shamon

I stand corrected. What I meant was feel pain. They surely avoid death (even a crocodile does this) but don't feel pain. Of course, it's certainly wrong to gluttonously consume fish for every meal but in general the occasional eating of fish isn’t unethical considering we can eat it raw. Most ancient vegetarians didn’t consider fish meat.

tronvillain

How exactly did you determine that they don't feel pain? What does being able to eat it raw have to do with anything?

Rational Ag

I think you are likely mistaken on the issue of fish feeling pain. Here is a website of a vegetarian much like yourself with data and evidence that shows that <a href="http://www.nofishing.net/pain.html" target="_blank">fish do indeed feel pain</a>.

By your own standards it seems to me that you are being hypocritical by eating fish. Are you going to now change your stance on eating fish because they feel pain?

What are your criteria for judging what it is moral and immoral to eat?

Most ancient vegetarians probably thought the earth was flat, Zeus caused lightning, demon spirits caused disease, etc. How ancient people classify things has no bearing on the issue.

Do you classify fish as meat? On what basis do you make this classification?

-Rational Ag

Valmorian

</strong>

How bizarre. How do you jump to this conclusion? What makes you think they don't "feel pain"?

</strong>

Eating fish is ethical because you can eat it raw??! Huh???

Hm, and what if you meet someone who doesn't consider non-human animals "meat"? I mean really, is it just the definitions that you're stuck on?

brighid

Shamon -

I am going to refrain from really speaking my mind right now .... bites lower lip to prevent profanity from spewing forth and making it's way from my mouth, to fingers to computer screen ...

<a href="http://www.beyondveg.com/" target="_blank">http://www.beyondveg.com/</a>

All taken from above link
Our laboratory has recently compiled the plant/animal-food subsistence ratio data in the Ethnographic Atlas [Murdock 1967] for all worldwide hunter-gatherer populations which have been studied either historically or by contemporary anthropologists. The analysis shows that in the majority (61.3%) of worldwide hunter-gatherers, gathered plant food represents 35% or less of the total food utilized. Only 2.2% of the world's hunter-gatherers derive 66% or more of their total foods from plants. Further, not a single hunter-gather population derives 86% or more of its total calories from plant foods.
The most frequently occurring (mode) plant/animal subsistence ratio for worldwide hunter-gatherers is 16-25% plant/75-84% animal, and the median value is 26-35% plant/65-74% animal. These values corroborate five careful modern studies of hunter-gatherers showing a mean energy (caloric) intake from animal-food sources to be 59% [Leonard et al. 1994
Taurine is an amino acid which is not found in any plant-based food [Laidlow et al. 1990] and which is an essential nutrient in all mammalian cells. Herbivores are able to synthesize taurine from precursor amino acids derived from plants, whereas cats have completely lost the ability to synthesize taurine [Knopf et al. 1978]. Since all animal-based foods (except cow's milk) are rich sources of taurine [Laidlow et al. 1990], cats have been able to relax the selective pressure required for taurine synthesis because they obtain all of this nutrient that they need from their exclusive meat-based diet.
Plant-based foods contain 18-carbon fatty acids of both the omega-3 and omega-6 families, but are virtually devoid of the 20- and 22-carbon fatty acids that are required for the normal functioning of all mammalian cells, whether the mammal is an herbivore or carnivore.
All animals, whether herbivore or carnivore, require vitamin A. Vitamin A is not found in any plant-based food; consequently, herbivores must synthesize it in the liver from beta-carotene consumed from plant-based foods
Recently, it has been shown that humans have a limited capacity to absorb beta-carotene in plants [de Pee and West et al. 1995] (the bioavailability of beta-carotene from plants is low for humans compared to its bioavailability from other sources), presumably because humans, like cats, have consumed vitamin A-rich animal food sources for eons and are in a transitional state from omnivory to obligate carnivory.

Because B-12 is not found in higher plants, herbivorous mammals must solely rely upon absorption of B-12 from bacteria that synthesize it in their gut. Cats can neither synthesize B-12 nor absorb it from their gut; consequently they have become wholly dependent upon animal flesh as their source for this essential nutrient.
Humans, like cats, cannot depend on the absorption of bacterially produced vitamin B-12 from the gut, and are reliant upon animal-based sources of this essential vitamin, since it does not occur in a biologically active form in any of the plant foods which humans normally eat. While some viable B-12 is synthesized in the human colon, the site of absorption is at the ileum, which is "upstream" from the colon at the lower end of the small intestine; thus for humans, B-12 synthesized in the colon is unavailable and must come from the food eaten [Herbert 1988]. Regarding possible B-12 synthesis in the small intestine above the ileum, the consensus of scientific literature indicates any amounts that may potentially be produced are not significant or reliable enough to serve as a dependable or sole source for most individuals.
Additionally, while most cases of B-12 deficiency in omnivores are due to problems of impaired absorption rather than a deficiency of nutritional intake [Herbert 1994], the opposite situation prevails in vegetarians eating only minimal amounts of animal by-products [Chanarin et al. 1988].
An indication of the masking effect of previously stored B-12 reserves in obscuring ongoing negative B-12 balance can be seen in long-term vegan mothers and their infants. Such mothers may maintain blood levels of haptocorrin B-12 in the normal range for lengthy periods (years) due to increasingly efficient recycling of B-12 as their reserve stores become depleted, and in adult vegans with such improved B-12 reabsorption, such clinical deficiency may take 20-30 years to manifest. However, infants of such mothers are born with almost no reserve stores (little or none are available in the mother's body to pass on to them) and go into clinical deficiency much more rapidly. [Herbert 1994]
In summary, the absence of the ability of humans to absorb bacterially produced B-12 in the colon, and the evidence that strictly behaving vegans will show negative TCII-carried B-12 balance even when total serum levels are in the normal range, is indicative of the long evolutionary history of animal-based foods in our diet
These metabolic and biochemical adaptations in humans in response to increasingly meat-based diets, as well as the anthropological evidence provided by both contemporary and historical studies of hunter-gatherer diets, provide strong evidence for the central role of meat and animal tissues in the human diet. Although it is true that human populations can survive under broad plant/animal subsistence ratios, the consensus evidence supports the notion that whenever it was ecologically possible, animal calories would have always represented the majority of the total daily energy intake.
--Loren Cordain, Ph.D.

shamon

I’m not here to write to Loren Cordain, Ph.D.

Please answer my questions yourself, without copying/pasting other people’s ideas.

Does you diet require 33 times the RDA of B12? This is what you stated, "Again, meat is the best source of B12, beef liver being a far better source then eggs or dairy products, with salmon and trout coming in behind that."

How often do you eat beef liver? Do you eat 1/33 of a serving each day so you'll get the RDA?

You DID state this.

shamon

Hopefully we won’t have to digress about this. If you occasionally eat fish then you’re not being unethical by my original argument b/c it would be needed/required.

In general I don’t classify fish as meat. There’s no way to conclusively prove that fish don’t feel pain. It cannot be proven. Besides, this thread is about unneeded killing. Humans probably NEED a little fish in their diet.

That fact that we can eat fish raw does support my general idea that eating it is “natural”. I understand that just b/c we can eat it raw doesn’t mean we should, but that which we cannot eat raw AT ALL is obviously not in the human diet.

Now back to the original point:

WHY is it immoral to kill animals?

It isn’t immoral to kill anything unless it’s unneeded. I’m not really talking about vegetarianism but ethical eating. If you don’t have to kill it, then don’t. It’s a simple idea.

Valmorian

</strong>

In other words, "if you haven't done the research yourself, I don't want to hear it!"

Why bother asking then? I'm not sure why you even care, since the answers are blatantly obvious. People who eat meat obviously don't consider the eating of meat to break their code of ethics. If they did, why would they do so?

</strong>

Where in that statement does it say, "I need 33 times the RDA of B12"?

Are you trolling here? She gave several sources of B12 from meat. Beef liver just had the highest concentration. What's your point exactly?

I don't consider eating meat to be immoral because I don't have the required level of empathy for non-humans to consider it immoral. I don't value the lives of most non-humans enough to be ethically opposed to the consumption of them.

Valmorian

</strong>

Again, an argument by your own personal definition. Many people WOULD classify fish as meat.

</strong>

Exactly, so why do you assume it? There's also no way to conclusively prove that cows don't feel pain. Why do you assume they do, but fish don't?

</strong>

Not everyone considers "The bare minimum required for survival" to be the only ethical choice. In fact, most don't consider it unethical to subsist on more than that.

</strong>

It's already been demonstrated to you that humans CAN eat raw meat outside of fish.

Since when does cooking something make it unnatural, anyway? Is there something supernatural about cooking?

But an idea based upon your own subjective moral code. Explain to me why I should adhere to it.

Rational Ag

Shamon,

Stating your opinion repeatedly is not going to make anyone believe it. You will have to back up your assertions.

What if I eat fish every day, twice a day, as my sustenance? What if I enjoy the taste of fish, but it isn't necessarily "needed".

Does the definition of "need" include "want"?

Why not? I do. They are living beings with a nervous system and muscle tissue. Muscle tissue = meat.

Unless you can show some evidence otherwise, I think it's pretty evident that the part of fish that people eat is considered meat.

There's no way to conclusively prove that the center of the earth is not cream cheese. However, we have scientific evidence that tells us what the center of the earth is likely made of, and what its properties are.

I will put stock in the scientific approaches to determining how fish pain receptors work rather than your assertions that fish do not feel pain until you can show some evidence otherwise.

Are you saying we cannot eat steak raw AT ALL? I think you are mistaken, and you are ignoring other posts within this thread. In general, we don't eat steak raw because it can harbor bacteria if not handled very carefully. However, if properly cared for, raw beef can indeed be eaten and enjoyed by humans.

It isn't. And your repeated statement of it doesn't make it so. You're going to have to show that it IS immoral to kill animals.

I would then like to know WHICH animals it is moral to kill, and which ones it ISN'T moral to kill, and why!

-Rational Ag