Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The AntiChris · 04-12-2002, 02:56 PM

Valmorian

Quote:

Isn't this self contradictory? "We're reaching a meat-free society right now, but I'm not at all certain we'll get to a meat-free society."?

Yes, my wording was rather sloppy. What I intended to convey was that, whether or not a meat-free society is truly achievable, I have no doubt that attitudes and practises of meat-eaters will change significantly in subsequent generations.

Quote:

And I'm just as certain that there are a significant number of people who enjoy eating meat enough that such concerns simply don't matter to them.

Each generation carries it's own set of inbuilt predjudices. Fortunately, the offspring of each generation have a tendency to question many of their parent's moral stances and see things with a fresh perspective. Just because It's a slow and incremental change, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Quote:

Eh? Perhaps they're just annoyed at some vegetarians telling them they are immoral?

It does appear that the ultimate insult to a subjectivist is to be called immoral - especially by anyone who's been invited to substantiate a claim that a particular activity is immoral.

Chris

[ April 12, 2002: Message edited by: The AntiChris ]

hal9000 · 04-16-2002, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Payne:
As I thought, no vegetarian fundamentalists have been able to come up with a reasonable regime for achieving the desired result without resorting to some form of authoritarian social system to achieve their goals. MeBeMe gave it a go, but he was into killing those who would defy his rule as king. (I guess, I missed his reply and only got a few bits and pieces of what he said before he got banned for it.)
In the end it is impossible for those like PETA, or my personal favorites the ALF, (Animal Liberation Front) who espouse extreme solutions to ending the practice of eating meat, to articulate any meaningful way to get to that stage without resorting to some form of authoritarian social structure. You guys talk the talk, but you can�t walk the walk, without destroying democracy in the process. There are worse things than eating meat, and extremism in the name of anything is one of them. In this regard you are no different than the religious fundies who would kill us all to save us from our sins. Take a good look in the mirror, for you are them, with a different �Holy� agenda. So all your talk leaves you <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: David Payne ]

double <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Dr. Jagan Mohan · 04-26-2002, 08:23 AM

Forget about Morality.
If we start discussing Morality and Ethics, it will lead is nowhere...

Its Simple: Ethical Vegetarianism is all about Empathy. Period. enough said.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7UlFXDiHigYC:www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf+empathy&hl=en&ie=utf-8" target="_blank">A Dissertation on Empathy and Consciousness: Scroll down to Compassion (page 27)</a>
<a href="http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf" target="_blank">PDF Original Version</a>

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]

Ierrellus · 04-26-2002, 10:38 AM

Circa early 70's, Steven Gaskin founded The Farm in Tennessee as a subcultural community for hippies. He determined that the diet for people on the farm should not be meat. Of the two reasons he gave for his descision, I agree with one. The first reason he gave was that he had been to hog killings and vegetable gatherings; and he knew which was the most offensive. The second reason was that meat for our hamburgers is taken from countries (Guatamala) in which laborers do not get survival wages for their work.

I agree with the second reason. The first makes no sense for several reasons. 1. a vegetable diet does not provide sufficient amounts of necessary vitamin B12. 2. All organisms feed on organic matter; 3. Meat protein is of a higher quality than vegetable protein; 4. Experiments with polygraphs have proved that plants exhibit reaction to pain. Because we cannot hear them does not mean that they do not scream. 5. If our sense of morality is dependent only on audible expressions of pain, we must eliminate all carniverous predators.

Ierrellus

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]

SmashingIdols · 04-26-2002, 12:04 PM

Can I join in the fray? I have an interesting backround in this subject matter.

First, I was a vegetarian for 14 years, 12 of which I was vegan. My wife was president of the Vegetarian Society of Colorado, I was chief editor of Vegetarian Living. I was involved with workshops hosting (and lecturing) with such vegetarian celebrities as Howard Lyman and John Robbins.

Together we spear-headed many campaigns aimed at 'raising public consciousness about the short and long-term hazards of animal protien based diets.'

Niether of us are any longer vegetarians (let alone vegans, heck I just had a great steak for lunch).

1. Morality
The statement that it is immoral to eat meat is indefensible:

a. Many people in the world would starve without meat consumption. The land they live on is largely incapable of producing the crops that would be necessary to support homo-sapiens. However, livestock are able to feed on this land and thereby provide nutrition to their villages. We found this was especially true in parts of Africa and Asia. Would it be moral to put them on a path to starvation?
b. Eating meat is a natural living condition. Animals other than homo-sapiens eat meat, without which they would starve. Making moral judgements in such a way is religious nonsense; lions cannot and never will eat straw. They are incapable of deriving the necessary nutrition without animal protiens.
c. Primates (all primates) eat some animal/insect protiens. Great apes will hunt and kill bush pigs for fresh meat. Chimpanzees eat termites. A careful analysis will show that no primate lives on a purely vegetarian diet; while comprised of mostly vegetative materials, these diets are greatly enhanced (and dependent upon) supplementation of animal protiens.

2. Environmental.

The statement that meat-eating is not environmentally sustainable holds some merit, while not entirely true, although that is not a basis for morality discussions.

a. Eating meat is not the number one cause of natural habitat destruction; rather it is agriculture to blame. Removing vast tracts of forest and natural lands impacts game and predator alike, this land is being destroyed world wide for the purpose of growing crops. The argument has been made that this agriculture is for the production/feed of livestock. This does not bear scrutiny once the removal of alfalfa and other grains that are not consumable by humans are removed from the equation. This is an unfortunate figure that Earthsave is hesitant and loathe to admit.
b. The ocean is the most impacted at present by meat consumption. This is completely and totally true. Oceanic foodchains do not have the ability to support the level of human consumption they have reached, and to date there has been no attempt (not that it is even feasible to do so) to repopulate organisms being extracted. Unfortunately, a great deal of oceanic foods are going straight to poultry production - this is not sustainable. Additionally poultry production is responsible for some 70% of all antibiotic production in the USA. I concurr that poultry consumption, as well as oceanic organism consumption, is not sustainable.
c. Sustainability is not a moral argument - being the cause of all such impacts are related to population rates world wide, and not the actual consumption of meat - which for a great many people is a necessary and indigenous lifestyle.

3. Supply and Demand.
The problem with the world food shortages could not possibly be solved by vegetarianism - when the actual problem is demonstrably supply and demand. We went around and around with this at Earthsave and NAVS. The current problem is that even though excess crops are grown in the parts of the world with arable land, they are not equally distributed to areas where food shortages caused by reduced grazing lands, drought, political relocation, have created the greatest demand. That can only be fixed by money. In any case, the original question was concerning the morality of meat-eating, not free-market societies.

:-)

I could go on about this for hours and hours and hours. We were two of the most prominent vegetarians in the midwest.

I haven't even discussed the problems on the health side (like the long term effect of protease inhibitors in primates, like those found in soy). We are so very informed about these issues because we aided in the development and dissemination of (very one-sided) information about this very topic.

Let me know if you want more... there is a ton.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]

The AntiChris · 04-26-2002, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SmashingIdols:
We were two of the most prominent vegetarians in the midwest

So, why did you originally become vegetarians and what made you change your mind?

Was it because:

a) You realised meat-eating is a "natural living condition"?

b) Environmentally it was ok?

c) You realised you couldn't solve the world's food shortages?

d) or what?

Chris

SmashingIdols · 04-26-2002, 04:05 PM

Our starting and stopping would seem to be quite a bit off topic. Should we open a seperate thread on this? I would be only too happy to talk about it, but the conversation here seemed to be about "The Morality of Meat Eating."

99Percent · 04-26-2002, 06:39 PM

I was a lacto-vegetarian for 20 years (from ages 9 to 29) because of "health reasons".

When I squemishly began eating eggs, fish and poultry I found out I actually felt much better, and best of all I had more variety in food (it was a real drag having to scour the menus in restaurants for non meat dishes). Now I really enjoy the taste of the food I had missed for 20 years.

I still avoid eating mammalian meat directly like steaks or hamburgers, though I sometimes do eat hams and sausages.

The AntiChris · 04-27-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SmashingIdols:
Should we open a seperate thread on this?

It's really not that important.

It's just that you've mentioned on more than one occasion here that you started eating meat again after 14 years as a vegetarian. I just wonder what on earth made you realise the error of your ways after all that time.

Chris

04-26-2002, 08:23 AM	#123
Dr. Jagan Mohan Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Presently on the 'move' :) Posts: 98	Forget about Morality. If we start discussing Morality and Ethics, it will lead is nowhere... Its Simple: Ethical Vegetarianism is all about Empathy. Period. enough said. <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:7UlFXDiHigYC:www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf+empathy&hl=en&ie=utf-8" target="_blank">A Dissertation on Empathy and Consciousness: Scroll down to Compassion (page 27)</a> <a href="http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/Thompson.pdf" target="_blank">PDF Original Version</a> [ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Jagan Mohan ]</p>

04-26-2002, 10:38 AM	#124
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Circa early 70's, Steven Gaskin founded The Farm in Tennessee as a subcultural community for hippies. He determined that the diet for people on the farm should not be meat. Of the two reasons he gave for his descision, I agree with one. The first reason he gave was that he had been to hog killings and vegetable gatherings; and he knew which was the most offensive. The second reason was that meat for our hamburgers is taken from countries (Guatamala) in which laborers do not get survival wages for their work. I agree with the second reason. The first makes no sense for several reasons. 1. a vegetable diet does not provide sufficient amounts of necessary vitamin B12. 2. All organisms feed on organic matter; 3. Meat protein is of a higher quality than vegetable protein; 4. Experiments with polygraphs have proved that plants exhibit reaction to pain. Because we cannot hear them does not mean that they do not scream. 5. If our sense of morality is dependent only on audible expressions of pain, we must eliminate all carniverous predators. Ierrellus [ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

04-26-2002, 12:04 PM	#125
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Can I join in the fray? I have an interesting backround in this subject matter. First, I was a vegetarian for 14 years, 12 of which I was vegan. My wife was president of the Vegetarian Society of Colorado, I was chief editor of Vegetarian Living. I was involved with workshops hosting (and lecturing) with such vegetarian celebrities as Howard Lyman and John Robbins. Together we spear-headed many campaigns aimed at 'raising public consciousness about the short and long-term hazards of animal protien based diets.' Niether of us are any longer vegetarians (let alone vegans, heck I just had a great steak for lunch). 1. Morality The statement that it is immoral to eat meat is indefensible: a. Many people in the world would starve without meat consumption. The land they live on is largely incapable of producing the crops that would be necessary to support homo-sapiens. However, livestock are able to feed on this land and thereby provide nutrition to their villages. We found this was especially true in parts of Africa and Asia. Would it be moral to put them on a path to starvation? b. Eating meat is a natural living condition. Animals other than homo-sapiens eat meat, without which they would starve. Making moral judgements in such a way is religious nonsense; lions cannot and never will eat straw. They are incapable of deriving the necessary nutrition without animal protiens. c. Primates (all primates) eat some animal/insect protiens. Great apes will hunt and kill bush pigs for fresh meat. Chimpanzees eat termites. A careful analysis will show that no primate lives on a purely vegetarian diet; while comprised of mostly vegetative materials, these diets are greatly enhanced (and dependent upon) supplementation of animal protiens. 2. Environmental. The statement that meat-eating is not environmentally sustainable holds some merit, while not entirely true, although that is not a basis for morality discussions. a. Eating meat is not the number one cause of natural habitat destruction; rather it is agriculture to blame. Removing vast tracts of forest and natural lands impacts game and predator alike, this land is being destroyed world wide for the purpose of growing crops. The argument has been made that this agriculture is for the production/feed of livestock. This does not bear scrutiny once the removal of alfalfa and other grains that are not consumable by humans are removed from the equation. This is an unfortunate figure that Earthsave is hesitant and loathe to admit. b. The ocean is the most impacted at present by meat consumption. This is completely and totally true. Oceanic foodchains do not have the ability to support the level of human consumption they have reached, and to date there has been no attempt (not that it is even feasible to do so) to repopulate organisms being extracted. Unfortunately, a great deal of oceanic foods are going straight to poultry production - this is not sustainable. Additionally poultry production is responsible for some 70% of all antibiotic production in the USA. I concurr that poultry consumption, as well as oceanic organism consumption, is not sustainable. c. Sustainability is not a moral argument - being the cause of all such impacts are related to population rates world wide, and not the actual consumption of meat - which for a great many people is a necessary and indigenous lifestyle. 3. Supply and Demand. The problem with the world food shortages could not possibly be solved by vegetarianism - when the actual problem is demonstrably supply and demand. We went around and around with this at Earthsave and NAVS. The current problem is that even though excess crops are grown in the parts of the world with arable land, they are not equally distributed to areas where food shortages caused by reduced grazing lands, drought, political relocation, have created the greatest demand. That can only be fixed by money. In any case, the original question was concerning the morality of meat-eating, not free-market societies. :-) I could go on about this for hours and hours and hours. We were two of the most prominent vegetarians in the midwest. I haven't even discussed the problems on the health side (like the long term effect of protease inhibitors in primates, like those found in soy). We are so very informed about these issues because we aided in the development and dissemination of (very one-sided) information about this very topic. Let me know if you want more... there is a ton. [ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-26-2002, 04:05 PM	#127
SmashingIdols Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 153	Our starting and stopping would seem to be quite a bit off topic. Should we open a seperate thread on this? I would be only too happy to talk about it, but the conversation here seemed to be about "The Morality of Meat Eating."

04-26-2002, 06:39 PM	#128
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	I was a lacto-vegetarian for 20 years (from ages 9 to 29) because of "health reasons". When I squemishly began eating eggs, fish and poultry I found out I actually felt much better, and best of all I had more variety in food (it was a real drag having to scour the menus in restaurants for non meat dishes). Now I really enjoy the taste of the food I had missed for 20 years. I still avoid eating mammalian meat directly like steaks or hamburgers, though I sometimes do eat hams and sausages.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.