Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

I think that survival of the fittest describes how things actually are.

just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

additionally, there seems to be some disagreement as to the validity of this chant that some seem to accept at a moments notice. below i have quoted an article about Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis who is just one of those who don't sing along and respectfully suggests that it may actually be nice to be nice.

Tell me - how much energy goes into recycling procedures when compared with the amount of energy used to produce those same products from raw materials?

i would have thought that the calculations are pretty obvious, though i haven't done them myself. surely, it would be far less energy intensive to work with recycled 'pre-refined' materials that start from scratch with raw materials? for instance, according to this document:

No, you don't need to throw your aluminum cans in the furnace! Here's the reason why: it takes less energy to make new products out of recycled materials than from non-recycled (or 'virgin') feedstock. Your used steel, aluminum, plastic, and paper products have already been refined, smelted, pulped, and so on. So when you recycle them, manufacturers save energy. In the case of aluminum cans, it takes 95 percent less energy to make a new can from old cans than from virgin bauxite ore.
http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cach...curity.rtf+recycling+energy+consumption&hl=en

still, this being a physics forum and all that, it would be very interesting to see some of the calculations actually worked out. anyone have any links to these?

in friendship,
prad


http://news-info.wustl.edu/tips/page/normal/902.html
Survival of the fittest? Anthropologist suggests the nicest prevail ? not just the selfish
By Terri McClain

June 9, 2004 - Are altruism and morality artificial outgrowths of culture, created by humans to maintain social order? Or is there, instead, a biological foundation to ethical behavior?

In other words, are we inherently good?

The prevailing view in popular and scientific literature is that humans and animals are genetically driven to compete for survival, thus making all social interaction inherently selfish. According to this line of reasoning, known as sociobiology, even seemingly unselfish acts of altruism merely represent a species' strategy to survive and preserve its genes.

But Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., a professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, argues that this is a narrow and simplistic view of evolutionary theory that fails to explain many aspects of sociality among mammals in general and primates in particular.

"The 'selfish gene' hypothesis is inadequate," he says.

Sussman is a consultant to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Program of Dialogue on Science, Ethics and Religion (DoSER), which brings together scholars from various disciplines - including anthropology, biology, psychology, genetics and ethics, among others - to explore the biological roots of human nature from a multidisciplinary perspective.

Sussman and Audrey R. Chapman, Ph.D., director of AAAS' Science and Human Rights Program, co-edited the first book developed from DoSER's workshops and symposia.

Titled "The Origins and Nature of Sociality," the recently released book presents a new paradigm for understanding sociality that seeks to synthesize data from a variety of disciplines.

"We believe that, instead of being genetically predisposed to competition and aggression, humans - and perhaps other animals as well - have a biological foundation for unselfish social interaction," Sussman says.

"There are many examples of nonselfish altruism," he adds. "How do you explain firefighters running into a burning building to save strangers at the possible expense of their own lives? There's no biological imperative for that."

Sussman mentions the many examples of courage and cooperative and altruistic behavior in response to Sept. 11. "The predominant theories in ethology concerning cooperative and altruistic behavior, claim that social animals, including human and nonhuman primates, are cooperative and altruistic only if they have something to gain from their actions," says Sussman.

"However, the reaction of millions of people to the Sept. 11 event does not fit this paradigm. As The New York Times reported: 'Hearing of the tragedy whose dimensions cannot be charted or absorbed, tens of thousands of people across the nation storm their local hospitals and blood banks, begging for the chance to give blood, something of themselves to the hearts of the wounded.'

"We are social animals," he continues. "We derive pleasure from positive social interaction. It's part of our brain chemistry. And far from being inherently violent, humans demonstrate a natural abhorrence of violence and conflict. We have to train soldiers to kill. It's not instinctive."

Sussman's study of primates has shown that aggressive behavior is extremely rare, even among baboons, which have a reputation for aggression.

We are horrified by terrorism, he says, because violence, particularly indiscriminate murder, is a social aberration.

Rethinking natural selection

Most of the current discussion of evolutionary theory focuses on individual selection or, as it is sometimes phrased, survival of the fittest. Only the most successful individuals will pass on their genes to further generations, thus weeding out over time (or selecting "against") genetic traits that do not enhance an individual's chances of survival.

This sociobiological view explains "selfish" altruism, which generates reciprocal acts or otherwise facilitates survival within a group.
Robert Sussman (left) works with a student.

"But sociobiology and individual selection do not explain 'unselfish' unselfish behavior. By this I mean behavior that benefits others but potentially leaves the individual no opportunity to pass on his own genetic legacy," says Sussman. "To explain that, we must give more consideration to group selection and the benefits of sociality."

Charles Darwin himself believed that morality plays a role in human evolution by natural selection. A high standard of morality may give the individual and his children no advantage over other group members, Darwin wrote, yet it works to give his tribe an advantage over other tribes.

Thus, over time, groups whose members value morality or practice unselfish altruism are more likely to survive and thrive, passing on the genetic traits that encourage ethical behavior such as empathy, fairness and generosity.

Brain scans have shown this genetic legacy in humans, Sussman says, and it's probably present in other mammals as well. Unselfish behavior stimulates pleasure centers in the brain sensitive to dopamine, which is associated with addictive behavior, and oxytocin, which is associated with mother-child bonding.

"It feels good to be nice," he says.

 

[russ_watters]

We are superior in our ability to consider (being grammatical subject), but for many creatures (humans included), there is no reason to say that a particular sentient species is necessarily more worthy of being considered (being grammatical object) .

We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

 

[pace]

It's logical and simple really. We're superior in certain things, which would make me choose killing a cow than a human if I Had to choose. But this isn't the situation, it's really about necessity and that we can do so much better.

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. This is what these animals are, totally innocent animals that's being used and mistreated by us.
Are you willing to defend this?

 

[JD]

It's logical and simple really. We're superior in certain things, which would make me choose killing a cow than a human if I Had to choose. But this isn't the situation, it's really about necessity and that we can do so much better.

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want. This is what these animals are, totally innocent animals that's being used and mistreated by us.
Are you willing to defend this?

I think we need to be a little careful here - a distinction needs to be made between those animals reared in unnaceptable conditions (which is not, of course, acceptable) and those reared in acceptable conditions. Not all animals are, of course, reared badly.

Is it the practice of rearing any animals that you disagree with?

 

[digiflux]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm superior to a baby in many ways, this doesn't mean I can use it purely as a means to whatever I want.

But it does mean you and a baby have different rights.

 

[digiflux]

Eating Meat Kills Fewer Animals? BULL!

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

 

[JD]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

I like your choice of first word!
Who were you responding to?
Are these evil ranchers worse than serial killers or genocidal maniacs? Would you place them in the same category?
Have they done something to you?

 

[JD]

This land could yield much more plant protein per acre.

But you fail to comprehend that not everyone wants your diet. Stop ramming it down our throats (in a manner of speaking).

Put quite simply, I have a right to eat meat, you have a right to not eat meat. I have no right to make you eat meat and you have no right to make me not eat meat.

 

[digiflux]

Rights

Yes, but we don't have the right to murder babies, or experiment on or eat retarded people.

Saying that we are "superior" to all other creatures on the planet is arrogance. How is it superior that, in the relatively short span of time, humans threaten the entire planet with pollution and weapons of mass destruction. I don't see that as "superior". If I had the ability to choose my desired life form (in a world without humans) I'd be a blue whale or elephant. They lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions of years. I call that "superior".

Eating animals because you enjoy the taste of their flesh is an indefensible position. It's really very simple. Cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonably possible.

 

[JD]

just who are we competing against?
what exactly is this 'survival of the fittest' chant?
if only the fittest survived, all species would surely be reduced to 1 male and 1 female. in any case, far more than the fittest do very well in all species. if one really wants to argue 'survival of the fittest species' instead, then we are looking at one species extinctifying all the others and enjoying the somewhat dubious fruits of their labour.

If you accept evolution, the concept of species is rather odd (as in any population, DNA will differ from individual to individual) Why would a "species" reduce to just one male and one female? Consider geographical spread, relative availablilty of nutrients etc. So, then, perhaps there is only one male and one female of each species.

 

[JD]

Yes, but we don't have the right to murder babies, or experiment on or eat retarded people.

Saying that we are "superior" to all other creatures on the planet is arrogance. How is it superior that, in the relatively short span of time, humans threaten the entire planet with pollution and weapons of mass destruction. I don't see that as "superior". If I had the ability to choose my desired life form (in a world without humans) I'd be a blue whale or elephant. They lived in harmony with their surroundings for millions of years. I call that "superior".

Eating animals because you enjoy the taste of their flesh is an indefensible position. It's really very simple. Cause as little pain and suffering as is reasonably possible.

I've put spaces so you can have a good whinge.

I think that sounds pretty sensible. I'm not sure that whether individuals regard themselves as superior or not has much impact on this argument. Of course, every species is special and superior in some way. I suppose its what you do with it.

I want to know who is doing all this consumption of retarded people.
I will continue to eat meat however. It is a combination of taste and texture, in addition to the nutritional value. The icing on the cake really - wonderful nature.

Would you propose that those of us who enjoy meat should kill it ourselves? Perhaps we should run around with blood and bits of flesh hanging out of our mouths - now, THAT would be progress - far more civilised old bean.
Who is next on your list of animals which need "correcting"? Tigers? I'm not sure that a handful of nuts would suffice. Unless they were yours of course.

Of course, there is so little suffering in nature. Tell the next cat you see that the mouse it is thumping around is gratifying to its warped sense of reality because it has a protein imbalance.

You certainly enjoy your extreme examples - why not deal with the topic in hand without getting all excited? No-one here eats babies or retarded people, or experiments on them in their lunch hour.

If animals are raised with attention and kindness, and slaughtered quickly, and the meat eaten locally, where exactly is the problem?

 

[Dissident Dan]

We're superior, but our superiority is irrelevant?

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion.

The big equalizer is that we all have feelings.
-------------------------------------

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

 

[JD]

JD,

Digiflux was comparing animals of other species to babies and mentally-handicapped people. All about sentient beings with inferior cognitive abilities comapared to ourselves. I believe that what he's saying is that as we don't perceive that we have a right to eat babies or the handicapped, we shouldn't perceive that we have a right to eat animals. But you'll probably want to wait for him/her to clarify.

I see. That's a pretty odd comparison to draw. The kind of person who would eat a baby is not the same kind of person who would eat a piece of beef (unless they happened to eat both which would be unusual).

 

[JD]

With those 'inferior cognitive abilities' (sounds a bit superior to me) they won't know what's happening to them when they are quickly slaughtered after a good life. I can't argue on behalf of animal rearers who don't look after their animals because they need to change. But then, I'm not talking about them.

 

[JD]

Here's a thing. For some people, life is really crap. But it's a temporary state. We understand who we are and what we are to a certain extent but our need to know outstretches our ability to comprehend. Who knows where the universe is, how big it is, whether there are more than one, whether we actually exist etc.

I've lost myself slightly here.

Ah yes, given all this, if I decide to eat a piece of chicken and you don't like the fact that I am doing that, you could pretend that the chicken is a mushroom and then we'll all be happy.

I mean to say, we have to eat living things to survive and why should eating a lettuce be any different from eating a cow? Are cows of greater importance than lettuces? Surely its all important. Oh no, lettuces aren't cuddly. They could be though with a little pair of glasses and a dress.

 

[JD]

A question to all the vegetarians here.

Have you ever eaten meat or a product containing meat at any point in your lifetime?

 

[JD]

What it comes down to is that you should enjoy your life as much as possible while you are here. You'll come across people that you don't agree with. In that case, unless they are harming you personally, move on. Don't think you have some right to tell other people how they should live their lives. Your life works for you. If I tried to apply your life to me, I would have two, or none, or a scramble. You'd have the same. We'd get a bit lost. Then I'd fall into a hole. You wouldn't recognise me. I would have trouble recognising myself.
Don't run along trying to trip others up, trying to convert them for their own good. Let people live their own lives.

 

[russ_watters]

I didn't say superior, in general. I said that we are superior at a particular task. We have the greatest intelligence on this planet. Of course, there are man other creatures that are superior according to different criterion.

Fair enough.

The big equalizer is that we all have feelings.

Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

 

[Les Sleeth]

i am not a vetge, but i know one, my gf's aunt is a real vetge, she told she never tastes anyhting have meat, she doesn't like to have sex too, who knows if she lies. so, your qwestion is a bit meaningless, isn't uit ?

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

 

[balkan]

more importantly:

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Fair enough. Is there any evidence that a lion feels remorse when killing a deer?

Not that I know of, but just because the creature doesn't feel remorse (a particular emotion) when killing prey (a specific context) doesn't mean that it doesn't feel at all. Do you feel remorse when eating a chicken sandwich? Does that mean that you do not feel at all?

For my 1000th post I'd like to point out that all vegetarians are liars.

Come again?

did vegans get breastfed by their mother when they were kids?

Are you serious, or are you just being childish?

 

[Averagesupernova]

BULL. You cannot live on the planet without killing animals unintentionally but the premise that a vegan diet kills more animals than a diet in which one eats meat is absurd. The ranchers too plow and mow and cultivate their fields & raise animals for slaughter on huge tracts of land. This land could yield much more plant protein per acre. Also, ranchers shoot just about everything that moves that isn't a cow. They have wiped out bear, wolves, and other animals that threaten their precious cows. They shoot armadillos, dogs, cats, deer (because they eat the grass meant for cows) wild pigs, coyotes et. I know, I am surrounded by evil ranchers. They are not only evil to animals but to other humans as well. They are the scourge of the earth.

Not only are your so-called facts pretty well wacked, I would suspect you are skating on pretty thin ice concerning your privledges on this board based on the comments on the above quote.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Come again?

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars?

 

[JD]

All this talk is making me hungry - beef stroganoff anyone?

 

[JD]

Or perhaps some Doberman chicken.

 

[JD]

Doberman Chicken being a nice piece of roast chicken that someone's Doberman has eaten and is standing looking guiltily in your direction. The dog therefore owes you dinner.

What's up with all the winking JFruit?

 

[Dissident Dan]

I said, all vegetarians are liars. Now I'd like to add . . . especially Jkowski's aunt. Of course, I am a vegetarian, so can you believe me when I say all vegetarians are liars?

I doubt that a 6-month old vegetarian is a liar, seeing as how the child can't speak yet.

If you mean that all adult vegetarians have lied before, you are probably correct, because probably all adults have lied before...but that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

If you are saying that people who say they are vegetarians really aren't, then you obviously have no idea of what you are talking about or are just interrupting the conversation because you get a kick out of it.

 

[JD]

I believe that the point being made by Les is that you cannot tell whether he is lying or not. That seems to be the focus rather than what is (potentially) being lied about.

If I say that I am a liar, can you tell whether I am lying about being a liar?

 

[Raven]

Should we eat meat?

Nowadays, you can see lots of people trying
to save certain animals from being mistreated, like
protecting the sharks or whales from being
hunted.
But I can't see the diference between
eating a steak and killing a shark.
Anyway, they are all life forms.

In China, people from other countries are
attempting to save bears from being used as
a source of gall bile
by the chinese farmers.
But why not save
the poor chickens in commercial farms
which are kept in very tiny cages which do
not even have enough space for them to turn a
round!

Maybe we should all stop eating meat!
It's not unhealthy or lacking enough essentials
because all the vegetarians around the world
are still perfectly fine and healthy.

Now the main problem is:
- Should we continue eating meat as the world's
population continues to expand rapidly??
- Or should we stop eating meat and everyone changes to
become a vegetarian?
(since it's considered to be
cruel to kill other life forms)

[/list]

I thought I’d repost the original question by Physicskid, because to me the question being asked based on the body of the post is not “Should we eat meat?” but “Should we mistreat/torture animals?”

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

Maybe our methods of farming animals should be changed? Maybe people should eat more vegetation and less meat? Nevertheless, to answer the question directly, I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

In short, I believe nature has provided a balance that allows and maybe even necessitates the existence of carnivores and omnivores. However, I also believe that the ability of human intervention to promote its own existence has tipped the scales out of whack.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Although I agree that animals are mistreated and tortured in order to feed billions of people on this planet, I do not believe it answers the question “Should we eat meat?” Sure, one could argue that eating meat leads to the mistreatment and torture of animals, but in truth these are two issues that can be separated?

With today's systems, I don't think that it can...and, even if an animal is raised humanely, there is still the matter of the slaughterhouse, which is not exactly a happy place. I doubt that you could give them lethal injections. Would you want to eat meat with poisons designed to kill in it?

I think it’s not that we should eat meat, but that it’s perfectly OK to eat meat. Humans, after all, are omnivores and as such we have the option to choose meat or not.

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

So, I would like to re-direct the question a little bit. If we didn’t torture animals, would eating meat be okay? For instance, is farming mollusks (clams, oysters, mussels) a form of torture? If not would it be okay to eat these sources of meat?

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

 

[JD]

To Dan

Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)
What on Earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.
The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?
You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?
You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.
You say 'I'd have to double check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure' Why not check before posting your response?
When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one. I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound. I don't know you of course but the world is full of people who operate under the guise of caring deeply about the earth, and not only drain the energy of the people they talk with, with half-baked theories of how the world should be, but also really regard people as being of little importance.

 

[Dissident Dan]

To Dan
Sorry - they're all living things Dan. As are plants. As are bacteria. (etc)

I have never used being alive (by the scientific definition) as being a correct criterion for determining whether or not to give consideration to something. It is sentience, the capacity for feeling.

What on Earth are 'today's systems'? You expect to be treated as an individual yet you tar an enourmous sector in many countries with the same brush.

I am talking about industrialized agriculture. If you look at the way animals are grown and slaughtered, there is over 90% uniformity, and incredibly cruel, at least in the USA. A majority of agriculture is done this way in many other 1st-world nations, as well, but I do not know if the saturation is as high in the USA.

The slaughterhouse is not a happy place, no. How about if we waited for the animals to die of natural causes and then ate them? Or how about hunting?

I was saying that I do not know of any completely humane way of killing.

You say 'sometimes there are right and wrong choices' Yes, there are, but morality is personal. My right choice could be your wrong one, and vice versa. My freedom may not be to your liking but I'm not living my life through your eyes am I?

If a choice is something that should be personal, I'm not quite sure that it would fall uner the category of morality. I believe that there are things that are definitely right or wrong, regardless of who's doing them. For example, it should not be a person's perogative to rape another person. The criterion that makes this a concrete mroal issue that should not just be left to personal choice is the same criterion for the vegetarian argument that I am presenting-the choice adversely affects others a great deal. A person does not have the right to force his will upon a woman and rape her. Likewise, a person does not have a right to force his/her will upon an animal and imprison and tortue him/her.

You appear to find niggling faults with everything presented to you, every question asked. But you don't provide any solutions that meat eaters would find acceptable.

I can't help it if you don't find the solutions I present acceptable. Sometimes it is hard for people to accept the correct course of action.

When you say 'Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments.', with all due respect, so what? Again, picking holes. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves the health issues - we're adults so let us worry about that one.

I am merely pointing out important flaws in given situations. To neglect these would be irresponsible. These are not minor side-issues. They are very important issues. Arguably, the health issue is a personal choice, but the environmental issue affects us all.

I have to say that you may not be aware of how mean this makes you sound.

Well, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Please let me know specifically what sounded mean so I can be aware of that in the future. My main purpose for posting in this thread is to try to spread kindness, so I do not want to sound mean.

 

[donnie]

I guess the real issue is to save the species which are about to be wiped out (like whales, sharks, panda bears, Bengal tigers, and many others)
Last time I checked nor cows, nor chickens were on the brink of extinction...
So that would be the difference between eating a steak and eating a shark. Also when you eat shark you eat only one fin, while from a cow you can get a larger number of steaks...

But who's to say it's the cow we'll be trying to save in 50 years' time? Don't we cause our own problems? But I guess it's in our nature to be omnivores - being at the top of the food chain and stuff. What makes all this suck though is when we ABUSE our post as meat-eaters and lose respect for what we're eating.

 

[Raven]

We have lots of choices...to rape or not to rape...to go to work or watch T.V. Sometimes there are right and wrong choices.

The suggestion you're making is that choosing to eat meat is ethically/morally wrong. I beg to differ. I think carnivores and omnivores are making an ethically correct choice to eat meat. It is all part of creating a balance in nature. Obviously carnivores and omnivores serve as control factors to keeping the population of herbivores down. In my point of view eating meat is a principle of correct conduct in act of preserving nature. We all survive through the process of life and death (like it or not, humane or inhumane). It is simply the way the "system" of nature works.

However, I will also argue that nothing is controlling the overpopulation of humans on this planet to prevent us from abusing the planet's resources (plants, animals, space, energy, you name it). In my opinion, the demands and needs of 6 billion people (and growing) is a huge cause to many of our evironmental problems -- the mistreatment and torture of animals included.

Well, there would still be the resource conservation argument, as well as some health arguments. As far as the farmed-animal concerns, they do not appear to be sentient creatures, so I do not see the harm in that category. I'd have to double-check on their nervous system structures before being completely sure.

I missed what you meant about "resource conservation argument" -- please explain.

It seems, however, that in your opinion mullusks may be acceptable forms of meat if the nervous system thing you have to check is cleared. How about eating eggs? Certainly eggs are not sentient, but also a form of meat. Would escargo be okay? I'm not too sure about their sentience, but again a possibility?

I think we will probably disagree on whether eating meat is "right" or "wrong" (as you put it), but I have to wonder what sentient beings would be okay to kill and eat based on your point of view. The general definition of sentient is something having the faculty of sense or perception. In that case, would it be wrong to kill ants, flies, crickets, maggots, whiteworms, scorpions, etc.. I do know that some cultures do eat bugs. Heck, I even know a restaurant called "Typhoon" near LAX airport that serves some of the bugs I named. Do you object to killing bugs for food? They are sentient by definition.