Kip

I never claimed that vegetarianism caused a higher IQ. I said that the average vegetarian tends to have a higher IQ than the average meat eater, whether or not the relationship is causal or a correlation, THEREFORE any given meat eater, for example one on this message board, probably has a lower IQ than he or she would have otherwise. The truth of this claim is supported by science. Whether or not mentioning that is "polite" or "insulting", I felt that the study was interesting, if not relevant, and I am hoping that the people here will not want to be associated with these negative aspects of meat eating, and therefore move towards a plant-based diet.

I am beginning to feel that my efforts are futile, however, and that, because people are taking these references as insults, I am proving the claim that vegans are nasty people. So, let me remove all mentionings of IQs and moral superiority. Why should these considerations be relevant. I will continue to eat "tofu" and all of you meat eaters can continue to eat animals.

Yes, Sir! *salute*

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

seanie

Huh?

Your not claiming that vegetarianism causes a higher IQ.

Just that statistically vegetarians do have a higher IQ.

And that hopefully meat-eaters will feel embarassed about this and move to a vegetarian diet.

Not because their IQ will actually improve.

But because people will assume they have a higher IQ than they really do, simply because they're vegetarian.

Has this line of reasoning won many converts so far?

Rusting Car Bumper

No.

You said, "Just for argument's sake, if it could be proven that there were no direct link between cruelty to animals and cruelty to 'other living things' "

Your question required me to imagine human nature as being something that I cannot coherently imagine. In order for me to answer your question I have to imagine the consequences in the world if such premises were true. Well that seems exceedingly difficult.

My examples were meant to give anecdotes of contradictions and/or problems in so called "vegan ethics." They were not meant to spell out a simple "puzzlement" about plants.

Having "empathy" does NOT require one to then behave in a certain way. I may have empathy with a drug addict trying to rob me for my money so he/she can get drugs. That empathy does not imply, however, that I give them money. In fact, that empathy may even be trumped if I determine I have to kill the person to stop them from harming me. Conflicting values are basically a given in the human condition.

Thus simply saying one has "empathy" for non-human animals doesn't cut it. It requires a much more sophisticated argument. It requires something outside the order of empathy itself.

Why then do you not view with suspicion non-human animals who display no empathy toward other non-human animals or even humans?

If you say that they are not capable of empathy (or such a similar answer) then why is it that I cannot I selectively choose to NOT empathize with those same animals?

If a person chooses then to empathize with those non-human animals who are NOT capable of empathy then why is it unfair to ask why they are not empathetic to other living things such as plants? On these grounds, it seems perfectly fair to critisize the vegan position as capriciously arbitrary.

DC

Primal

A protected free range enviroment would be more comforting to an animal I imagine, unless it was agoraphobic.

In any case though, I think nature or the wild can be just as cruel towards animals as anything we humans can think of. Vicious predators,diseases,droughts,infant mortality,stress, etc. can cause wild animals to be even less happy then those in capitivity.


Well doctors may likewise tell me not to eat tons ot certain pesticides, but such may be harmless on plants. Or perhaps eating grass might not be good for me, but eating a cow that ate grass may be no problem. This may involve a difference in anatomy, perhaps the cow processes these chemicals differently then I do.

As other have suggested hunger is not caused by lack of food but many other factors. In Africa for example, local wars, warlords and an inflated military machine.

Also I don't know if it will be practical to grow just grains and rice. Lots of other plants would have to be produced, this may be impractical. Plant fields also require more man-power to be taken care of then cows do. This is due to weeds,insects,planting etc. They also require more land. I.e. with a vegan economy one needs grain fields and peanuts, as well as something to replace milk products. For an omnivorous economy one needs only grain fields and cow herds or insect farms.

I doubt this contribution is very significant.

I do not feel this empathy, nor do I find it necessary. Just as I do not empathize with bacteria when I take them out or plants I eat.

I really do not like tofu.

I personally have nothing against vegans or vegetarians btw, I can care about what they eat. Provided it isn't feces, poisons, nonorganic material or other people.

I just do not see what is very wrong with eating meat.

GPLindsey

Kip --

Regarding your longevity discussion--the Washington Post on Sunday, 10/13/02, ran a timely article entitled "Forever Young," which discussed much of the new research in extending longevity. One statement: "If you semi-starve a healthy organism, it turns out, its lifespan will increase by 40 percent. This is the only proven method of altering the rate of aging. Works on nematodes, fruit flies, mice, dogs, rats and spiders. Critters react by channeling energy from reproduction to maintenance." The downside, researchers have found, is that lab rats who are being semi-starved are incredibly mean, suggesting the quality of their lives aren't particularly high.

This is my wafer analogy brought to life--would you be willing to live in a state of semi-starvation for decade after decade, just to extend your life span by 40%? My answer is no. If the cost of seeing the future is eating a thin bowl of gruel the rest of my life--or a flavorless wafer, or a vegan diet--then the price tag is too high.

The article also mirrored what you said in your post about medical advances we could see in extending longevity. However, what struck me is that medical advances could soon make all the downsides you perceive of eating meat irrelevant. For example, researchers are looking into drugs that could fool your cells into switching into starvation mode, allowing you to eat normally yet live longer. Ten years from now, there could be nano-robotic devices that are hundreds of times faster than white blood cells that could be injected into our bodies. One scientist even sees us "replacing our gastrointestinal system with an engineered one that would allow us to eat as much as anything we want, for sociability and pleasure, while our new gut 'intelligently extracts nutrients from food' and trashes the rest."

What this tells me is that, rather than having to switch to a vegan diet to see the far future, medical science may soon allow us to have those all-you-can-eat barbeque buffets, without gaining weight and without shortening our life span!

If the health objections vegans have to meat diets are rendered irrelevant by medical advances, then all that will be left is their moral argument about the status of the animals we eat. I'll comment on that in a later post (dinner's calling--spaghetti with meat sauce, garlic bread, and a nice glass of red wine!).

The AntiChris

DigitalChicken

The mere fact that you find this so difficult to imagine suggests to me you have no empathy for non-human animals (of course you could just be adopting this controversial viewpoint in order to distance yourself from irrational vegetarians ). All I can say is that most (probably all) people I know would be concerned about protecting animals from human cruelty purely out of "empathy" for a suffering animal.

Anyway, leaving aside the issue of "empathy" for the moment, you support legislation protecting animals from human suffering because: "People who are cruel to animals tend to be cruel to other living things as well". Now, bearing in mind that many vegetarians and vegans believe that breeding and slaughtering animals for food is a form of "cruelty", you should at least have some understanding of, if not sympathy for, their desire to reduce human-induced animal cruelty.

What on earth made you think I didn't? Have you ever tried to stroke a wildcat?

This is really the crux of the debate. We all have differing levels of empathy towards animals. Some of these differences can be attributed to choice and some to societal conditioning (it's well known that children raised in an abusive family situation often grow up to become abusers - ie lacking in empathy for fellow humans). The question is, what degree of empathy is rational and healthy? I doubt there is any right or wrong answer, though I suspect as a society we have plenty of scope to become a little more empathic towards animals, if only for our own health.

It's not "unfair", it's nonsensical. Look up "empathy" in any dictionary and then explain how you might empathise with a carrot.

Chris

Primal

AntiChris: I am to an extent sympathetic to animals. That is why I am against animal cruelty for no reason. However if there is a reason that is obviously compelling i.e. food acquisition/medical research I would displace the empathetic feelings for what I see as the greater good, my diet and medicine.

Then again I would empathize with and save my loved ones even if that meant destroying everyone else on earth. So perhaps personal empathy isn't the most important basis for social policy. Though it is a basis, and social empathy/compromise can be a basis too provided no stronger values are at stake.

Rusting Car Bumper

No again. You simply ignored my response to this and didn't even quote it or address it!!

You completely ignored and skipped over a part of my previous post. That is why you come to this erroneous and unfounded conclusion.

Having empathy does not prescribe one to a course of action or that one should refrain from action.

I have empathy but I see the problem as intractable. All food production requires the suffering or killing of beings. There is no way around it unless one could produce Star Trek like synthetic foods that required little natural resources. That's not happening so its not that I don't have empathy as your straw man attack suggests. It's that i don't see that environmental rape known as "farming" is much different in moral effect than herding cows and slaughtering them.

Its not nonsensical. The vegan position is arbitrary, contradictory, and/or based on unfounded beliefs about empathy. It suggests that that empathy for animals is equivalent across a class. It suggest that one must act a certain way when one experiences empathy. It also ignores conflicts in values. It also treats non-human animals as moral agents in the societal game but then doesn't require them to participate. These things are nonsensical.

I can see that the carrot clearly wants to live and not be eaten. It wants to grow to fruition and breed. It wants to move toward the sun. It prefers good irrigation as opposed to drought. The vegan simply defines this sort of "will" into another category which is arbitrary.

I think all of this is beside the point anyway. Why?

I suggest that vegans don't really believe these arguments. I ask vegans: If I could produce animal products that weren't produced with suffering, then would you use these products? Vegans I talk to generally (with only a few exceptions) say they still wouldn't use those products! Clearly there is more at work than empathy.

DC

Kip

The hope was that meat eaters would want to agree with the smarter group - not that the meat eaters would magically become smarter by eating vegetables. The tacit assumption is that, in any dispute, the smarter people tend to be right.

This logic has not converted many people to vegetarianism, because the argument by itself is not very strong (my motivation for mentioning the study was primarily spite). There are an overwhelming number arguments towards the superiority of the vegetarian diet, including considerations of longevity, risk of disease, morality, and environmental protection, and these together should convert any reasonable and informed person.

"It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore." - Albert Einstein

Seanie, you also seem to selectively address various parts of my posts. I doubt that you are taking this discussion as seriously as I am. That is okay, I am probably too serious. I am usually neither a proselytizing vegetarian or atheist, but I am reading a book right now that inspired me to post on this thread.

Primal

Well then by that same token predatory animals tend to be more intelligent then herbivores.

I'd like to see these studies, and if they are true are you actually suggesting correlation? Perhaps there is another cause i.e. vegans tend to be liberal intellectuals which by their nature have a higher IQ.

Also studies have shown that closed-minded people have a higher IQ on average then open-minded people, should we all be closed-minded?