Vegetarianism

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary They have large incisors, first off, because their skull size allows it, secondly because they do use them in displays of aggression ( bearing their teeth). I'm sure that chimps do find incisors useful at some point while eating. Cougars incisors are for ripping out prey's throat, something that we don't do with our mouths. Our teeth indicate we are omnivores, we are meant to take advantage of any food source. We can switch from a hugely meat populated diet (think cavemen in europe) to vegetarian, and while healthiness changes depending on the person and specifics of the diet, we are ultimately designed to be able to eat almost anything we want, which is what has allowed our huge range in the planet.

You seem to be missing the point. My point is even vegetarian animals can have very large incisors yet are supposed eat no meat. Just because we have small incisors does not indicate we were meant to eat meat or that it is healthy for us, just that we can.

It is relatively easy to explain why we started eating meat at a certain point. It tasted good, better then veggies.

We can adapt to other diets, I agree. But just because we can eat meat doesn't mean it is what we were meant to eat. Plus, of all the diets we have uncovered, ones that limit animal products seem to turn out to be the healthiest.

[Sappho]

I think you are both missing the point. Most humans through out most of our history have been omnivores... eaters of meat and vegitation.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Just because we have small incisors does not indicate we were meant to eat meat or that it is healthy for us, just that we can.

Just as it does not indicate whether we were meant to eat solely plants, as we have sen with other apes.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Just as it does not indicate whether we were meant to eat solely plants, as we have sen with other apes.

I agree. Our teeth don't show firmly either if we are supposed to be vegetarians or omnivours. I think it is subjective to judge what diet we were meant to eat by our teeth, but by comparing them with other animals, we seem to be 'supposed' to be vegetarians or a vegetarian omnivour (which means we eat alot of plant matter and not much meat). The best way of chosing a diet is looking at the present and not the past...things have changed since the caveman era

[Gods_Mercenary]

Not much that I'm aware of anatomically wise, and at any rate for populations originating in most of Europe, the change would probably have benefited meat consumption.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Not much that I'm aware of anatomically wise, and at any rate for populations originating in most of Europe, the change would probably have benefited meat consumption.

Yes, back then people would have benefited from eating meat, since it was a quick source of alot of nutrients. Now on the other hand, we can find all those nutrients in other sources which won't hurt our health or the enviroment as much.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Probably, yes. Though I'd think a properly executed omnivorous diet would be fine for health.

[Sappho]

Quote by: Matt Nothing is really ehtical in today's world. But you can become more ethical, my scratching out your meat consumption. Meat takes much more energy to create then apples do per the same amount. It also in most cases causes more enviromental damage, starvation, health concerns, and animal cruelty compared to apples, and almost all other non-animal products.

Taking meat out of my diet and that of other meat eaters places more demands upon vegitation to replace what is lost from meat eating. That requires more land to harvest the additional vegitation now required. Extrapolating the population and assuming they too are vegitarians will require more land for the harvest.

Take India as an example. Wildly overpopulated, vegitarian and unable to feed itself due to the over use of their soil. Yeilds have reduced. Farmers cannot afford GM, nor the soil fertalizers and nutrient addatives. Water is scarce. Native populations of flora and fauna have been descemated by humans land consumption for agriculture and cities.

These Indians otherwise are good, intelligent, decent peoples, more moral than we indeed. They have a long history of vegitarianism. It forms a part of their Hindu Faith.

For all their qualities however, Indians do not provide an ethical, nor encouraging example of what centuries old vegitarianism can do for your local environment and it's flora and fauna.

Being vegitarian then does not make a person more ethical.

[Sappho]

Quote by: inri The comparison of an unfresh apple is lost on me....are you saying this is cruelty to the apple, or to the unfortunate human who is eating an old apple, assuming it's fresh?...(am I missing something?) To compare the scenario of an unfresh apple to one in which an animal is experiencing excruciating pain and fear, is a bit of a stretch I think....no doubt there are varying levels of the unethical. In the case of animal production, it's the direct infliction of pain and suffering upon the 'food source' itself that most ethical vegetarians take offense with.

All you seem to worry about is the suffering of animals.

In Australia we have a radio presenter of quality, Phillip Adams who is also an ethical farmer of meat products. Peter Singer, the founder of animal rights knows all about Phillip Adams and has been on his show a few times discussing various philosophies including animal rights.

Peter Singer is a vegitarian. Quite sweetly, he had a cat and fed him ethically produced meat, because he understands that cats are carnivores and so need meat.

Peter Singer quite openly acknowledges that there is nothing ethically wrong with meat production if in the course of the animals life it did not suffer unnecessarily and enjoyed a quality of life suitable to it's kind.

I support the ethical production of meat products. I support quality of life for all animals. I support farmers like Phillip Adams and ideas like Peter Singer's.

None of this however goes anywhere near my point I was trying to make.

There is more to being vegitarian, than avoiding animal suffering. How that vegitation is produced, where it is produced, how it is stored, what chemicals have been used throughout production, GM? impact on soil and water resources etc.. etc... make a difference.

I do not like the concept of buying a 'fresh' apple, 18mths old. It just doesn't ring true. Did you know, just by the way, that apples of today have a third less nutritional value than an apple of the 1950s. I heard it on one of our current affairs programmes.

Seems to me, that if you and I can advocate 'quality of life' for animals, then surely 'sapians' have an equal claim to this life quality business. And when it is that my food source is compromised, as it is now and has been for a while, my life quality is compromised also.

How we source vegitation and it's impact on local environments everywhere is not ethical.

[inri]

Quote by: Sappho All you seem to worry about is the suffering of animals. In Australia we have a radio presenter of quality, Phillip Adams who is also an ethical farmer of meat products. Peter Singer, the founder of animal rights knows all about Phillip Adams and has been on his show a few times discussing various philosophies including animal rights. Peter Singer is a vegitarian. Quite sweetly, he had a cat and fed him ethically produced meat, because he understands that cats are carnivores and so need meat. Peter Singer quite openly acknowledges that there is nothing ethically wrong with meat production if in the course of the animals life it did not suffer unnecessarily and enjoyed a quality of life suitable to it's kind. I support the ethical production of meat products. I support quality of life for all animals. I support farmers like Phillip Adams and ideas like Peter Singer's. None of this however goes anywhere near my point I was trying to make. There is more to being vegitarian, than avoiding animal suffering. How that vegitation is produced, where it is produced, how it is stored, what chemicals have been used throughout production, GM? impact on soil and water resources etc.. etc... make a difference. I do not like the concept of buying a 'fresh' apple, 18mths old. It just doesn't ring true. Did you know, just by the way, that apples of today have a third less nutritional value than an apple of the 1950s. I heard it on one of our current affairs programmes. Seems to me, that if you and I can advocate 'quality of life' for animals, then surely 'sapians' have an equal claim to this life quality business. And when it is that my food source is compromised, as it is now and has been for a while, my life quality is compromised also. How we source vegitation and it's impact on local environments everywhere is not ethical.

"All you seem to worry about is the suffering of animals" QUOTE (Sappho).

Yes! in answer to the original question posed in this thread - the ethical treatment of animals is behind MY personal motivation for not consuming meat. When you start throwing in stories about old apples, and just how hard done by humans are when they're being 'forced' to consume them, i think we really are then comparing 'apples to oranges'.....
These 2 scenarios bear no relation to one another whatsoever. In one case innocent living beings are suffering at the hands of an industry - suffering as in: feeling horrendous physical pain, fear and/or endurance of sub-standard living conditions in general. IN the other (apple analogy) we're talking about humans "suffering" because they're only receiving a percentage of the nutrition available in a 'fresh' apple?...a rather poor comparison I think...not to mention, the apple scenario occurs as a result of human choices affecting other humans...the former involves humans inflicting their will on another species who neither has a say in the matter, nor has any power whatsoever to change the circumstances surrounding their abuse.

I do understand what you're trying to say here; that all food production has some element of unethical practice, however I personally have a pretty difficult time having the same amount of empathy for a man or woman who is forced to eat an aged apple, vs. an innocent animal being forced to endure agonizing pain...the 2 are just miles apart as far as I can see it.

Would i like to see positive, ethical reform in all food production? of course. But I admit, in terms of importance, the humane treatment of animals remains a personal priority for me.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Probably, yes. Though I'd think a properly executed omnivorous diet would be fine for health.

Though the problem is most people don't do that. Also, do you have any proof that it would be fine for our health?

Quote by: Sappho Taking meat out of my diet and that of other meat eaters places more demands upon vegitation to replace what is lost from meat eating. That requires more land to harvest the additional vegitation now required. Extrapolating the population and assuming they too are vegitarians will require more land for the harvest.

Wrong. Livestock require much more energy to grow then do crops. For livestock, you need land to be growing grains for them to eat. Those grains could be going to feed other people though. That is how raising livestock can starve other people. It also causes more enviromental damage, since it takes up more energy. In livestock, there is a three way system, crops feed the livestock which feeds the people. If you make it so the crops directly feed the people, less energy is used.

If all the energy and land being used for meat production shifted to crops, no one would be starving.

Take India as an example. Wildly overpopulated, vegitarian and unable to feed itself due to the over use of their soil. Yeilds have reduced. Farmers cannot afford GM, nor the soil fertalizers and nutrient addatives. Water is scarce. Native populations of flora and fauna have been descemated by humans land consumption for agriculture and cities. These Indians otherwise are good, intelligent, decent peoples, more moral than we indeed. They have a long history of vegitarianism. It forms a part of their Hindu Faith. For all their qualities however, Indians do not provide an ethical, nor encouraging example of what centuries old vegitarianism can do for your local environment and it's flora and fauna. Being vegitarian then does not make a person more ethical.

And if they ate more meat the problem would be further worsened, since it would take up more land and enegy to raise meat then to raise crops (explained above). India is overpopulated, and that is the cause of their problems.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Though the problem is most people don't do that. Also, do you have any proof that it would be fine for our health?

It was an opinion, one that any medical professional I've met has shared. Plus, I don't have much of a desire to live past 80, so I'd settle for a little less than fine.

[inri]

Quote by: Matt Though the problem is most people don't do that. Also, do you have any proof that it would be fine for our health? Wrong. Livestock require much more energy to grow then do crops. For livestock, you need land to be growing grains for them to eat. Those grains could be going to feed other people though. That is how raising livestock can starve other people. It also causes more enviromental damage, since it takes up more energy. In livestock, there is a three way system, crops feed the livestock which feeds the people. If you make it so the crops directly feed the people, less energy is used. If all the energy and land being used for meat production shifted to crops, no one would be starving. And if they ate more meat the problem would be further worsened, since it would take up more land and enegy to raise meat then to raise crops (explained above). India is overpopulated, and that is the cause of their problems.

well said. Yes, it stands to reason that 'meat' production consumes far more resources than vegetable alone. It's a 'two-tiered' process as you pointed out. First a crop must be grown, to nourish the animal, who then uses those resources, plus the water and land necessary to support them to the optimum stage of growth for human consumption. You're quite right when you state that this would simply compound the problem.

It seems in many cases that humans have become so accustomed to the idea of consuming animals that the reality of the process entailed often becomes overlooked.
In general, meat production is far from being environmentally friendly.

[Matt]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary It was an opinion, one that any medical professional I've met has shared. Plus, I don't have much of a desire to live past 80, so I'd settle for a little less than fine.

Interesting, because alot of the info I have found on the internet seems to indicate the opposite. A good majority of medical doctors I've found don't look that much into the recent studies that provide evidence that being vegetarian is healthier. I guess it is because they are probably omnivours themselves.

[Sappho]

Quote by: Matt Wrong. Livestock require much more energy to grow then do crops. For livestock, you need land to be growing grains for them to eat. Those grains could be going to feed other people though. That is how raising livestock can starve other people. It also causes more enviromental damage, since it takes up more energy. In livestock, there is a three way system, crops feed the livestock which feeds the people. If you make it so the crops directly feed the people, less energy is used.

I see I shall need to qualify myself every time I am responded to. It seems that my belief in ethical food consumption irrespective of whether you are an omnivor or herbavor is being ignored.

There are many kinds of suffering, some worse than others. But that some are worse than others does not or at least should not devalue lesser sufferings. We should act to reduce all suffering where we have the power to do so.

Last time I checked then, grazing animals ate grass in fields. They have the stomach for it you see. I have never seen, however, a grazing animal in the wild pursue grains. Have you? No! Of course you haven't. It's not natural.

So where it is that I say, animals have a right to life quality, an example of that would be cattle being allowed to be cattle, grazing grass and herding as is their want.

I do not support the use of grain feeding in animal populations as it is not their diet. It times of drought, which Australia seems to spend most of her time within, hay is a better option than grains.

Cattle don't need to eat grain. They are not designed to eat grain. That we have cattle eating grain is cause for concern, just as many techniques to havest vegitation is cause for concern.

I have already pointed out that I am an active ethical eater. I only eat meat that has been left to graze grass, herd with their kind, shelter in shade trees scattered abouts.

I consume very little mass produced foods. Cocoa, coffee and tea products are my weakness, however.

If we were more ethical in our meat production, human grain consumption would not be impacted as the cattle, sheep and pigs would not eat grains.

Sure there would be less meat to eat, by producing ethically, but what of it. People eat too much meat and the by products already.

If all the energy and land being used for meat production shifted to crops, no one would be starving.

There are three main grains that present staples for humans. Rice, Corn and Wheat. Wheat is not an issue, assuming you have the right location and soil quality.

Rice contributes about 17% of the global methane output. That is significant and would rise astronimically if we all converted to vegitarianism.

With regard to corn...

MEXICO CITY - Genetically engineered corn imported to Mexico from the U.S. has contaminated a global center of biological diversity for corn. The Mexican government has confirmed that corn varieties from 15 communities in the state of Oaxaca have suffered contamination of 3 to10 percent. Greenpeace is calling on Mexico to adopt emergency measures to combat this first known example of genetic contamination of a place of origin and diversity for a crop grown around the world as a staple food. In addition, Greenpeace has called on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to stop reregistration of genetically engineered Bt corn. This type of engineered corn is responsible for the contamination in Mexico and is currently up for reregistration in the U.S. on October 15. Transgenic Corn Found Growing in Mexico by Dr. Chapela Nature Vol. 413, 27sep01

There is more still to the problems faced with food production.

Take Equador as an example.

After over 35 years of land reform most of the land suited to agriculture is still in relatively few hands. Over half of the landowners in the interandean basin (mostly Kichwa) have less than 1 hectare of cultivable land. These "minifundios" are located on mountain slopes where cultivation occurs on gradients up to 70%. As the population grows these small farms are parcelized into even smaller holdings. Due to deforestation, overgrazing, burning and intensive grain cultivation, the soil is exposed to the unchecked forces of rain and wind erosion. The average rate of soil loss is estimated at 20 times the acceptable maximum level as defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. Thus both the quality and quantity of land available to the majority of people in the Andes is rapidly diminishing. Causes and consequences of deforestation in Ecuador

And whilst it is that animal husbandry is to blame, so to is agriculture to blame for this deminishing availabiltiy of land.

Lets have a look at Australia unethical approaches to agriculture.

Australia is a large country, but with limited renewable resources. Of a total land area of 768 million hectares, 500 mha are arid or semi-arid, and only 77 mha are suitable for agriculture. That is, only 10% of our total land area is arable. Those who like to compare Australia's population (about 18 million) with that of the United States should be made aware of the fact that the area sown in crop in Australia (21 mha) is the equivalent of the crop area in just two states of the USA (Iowa and Illinois - which have a combined population of only about 14½ million). In agricultural terms, Australia is only about the size of France, but with soils that are much less fertile. The first national study on the extent of the degradation of Australian land and soil resources (published in 1978), estimated that 66% of cropland has already been degraded by erosion, compaction, acidification, and rising salt levels. France produces over 44 million tonnes of cereals a year, compared with Australia's 15 to 20 million tonnes. If we had the population of France (50 million) we would have to import food. Because of the 1991 drought in the Darling Downs, Australia imported bread-making hard wheat in 1992. In Australia, for each tonne of wheat grown, tonnes of top soil are lost. Grains are packed with nutrients from the soil, which must be replaced in poor Australian soils if fertility is to be maintained. The 1988 wheat crop of 12.5 million tonnes removed 250 000 tonnes of nitrogen, 23 000 tonnes of phosphorous, and 48 000 tonnes of potassium. These nutrients must be replaced by imported superphosphate, which in turn leads to acidification of our soils, which in turn decreases plant growth. We must minimise further impact now that we are aware of the environmental problems. In the two centuries of the European settlement of Australia: 19 vertebrate species have become extinct. 17 vertebrate species are endangered. 2000 native plant species are at risk. One-half of the nation's top soil has been lost by erosion and continuing unsustainable agriculture. Two-thirds of the temperate forests have been destroyed. Wet-lands, rivers, and seas are being polluted and destroyed. Our greatest river system, the Murray/Darling, is being turned into a polluted drain with salts from adjacent irrigation areas. It is likely to be a dead eco-system within 40 years. Mass Immigration: Undermining Australia's Way of Life - Section Two

As an asside, the Murray/Darling has become so bad now, that the Federal Govt has taken over its management and is buying back water allotments from farmers in the region because, as pointed out above, the river 'is boing turned into a polluted drain with salts from ajacent irrigation areas.

Irrigation is used for crops and not animals.

My final example is a global one.

surface water available to grow food is contracting sharply due to city demand; groundwater resources are declining everywhere; farm land is being lost to urban development; soil and nutrient erosion is increasing worldwide; nutrient prices are likely to rise; farm production research is in global decline; marine harvests are dwindling; biofuels are replacing food crops in some countries; and half the world may face regular drought by 2050. In this list of challenges, the thing that stands out is that only one is even somewhat speculative - the impact of climate change. All the other trends are real and predictable. For the first time in history, urban demand for water is outpacing farm demand, as city users outbid irrigators. By 2050 cities will consume half the world’s fresh water - reducing that available for food production by one third. Worldwide, groundwater is running out, especially in regions where it is used grow food. By 2025, water scarcity may cause an annual reduction of 350 million tonnes of food - almost the same as losing today’s entire global rice harvest or US grain crop. Around 1.2 billion hectares or 10 per cent of the world’s arable area is affected by serious degradation, of which 300 million ha is now unusable for farming. There is a continuing loss of about 5-10 million ha a year. Eighty per cent of the remaining arable area is degraded to some degree. While not seen as a limit to global food production, soil loss is a significant constraint in India, Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia. It is expected to worsen under climate change. Large areas of coastal seas and lakes are now unfit for aquaculture due to sediment, nutrient and pesticide contamination from the land. This is on top of the decline in global catches due to overfishing. A world hungry for answers - On Line Opinion - 1/2/2007

[Sappho]

(My post was too long... so this is part two.)

In summary then Matt, where you say... "If all the energy and land being used for meat production shifted to crops, no one would be starving.", you are being extremely niave and simplistic.

Many factors are impacing upon agriculture due to the unethical food production practices entailed. Being vegitarian, does not exclude you from your part in the unethical consumption of food. Indeed, you seem to be promoting it through simplistic, feel good, catch cries.

Matt if you really care about living things, then your eating would be sourced from ethical alturnatives which are out there. You would avoid the supermarket and seek to form co-opperatives to purchase directly from the farmer for example, or, you would purchase that old fashion food now called 'organics', or, you would lobby tirelessly for ethical food production, and, you would not eat vegitation out of season.

However, having read you here, all I get is... 'meat bad, vegitation good'.

Well, that's wowserism Matt. In reality, meat is good if got from an ethical producer who values life quality and reducing suffering. In reality, vegitation is bad where it is that the growers persue additatives which are known for their detrimental environmental effects, producing food that has reduced nutritional value.

[Sappho]

Quote by: inri well said. Yes, it stands to reason that 'meat' production consumes far more resources than vegetable alone. It's a 'two-tiered' process as you pointed out. First a crop must be grown, to nourish the animal, who then uses those resources, plus the water and land necessary to support them to the optimum stage of growth for human consumption. You're quite right when you state that this would simply compound the problem. It seems in many cases that humans have become so accustomed to the idea of consuming animals that the reality of the process entailed often becomes overlooked. In general, meat production is far from being environmentally friendly.

In general, dear inri, meat and vegitation production are far from being environmentally friendly.

That you eat vegitation out of season, bought from the supermarket or green grocer is evidence of that. The evironment does not produce out of season, it produces in season.

Ethical consumption of food requires that a person eat that which is available in the season in question. There are winter foods and there are summer foods. Playing fast and loose with Nature to manipulate its will to our want, has consequences, some of which I have pointed out to Matt just above.

Just look at what Australia has done to itself in the two centries of european settlement? It's vegitation and not meat production at the root cause there. Salination is cause by crops and not cattle.

And as to animals eating grain... that too is unethical. As a vegitarian, I suprised you don't have more to say on the matter. Seems that you and Matt just take it as a given that animals don't suffer for the want of grass grazing, and herding behaviours. It's as though grain and meat go hand in hand, and that the use of grain for animals is wrong because it takes grain from humans!

Well I'm hear to tell you that it is a kind of suffering to cause an animal to eat what it would not normally. This is why Peter Singer sourced ethical animal husbandry as a meat source for his domestic cat. It was the moral thing to do. Animals have rights too.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Matt Interesting, because alot of the info I have found on the internet seems to indicate the opposite. A good majority of medical doctors I've found don't look that much into the recent studies that provide evidence that being vegetarian is healthier. I guess it is because they are probably omnivours themselves.

links to non-vegetarian, preferably government or professional organization sites for these?

[Sappho]

Quote by: inri "All you seem to worry about is the suffering of animals" QUOTE (Sappho). Yes! in answer to the original question posed in this thread - the ethical treatment of animals is behind MY personal motivation for not consuming meat.

Do you conceed that allowing cattle to have life quality, herding and grazzing, prior to a painless quick death is morally acceptable for food production?