testing facilities are what we are against.

We don't seek a new world order that gives animals the same rights as humans or doesn't allow humans to eat animal products. We just want the public to be more conscientious and for there to be guidelines for reducing animal suffering in the food industry.

BTW I am a hardcore libertarian so I am not in any way against the animal food industry in principle. As a libertarian, though, I believe personal liberty should be restricted if it infringes on someone else's rights. In this case I believe animals have the right to live a life free of suffering and a company's freedom to treat animals any way it pleases should be restricted by regulations, not by the wholesale banning of animal based foods.

[Dodo25]

Cyberbob, well said. I'm not a libertarian, but I find it great that veganism is so obvious that people from all kinds of ethical views arrive at it.

Again, you're coming from some kind of privileged suburbanite background and viewing the world that way. There are still plenty of people starving around the world, and starving right here in the U.S. The religion of vegetarianism is a religion for the privileged. Go tell some homeless kid that they are doing evil by eating a hamburger.

I already wrote above how eating meat, if anything, increases the number of starving human beings. If the State did not subsidize the hell out of it, hamburgers would be too expensive for homeless kids to begin with.

Or, if you're saying that all us privileged suburbanites are the only ones who should give up meat - then I'm not sure I'm interested in a philosophy that only applies to certain groups. Well-formed philosophies should be able to be applied across the board

Ethics depends on situations. If someone would starve without meat, then they should eat it. But it is actually the case that the whole world could go vegan, in fact there'd be more food than there is now even. Industries will have to adapt and stuff, but it's feasible.

Also, there's the possibility of cultured meat. Healthier, better for the environment, cheaper, and produced without cruelty.

I think those are pretty admirable goals. But those kind of utopian outlooks ignore the realities of human nature. It won't happen, because human beings are selfish, petty, brutes and they always will be

We've managed to get rid of slavery and racism. We might well manage to get rid of slaughterhouses and speciesism too. A lot of people already care. And with the help of technology, change can be accelerated. I don't think most people actually are that selfish. If they knew more about the conditions, and if they realized more that being brought up with something doesn't make it right, then more people would become vegetarians or vegans.

[cyberbob]

Well, I am also 19 years old so I think Veganism is more popular with youngsters, especially idealistic ones, regardless of specific ethos.

I dunno if much older libertarians would look at Veganism positively.

[keilj]

I think both of you make really good points, and I agree with much of what you are saying. I, for one, am sick of eating chickens and cows that have been pumped full of steroids and raised in abominably crowded and disgusting conditions.

But the original point I was trying to make, and probably my primary objection to the vegetarianism thing, is it is a conversation for the privileged. Us three can sit here in our air-conditioned living rooms, on our computers with broadband Internet, and kick these ideas around. A poor person or a hungry migrant worker would laugh us into impotence at the suggestion that burgers are evil

So again, when I hear these conversations - to me they smack of a "Talented Tenth" kind of world view

[Theunderground]

Human. Animal. An unbridgeable gulf between those twain. Never mind darwin or singer,pass the cow burgers! Yummy!