Vegetarianism

[H.E.M.]

I have recently adopted a pesco-vegetarian lifestyle; that is, I avoid red meat and poultry, but eat fish and other animal products such as eggs and milk products.

My reasoning is simply for health reasons. As a now-22-year-old, I had borderline cholesterol levels at age 20. Although my HDL was high, my overall number was higher than I would have liked. This condition runs in my family, so I wasn't floored, but I am not overweight and am athletic.

[pikatore]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin We are not only violent, I will admit. And I will also accept that our intelligence has made us come up with a number of ways to commit violence. But, it is that use of our intelligence for the search of even more ways to kill ourselves in ever more efficient means over a wide range of reasons and in sheer scope that comparatively gives us up to being an animal prone to more violence than other animals.

It's totally irrelevant. Just because we are able to concieve of more efficient ways to kill other people, and work towards those aims, that doesn't make us MORE violent than animals. Animals have all the tools they need to kill something, or at the least feed, quickly and efficiently. And they tend use the tools they have quite liberally.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Appeal to ignorance.

That was more of an aside, but yes, you are right.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Kinda, but not quite accurate. Modified: Wanting to consume more efficiently(often much further than our lives require) and control our environment better, we have therefore sought to master tool use and made spoons and forks and knives. Analogically constructed against: Wanting to consume or control more recourses to increase our chances for survival relative to other compeditor groups within our species, we have therefore evolved to use our intelligence to master tool use and weapons to give us an advantage over others.

It isn't the 'wanting' that caused us to master simple tool use, or evolve to use our intellegence to outsmart enemies! It's evolution ITSELF that has caused us to be so intellegent, and a lust for power and growth comes with the package, as it does for pretty much any organism in existence.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin The only thing is, we do not commit violence as most animals do -- i.e. for survival -- but ALSO for greed and gluttony.

Why are those things so different to each other? A pack of lions fighting over a carcass don't just eat thier fill, enough to 'survive', and kindly let the other ones at it! Each of them would take the whole damn lot if they could! If that doesn't exhibit greed or gluttony and is purely 'survival' based, then so is everything we do as humans.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Different herds of the same species will sometimes come together in mass migrations. There is a lot of tolerance amongst same species animals.

Uhh, they usually are herbivorous animals, if you are talking about land animals migrating across Africa. So the 'tolerance' is due to obvious reasons.

As for inter-species migrations with carnivores, I'd be interested if you could point me to any examples.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin Maybe you could clarify or reword this a little better. If they are neutral to one another, then why would they have a desire to kick the other`s arse. The neutrality would then not exist.

Not desire, POWER. If they think they can pull it off and get away with it (e.g. kill the alpha male without getting killing himself), you don't need to ask them twice.

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin And why is that relevant to us not being more disposed to violence amongst ourselves than other animals amongst themselves?

Becuase it's the complexity of those pathways which clouds your reasoning, since they are totally irrelevant to the discussion. They are motivated ultimately by selfish reasons, even if they be altruistic, and they result in the death of another organism. Something that other animals share.

[Kleekl]

I'm a vegeterian myself. I have a cat and i'm never feeding him any meet. It's my dream to make all animals in the world stop eating each other. Wouldn't it be wonderfull of cheeta's stopped eating meat? Then all animals could just die just like they want. Humans don't need meat anymore, and I think we can make sure other animals don't need meat either.

[H.E.M.]

Quote by: Kleekl I'm a vegeterian myself. I have a cat and i'm never feeding him any meet. It's my dream to make all animals in the world stop eating each other. Wouldn't it be wonderfull of cheeta's stopped eating meat? Then all animals could just die just like they want. Humans don't need meat anymore, and I think we can make sure other animals don't need meat either.

Uh, wow. Just wow. I don't even know where to start with this.

You can't change animal instinct on a large scale. Biologically, animals' digestive systems are designed to digest certain types of food. (Yes, dogs can be vegetarians because they're omnivores, but you can't feed a dog chocolate, for example.) Plus animals just go for the types of food that they know to eat in order to survive, whether they are taught by their parents to hunt for that food or their instincts lead them there. My girl pal spent a summer in Namibia interning with the Cheetah Conservation Fund, and I am pretty sure those Cheetahs prefer their meat.

It would be nice if we could spend billions of dollars trying to train the entire population of animals not to eat each other, but unfortunately more pressing issues are at hand.

P.S. I am a fashion major so I am no expert, but I try to keep my head out of my a**.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kleekl I'm a vegeterian myself. I have a cat and i'm never feeding him any meet. It's my dream to make all animals in the world stop eating each other. Wouldn't it be wonderfull of cheeta's stopped eating meat? Then all animals could just die just like they want. Humans don't need meat anymore, and I think we can make sure other animals don't need meat either.

Dude, sell your cat. What you're doing is as idiotic as forcing a lion to eat grass for a diet.

[H.E.M.]

Ugh...the recent news had me pretty nauseated.

Huge beef recall stems from Calif. plant - Yahoo! News

It's a shame that they kill all these cows (143 million pounds!) and then the meat can't even be used because of the recall. What a shameful, shameful waste.

Then again, when I see how that meat is processed, it makes me not want to ever touch a hamburger again.

[pikatore]

Quote by: H.E.M. Then again, when I see how that meat is processed, it makes me not want to ever touch a hamburger again.

I make it a point to stay away from processed meat, and buy free range. I don't want my next meal to be straight from a battery house as much as you do.

[Technosoul]

I knew one person who ate only veggies, it was because his first and only job was working at a meat packing plant where they killed the cows and chopped them up. He had to mop up the floor. it made him sick and so after that he never ate meat again.

The way animals are treated by the food industry would turn off most of us and if we had to watch it, hear it, and smell it on the killing floors. Well, that next hamburger might not taste so good.

I never eat lobster because of the way they keep them and cook them. It turns me off.

And so perhaps if I had to witness the way they are treated and killed I might beans and plants.

[LookToTheFuture]

Quote by: Technosoul The way animals are treated by the food industry would turn off most of us and if we had to watch it, hear it, and smell it on the killing floors. Well, that next hamburger might not taste so good. I never eat lobster because of the way they keep them and cook them. It turns me off. And so perhaps if I had to witness the way they are treated and killed I might beans and plants.

I fully understand that the greater amount of animals are treated in an appauling way throughout their life and often given a less than satisfatory death. This is unfortunate and people are slowly ( in the UK) realising this and are opting for more expensive meat and eggs as they are treated in a better way. Obviously not everyone can afford this but those who can would prefer meat that is treated well as it simply tastes better.

One point i believe in though is that unless a person is capable of killing an animal and then eating it (cooked of course) then i am uncertain if they should have the right to do so.

On the lobster front. Lobsters do not have a discernable brain. They only have a kind of spinal chord that runs the length of there body so i am uncertain if they even have the capacity to think in any way we would understand. If you are overly concerned and like the taste of lobster freezing them for a couple of hours is said to be a relatively humane way of dispatching them. It certainly is not anywhere near the torture chickens and the like suffer.

[Socrates]

I agree, sometimes the cramped condition of chickens is sickening. I believe we should be humane with regard to lower life forms, but i think meat consumption is OK. it was what our omnivorous bodies were meant to do. by biggest beef with cows is that they take up so much room that its restrictive to wild life.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: Socrates but i think meat consumption is OK. it was what our omnivorous bodies were meant to do.

Our bodies are also "meant" to have sex. Does that mean we should have sex with whoever we want as long as we are physically able to overpower them?

[blitzcat]

Just because something is natural to do something doesn't automatically make it right. People have been killing each other for thousands of years but I don't know anybody who would consider that morally acceptable. We don't need to eat meat so why should we cause pain and suffering to do so.

[Sockem]

I am not a vegetarian.

1) I do not care what people eat it is their choice. I have one friend who is a vegan because he does not like killing animals, but he never gets on anybody for eating meat.

2) The Bible does not condone it. In fact, it specifically permits it.

3) Humans are omnivores. (Modern science shows this)

4) People who don't eat meat are not "sissies" and people who do eat meat are not "killers". PERIOD

[another day]

Quote by: H.E.M. Uh, wow. Just wow. I don't even know where to start with this. You can't change animal instinct on a large scale. Biologically, animals' digestive systems are designed to digest certain types of food. (Yes, dogs can be vegetarians because they're omnivores, but you can't feed a dog chocolate, for example.) Plus animals just go for the types of food that they know to eat in order to survive, whether they are taught by their parents to hunt for that food or their instincts lead them there. My girl pal spent a summer in Namibia interning with the Cheetah Conservation Fund, and I am pretty sure those Cheetahs prefer their meat. It would be nice if we could spend billions of dollars trying to train the entire population of animals not to eat each other, but unfortunately more pressing issues are at hand. P.S. I am a fashion major so I am no expert, but I try to keep my head out of my a**.

You must be insane if you can't detect the sarcasm in that post.

[blitzcat]

Quote by: Sockem people who do eat meat are not "killers"

I'm sorry but this is clearly not true. Just because your not killing the animal yourself doesn't mean you haven't helped cause its death. If there was no demand for meat the animals would not be killed.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: blitzcat I'm sorry but this is clearly not true. Just because your not killing the animal yourself doesn't mean you haven't helped cause its death. If there was no demand for meat the animals would not be killed.

I think the minute we start classifying people as "killers" the conversation turns away from the pros and cons of meat consumption and turns into personal judgements.

It's virtually *impossible* not to directly or indirectly be a "killer" by this standard. Plus, this is like calling somebody who is pro-choice "pro-murder" or whatever.

If there was no demand for meat there would *STILL* be a need to kill animals, as they sort of naturally multiply anyway (yeah yeah I know, hog farmers enourage mass production of pigs, etc. Pigs didn't just appear out of thin air, tho).

Being a big sci-fi geek, I've wondered what kind of space/resources would be needed if we were to attempt to farm enough plant-based proteins to meet the needs of 5-6 *billion* people. Would those massive farms cause pollution which would kill fish, displace other wildlife, etc. (and thus in some way negate the whole "Don't kill animals to sustain yourself" concept)?

I should note I am a meat eater and I'm ok with that morally. I also grew up in a family which produced the majority of its own food and I've helped butcher numerous times. I also have uncles who worked in meat packing plants and I will say I think there should be continuous research into ways to improve *that* process.

[blitzcat]

OK I agree "killer" is a bit harsh but as for producing enough plant proteins (basically beans) to feed the world it would be comparitively easy. Only 10% of the energy that the grass has is passed on to a cow so by cutting out this middle link much less energy would be lost.

BYeating plants we get 10 times the energy for the same resources . If everyone was vegetarian we could solve the world food shortage and I'm not making this up!

Check out the links if you don't believe me

TWENTY ONE REASONS FOR BEING A VEGETARIAN

It's Time to Go Veggie

[Muckraker]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I think the minute we start classifying people as "killers" the conversation turns away from the pros and cons of meat consumption and turns into personal judgements.

"Killing" (the act of terminating life) is the most accurate, and least connotatively charged, word used to describe what happens to animals we eat. Saying they are murdered is a rhetorical tactic since the definition of the word murder (Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being) clearly does not apply to animals any more than it could be applied to an instance where a human is "murdered" by cancer or by a stampeding bull.

Whether or not it "sounds harsh" is of no consequence. There is no more apt term for the practice. Using a term like "harvest" (Gather, as of natural products) is also rhetorical and serves the same purpose as the word "murder" does for the other side of the argument.

It's virtually *impossible* not to directly or indirectly be a "killer" by this standard. Plus, this is like calling somebody who is pro-choice "pro-murder" or whatever.

People who pay for goods that require animals to be killed are in support of the killing of animals. It's that simple. Every dollar you spend is a vote for everything it took to get that product to you. That's why boycotts are often successful means of people showing they don't support a product or process of creating a product.

Saying pro-choice is pro-murder is definitely a rhetorical strategy for the pro-life group but it is not completely off-base. If the choice in question is one of killing another human, and the definition of murder is the killing of a human, then fighting for the right to choose to murder is technically being pro-murder. On the flip side, fighting to deny the right to have an abortion can also accurately be called "anti-choice." All are rhetorical strategies by their respective sides. Unfortuntely, abortion is a compex issue that cannot be conveniently divided into two catch-phrase groups.

If there was no demand for meat there would *STILL* be a need to kill animals, as they sort of naturally multiply anyway (yeah yeah I know, hog farmers enourage mass production of pigs, etc. Pigs didn't just appear out of thin air, tho).

Animals killed for our food system do not naturally reproduce. Many of them are genetically incapable of reproduction on their own. If there was no demand for animal products then there would be no reason to produce animal products. At the point when the cost of raising animals is prohibitive and subsequently there is no demand for their products you will see synthetic options popping up for the other, non-food animal products currently used in medicine and other materials.

Being a big sci-fi geek, I've wondered what kind of space/resources would be needed if we were to attempt to farm enough plant-based proteins to meet the needs of 5-6 *billion* people. Would those massive farms cause pollution which would kill fish, displace other wildlife, etc. (and thus in some way negate the whole "Don't kill animals to sustain yourself" concept)?

There currently is more than enough farming potential to feed the entire world because much of the food we produce goes to feed the other food we produce. It takes 855 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef and 25 pounds of corn/beans to produce a single pound of beef. That is a loss of fresh water and energy no matter which way you look at it.

The funny thing is that I found the numbers in a math lesson offered by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The times sure are changing I guess!

http://www.ehponline.org/science-ed/2007/Food.pdf

Knowing that, what do you think about the 143million pounds of beef products that were recalled and destroyed when a video leaked about a
"processing plant" shoving sickly cattle into the abattoir?

That would be 122billion gallons of fresh water down the toilet and 3.5billion pounds of edible food in the trash (not even including the 143million pounds of beef).

Another funny stat for you: The average American consumes 67 pounds of beef a year. Conversely, the average American consumes only 8 pounds of combined beans a year.

I should note I am a meat eater and I'm ok with that morally. I also grew up in a family which produced the majority of its own food and I've helped butcher numerous times. I also have uncles who worked in meat packing plants and I will say I think there should be continuous research into ways to improve *that* process.

You are much closer to being able to make a valid choice on the matter since you were raised around the process. Most Americans don't distinguish that there is even a choice to be made. They just eat what they ate the day before all the way back to eating what their parents fed them.

As I frequently point out to other posters, it's great that you are morally ok with what you want to do anyway :) It's a real pain in the butt to not be morally ok with something you enjoy doing. Quitting an enjoyable act is much more difficult than simply justifying one.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Muckraker "Killing" (the act of terminating life) is the most accurate, and least connotatively charged, word used to describe what happens to animals we eat. Saying they are murdered is a rhetorical tactic since the definition of the word murder (Unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being) clearly does not apply to animals any more than it could be applied to an instance where a human is "murdered" by cancer or by a stampeding bull. As I frequently point out to other posters, it's great that you are morally ok with what you want to do anyway :) It's a real pain in the butt to not be morally ok with something you enjoy doing. Quitting an enjoyable act is much more difficult than simply justifying one.

I would use the word "butcher" since that is the actual term for the harvesting of animals for consumption, personally.

I'm not really trying to justify my decision to add beef to my grocery cart (and I will say I think the waste of resources from the destroyed meat in that incident you reference was *atrocious*, truly truly awful on a number of levels, but I feel the same way about the insane amounts of food destroyed on a regular basis by institutions, grocery stores, etc. due to laws which are probably a good idea but still result in mind boggling waste). I'm just trying to place myself in the spectrum here.

[Muckraker]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I would use the word "butcher" since that is the actual term for the harvesting of animals for consumption, personally.

You are right. The denotation of the verb butcher is the killing of animals for food. My connotation of the term is "the act of processing a dead animal," but, according to my Wordweb click, my connotation of the verb is incorrect. Interesting side point is that a second Wordweb meaning of the noun butcher is "a brutal indiscriminate murderer."