Ethics of eating meat

[northcrunk]

Really what are we going to do with a more developed brain anyway? Might as well chomp down on the veg. It's not like we still have stupid people in this world.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I think the obvious logical evolution of our species is to move past a point where we need to destroy our environment for the sole purpose of murdering sentient beings when we really don't have to

Evolution is niether obvious or logical. And it is not like we can decide mentally "Hey lets evolve in this.....". There is a natural balance in the world and animals eating other animals is part of it.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Evolution is niether obvious or logical. And it is not like we can decide mentally "Hey lets evolve in this.....". There is a natural balance in the world and animals eating other animals is part of it.

True, but we already decide evolutionary paths of other beings purely for this purpose. By most accounts, cows, chickens and pigs, in the forms they are in, would be long extinct if it wasn't for our artificial selection. Maybe we were destined to move into plant-based proteins long ago but never did.

Originally Posted by northcrunk

So you think we should just stay where we are and not evolve any further?

No, I'm saying that maybe we are on a different evolutionary path now. Just because we needed it in the early development of our species, doesn't mean we need it anymore. And doesn't necessarily mean that we stop evolving, just evolve along a different trajectory.

And the caveat to all of this is that eating meat is not bad or unethical. It's the way we produce it, and the insane volumes that we consume (particularly in NA) that is in question.

[T-Rich]

Originally Posted by GGG

But the thing is that while wild animals might replace some marginal grazing land most of the land will be turned into other agriculture, irrigated and still used to produce food. So I don't think you see a gain of biodiversity by removing our massed produced food options.

The natural equilibrium of cows, pigs and chickens is zero in their current forms. Veganism is pro the ending of certain human domesticated animal species. That isn't necessarily unethical but it is supporting the extinction of the species not the eliminating of suffering of the species and I think that is a important distinction when discussing the ethics of eating meat.

I also thing that Cows and Pigs have won natural selection. They have chosen in a genetic sense to trade their edibleness in exchange for existence. They are the most dominant of the animal species. One my argue that they don't get to exude there animalness or are depressed or tortured but that is anthropomorphizing them. From the natural selection stand point they are winning. One might also say that dogs have made the same "choice" as cows. They don't get to be their most dogness and have had to adapt or be put down but their genetic line is successfully passed down.

I wasn't trying to argue that there would be increased biodiversity by removing current food practices, just saying if chickens, cows, and pigs didn't exist there would be less biodiversity.

Natural selection is always changing so cows and pigs may be winning right now but that would change if humans stopped eating them as much.

Extinction vs living a life of suffering is an interesting argument and I'm sure people would fall on both sides of it but I don't think it has to be one or the other. I won't argue that these animals currently rely on humans to survive and that its possible they go extinct without us raising them but they might adapt and find new ways to survive without us. If we stop eating meat and they start going extinct and people think that's an issue then maybe we do something about it but just continuing with a practice that promotes suffering of animals because they may go extinct otherwise certainly doesn't make any sense. I don't mean to imply that this is what you are arguing for, just saying we should be less concerned about an animal going extinct when it is no where near that level.

[undercoverbrother]

Can SHOGUN post again please.

[Fuzz]

To much rational discussion going on for you?

[T-Rich]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Natural selection would probably see cow, chicken and pig populations explode without human intervention, they're just genetically nearly bullet proof at this point in time.

Its like introducing domesticated rabbits, once they get past that first generation and their survival instincts return to the surface, they'll probably squeeze out any similar wild life .

Out of curiousity does your pro natural selection no human intervention stance extent to humans?

It's possible that if we flipped the switch tomorrow and everyone stopped eating meat that these animals populations could further explode but they live very sheltered lives in fences/cages, with something providing all the food/water they require, surviving in the wild, finding their own food are significant obstacles that not all of the population are likely to survive. Their populations are so large not just because we support them but because we specifically breed more and more of them.

Not sure what your question is looking for, if its "Do I think if a person is weaker we should we not help them out because of natural selection", then no obliviously not. Just because I believe in natural section doesn't mean I don't believe in ethics or anything else, the pro natural selection no human intervention statements were made to a specific existential question. Further, I don't see how a no human intervention stance can be applied to humans.

[northcrunk]

Wild cows went extinct a long time ago. These animals don't occur in nature. If we stopped eating them and released them all they would just become food for any other predators.

[harmony]

so, we have laws against animal cruelty... except they don't apply to farm animals. so damn hypocritical.

[peter12]

There are many ways we could reform our agricultural system to raise meat animals in a more humane and efficient manner.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-meat-excerpt/

[AltaGuy]

I must admit, this is the first time I've seen the extinction of cows (et al) as a counterargument to less meat consumption.

[northcrunk]

Happy animals taste better. Nothing wrong with giving them a happy life and at the end of it becoming food. Really it is in our best interests to not be cruel but eating one another is just the circle of life. Until we figure out how to just absorb light rays and turn them into food.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

Happy animals taste better. Nothing wrong with giving them a happy life and at the end of it becoming food. Really it is in our best interests to not be cruel but eating one another is just the circle of life. Until we figure out how to just absorb light rays and turn them into food.

Ok, I'll bite. Do you really believe that we could not feed ourselves without meat?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

Ok, I'll bite. Do you really believe that we could not feed ourselves without meat?

We could. There's nothing stopping people from eating what they want. I think being a omnivore gives us an evolutionary step up from most animals so I'll keep doing it.

I won't preach to other people that they HAVE to eat meat because I could care less what they want to put in their bodies. I think preaching to people to not eat meat and trying to shame them into feeling bad for the animals they consume is anti-human. If that's your choice good for you and I wish you the best.

Life would suck if we didn't have free will.

[peter12]

Turnip bakes three times a week!
As for meat-eaters, any of you guys tried roasted pig head?

[northcrunk]

The best part is the cheeks. I love pork. How could eating something so tasty be wrong. We do a full pig roast every year in Manitoba. Of course my sister won't eat it and her husband drools over it but won't touch it for fear of the backlash from my sister. Funny thing is she runs a raw dog food company.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Tyler

I think the obvious logical evolution of our species is to move past a point where we need to destroy our environment for the sole purpose of murdering sentient beings when we really don't have to

What you are preaching is idealism not evolution of the human species.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

It's a good thing all those innocent animals out there don't eat each other. Why can't we have ethics like the animals?

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

What you are preaching is idealism not genetic evolution of the human species.

Is it though?

NASA To Study Man Who Survives On Liquids And Sunlight

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/food-03d.html

An Indian man, who claims to have survived only on liquids and sunlight for eight years, has been invited by NASA to show them how he does it.

In 1995, he went on a pilgrimage to the Himalayas and stopped eating completely on his return.

His wife, Vimla, said: "Every evening he looks at the sun for one hour without batting an eyelid. It is his main food. Occasionally he takes coffee, tea or some other liquid."

[peter12]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The best part is the cheeks. I love pork. How could eating something so tasty be wrong. We do a full pig roast every year in Manitoba. Of course my sister won't eat it and her husband drools over it but won't touch it for fear of the backlash from my sister. Funny thing is she runs a raw dog food company.

I have preserved pig cheeks and garlic in duck fat, and then cooked the pieces on thick toast in the oven.

Probably the best thing you can eat.