Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Les Sleeth]

It's also been proven that I'm fairly stubborn and like to overanalyze things. You don't have to view my posts, and I have to resolute to take insults and move futher on with my thoughts. Your insults are a waste of both your time and mine.

It seems you are trying to make decisions based on 1) logic alone, and 2) deciding what is good and bad based on how it affects you.

I believe part of what you haven't, and cannot, understand using logic alone is the practicality of compassion and empathy. If you advocate and adopt a principle of "if it doesn't hurt me, why should I care," then that is a principle which can hold true for all of us. Think about it, the more you profess that others' suffering don't matter because it isn't hurting you, the more you've given us permission to torture you. Afterall, it doesn't hurt me to make you suffer. That actually is the attitude of sociopaths like Richard Lacey who if he got you under his control, would bind you up, torture you, rape you, kill you, and then bury you in his basement. And why not? He had great fun and didn't feel a thing when he cut off your genitals.

If you put yourself in the place of someone or creature who suffers, and try to feel (not analyze) what they feel, you can tell what feels okay and what doesn't. For example, you don't say so explicitly, but it does seem that insults bother you. There is a clue in that, the fact that if something makes you "feel" badly, you don't care for it. In this world you can further good feeling or you can make it worse. And guess what, when you contribute to good feeling, you feel better too! So I say there is practical value and personal gain in practicing compassion and empathy.

 

[theriddler876]

I think it's a moral issue, and it depends on what peoples morals are. now take religion, if stripped of all theology it's basically a moral and ethical guide, so it would depends on what your religion's moral code (if you have one) and your interpretation of that moral code

 

[abitofnothingleft]

main question is: Animals don't really contribute much to human society. If untrue, statements/facts would be appreciated. Why should we let them live when we can benefit from their destruction?

Isn't the pleasure given to society, the pleasure from eating meat, isn't it greater than whatever small contributions animals make by living their everyday lives?

If animals do less for us alive, why shouldn't we kill them. I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain. Sympathy is an illogical application when applied to something that doesn't affect human society, is it not? Yes we could be on the other side of the coin, but we aren't. Should I not eat meat because I wouldn't want some alien race to torture me. That choice would be entirely based on theoretical fear. Is that acceptable?

I do intend to be disrespectful, if I have been, my apologies.

no offence, well you can take offence if you want but, overall i found that post to be rather pompous and arrogant. animals don't do much for society? yea okay...and what exactly do humans do for the earth? compare that! humans do more destruction to the Earth then animals do to human society. so because the animal kingdom doesn't do anything to benefit you then its a plausable excuse to torture and kill them? and you find pleasure out of eating a dead animal? i find your logic to be very self-praising. you think we're "all that" with retrospect to the world? let me tell you if those animals weren't there we wouldn't even be here, when considering evolution and darwins theory. just because you don't experience the same pain that animals experience doesn't mean you can't have a little sympathy for them. or is that too hard for us "almighty" humans? and since you seem to need evidence to prove that they benefit us let's take a domestic example first...dogs...they allow sight for blind people and happiness to many of those who are unable to provide so for themselves. sheep give wool. cows give fertilizer. birds keep the insect population leveled out. all that and they also provide a diversity of species among the earth. what if one day we take such advantage of our power that the species that are of use to you die off? that's another of the problems of the world today. people are too greedy. they think that since they have an advantage over someone or something they need to do what they can to get ahead. they can't just stay neutral (but that's a different argument altogether)

again, i didnt mean to offend you in calling your post pompous and arrogant, but that is what i thought. and just like you, I am giving my opinion.

 

[Mazuz]

I realize they experience pain, but we don't experience their pain.

Actually I don't think you do realize that they experience pain, anything outside yourself doesn't appear to have any real meaning to you. Can your argument not extend to say that anyone or anything other than yourself does not affect you because you don't experience it? Unfortunately, I'm not sure society would miss you.. we mine as well torture you on the way out since that only hurts you and is meaningless to the rest of us, including to the concept of society. Only joking.

Also, the arguments made for or against the eating of meat have nothing to do with whether we should rid the planet of animals or not.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

no you're right it doesnt. but dooga here is explaining how much power we have and how we don't need animals for anything but food but if we keep up with that attitude you never know where it'll take you

 

[Mazuz]

no you're right it doesnt. but dooga here is explaining how much power we have and how we don't need animals for anything but food but if we keep up with that attitude you never know where it'll take you

Unfortunately for this argument, we don't need animals for food. And it's a different discussion as to whether we need them for anything else or not, I won't touch that.

There is one good reason for not eating meat, and its simple. By not eating meat we aren't supporting the meat industry. This doesn't mean it’s impossible to eat meat without supporting the meat industry, but no one does. How many people only eat what they hunt?

The reasons for not supporting the meat industry are also simple. The meat industry is needlessly causing suffering on a massive scale. Meat production is also destroying the environment.. animals are an extremely inefficient source of food. The food energy we put into growing animals is FAR greater than the food energy we get back out of them.

Again, people eat meat because they enjoy it.. not because it is the right thing to do. And what's pleasurable has little to do with what is right.

 

[lilboy]

wow thanks for all the info guys. Good stuff. Its great to have a better understanding of all this.

I think when you're concerned about the expoitation and mistreatment of animals and are actively doing something as a result, you're an advocate of animal rights, yet not in the way many people perceive it eg. saving animals from laboratories.

I think my analysis of all this is being vegan/vegetarian for 'animal rights' reasons is certainly acceptable and in a way admirable, yet I don't think there is anything wrong with not being vegan/vegetarian.

lilboy do I detect some sarcasm?

Sorry if you've found sarcasm in my post.
It so happened that I was arguing with a friend of mine about not eating meat. He kept quoting from his religion, arguing that all animals have been created to benefit humans. And when I tell him that animals have other better ways benefit humans, he goes back quoting on his religion again.

The argument is going nowhere, and I was frustrated.

Anyway - just as animal can be eaten, when we don't have a choice, we use lab animals because we don't have a choice.
Nevertheless, ,strict rules should be given to prevent abuse of this animals.


To pace : Hi!
Guess you're right about the need to clear up on certain points.
Nevertheless, I think it's very important to note how desensitized we have been to animal cruelty. From fishing to hunting, we have created numerous ways to inflict injuries on other creatures.

I believe constant practice of this may desensitize us, and lead us to commit worse actions in the future.


So people: eat veggies while you can.


To current postings (Actually to Doogaz)
Yo man, I don't think its necessary for me to tell you how conceited that post was...

So I just want to share some information:

While animals may not look useful to humans, they contribute to the ecosystem indirectly. Every species (including humans) are all interdependent.
For example, sharks may seem unrelated to our lives, but they are the ones who prey on unhealthy marine animals, keeping the marine ecosystem healthy.
Decrease of the sharks population will affect the ecosystems and ultimately affect the quality of fishes that you eat (if you eat fish) which will affect YOU.

 

[pace]

you never know where it'll take you

Oh yes. All the Love and friendship. All the difference that we'll be experiencing from seeing and listening to how the other animals live. All the variation. Blossowing of life. Realising a lot of truths about our nature and how it works.

It's really scary. I don't want that. I want to live in a pavement, wall, block by block society.

;)



lilboy: Hello again. Yes I agree. Our society really changes the way we think about things. It's scary how things that's cruel can become so obvious to our lifestyle..

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I think I'm onto something now, I'll continue thinking about it later as well. I appreciate everyone's input.

I don't get offended when people insult or criticize me about my morals. However, my morals are constantly changing and being developed. Even if you disagree with me, I'd like to analyze the disagreement collaboratively(sp) rather than argue over different view points. If my thoughts are evil, I am not truly evil until I act on any thoughts.

To someone who mentioned my thinking with logic. I do, but I also try to analyze emotion and the unexplainable through logical extrapolation of facts.

I believe a lot about emotion is unexplained and therefore separated from logic as a way for individuals to cope. I see no reason against including the logical analysis of emotion within one's moral beliefs.

The entire foundation of my belief is based on intellectual (thinkers, not just genius') society working together to provide the best result for a massive group of individuals. The best result is achieved by choosing the path best for yourself and the group (ABM) Those uncapable of contributing are left behind. Unlike Darwinism, I do not think the strong should prey on the weak. I believe the strong should prey on the uncontributing. Those who can still contribute should be used by the strong; however, the best way to get people to work for you - from what I can discern - is to provide them with happiness. That also contributes to the happiness of powerful individuals due to the contagious qualities of happiness.

Those are my current thoughts, but my thoughts often change. I do not intend to offend anyone with my ideologies.

 

[tiger_striped_cat]

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

Vegetarian evangalists like to show videos of the horrible things that go on in factory farms, and argue with questions like, "Do you think it's ok to eat your dog/horse?" I see this fallacous appeal to emotion all the time. But anyways, I digress.

Philosophers have thought about this a lot. And it usually comes down to the question of "Do animals have any utility-trumping rights," if you're a Utilitarian, or "Do animals have a right to life?"

These are interesting questions. And it seems to me that people's answers come close to what can be called "philosophical primatives." (If I remember correctly.) Basically these are base assumptions that have no (need no) justification: "Animals have a right to life," "Animals don't have a right to life"

So two people taking these diametricly opposed viewpoints will find no common ground on which to agree. And I have no idea how someone can defend against one of these, so called, primatives. But if some common ground is to be established, then one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So if someone asked me if it was ethically permissible to kill a cow to give 500 people some almost marginal satisification, I would say "It's not the best use of resources, but there is nothing wrong with it" because animals don't have a "right to life" as argued from above, or maybe by some other means.

Now I do believe that we can all (espically Americans) stand to eat less meat, and I do think that anmials have a right to be free from suffering, and I just went to a Vegan resturant yesterday, but animals still don't have a right to life that we want to attribute to them.

But back to my point. The key question to ask is whether it's ok to eat meat, above and beyond any circumstances you can build into your argument. To argue from emotional atachment, factory farms, people starving in Africa, plants suffering--and yes espically health concerns, is to miss the main argument of vegetarians. Most moral vegetarians would say that eating meat is wrong even if you get rid of all these circumstantial concerns. But of course I would disagree.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a good characterization and I more or less agree, with one caveat: the human right to life has been accepted for centuries and has a lot of philosophical backing (meaning lots of philosophers have discussed it and written about it), the animal's right to life is a new concept, not widely accepted, and with little or no philosophical backing. These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

 

[Mazuz]

The question, I think (boy this topic is long), is "Is it morally permissible to kill animals to eat meat?" But I think we should all be careful not to argue irrelevant points.

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

 

[Mazuz]

That's a good characterization and I more or less agree, with one caveat: the human right to life has been accepted for centuries and has a lot of philosophical backing (meaning lots of philosophers have discussed it and written about it), the animal's right to life is a new concept, not widely accepted, and with little or no philosophical backing. These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

What evidence, philosophical or otherwise, is there that human beings aren't just a different sort of animal? I think both science and philosophy are in agreement here, religion however is a different story.

 

[russ_watters]

What evidence, philosophical or otherwise, is there that human beings aren't just a different sort of animal? I think both science and philosophy are in agreement here, religion however is a different story.

Well, we are just a different sort of animal. I realize its a long thread, but my point in it is essentially just that: as animals, we eat other animals just like a lot of other animals do. But as "a different sort of animal" we've decided to treat each other differently.

 

[physicsisphirst]

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

i don't think that is really the case. the right to life for animals has quite a large amount of philosophic backing (and from various camps such as utilitarian and deontologic) both in the past and present (more in the latter, understandably though).

As a reference for anyone interested in learning about this topic, here are brief summaries (with links) to some of the more prominent animal rights philosophers' ideas:

Peter Singer
a utilitarian approach in which there is no presumption of inherent animal rights, but that the interests of animals should be given proper consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_singer.htm

Tom Regan
establishes the rights of animals on the basis that they have complex mental lives, including perception, desire, belief, memory, intention, a sense of the future and because an animal cares about its life, that life has inherent value.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_regan.htm

Carol J. Adams
brings a feminist's perspective to animal rights linking the objectification of women and other non-dominant humans to a similar attitude towards animals.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_adams.htm

James Rachels
argues that scientific knowledge such as the evolution of species and the heliocentric theory alters antiquated views of morality in which only humans have moral worth and that the ability to reason is not usually relevant to moral consideration.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_rachels.htm

Steve Sapontzis
uses traditional moral principles such as fairness, protecting the weak, the reduction of suffering cannot be limited to humans because suffering and pain are not exclusively human.
http://www.thevegetariansite.com/ethics_sapontzis.htm

A source providing some of the actual writings is here:
http://www.animalsvoice.com/PAGES/essays/edits_anirites1.html

the ideas have been around for quite a while, but pragmatic acceptance as with many things can be slow.

in friendship,
prad

 

[cogito]

...one could say that what gives something a "right to life" is something that "has the POTENTIAL (properly defined) of self-awareness" By self awareness I mean something that not only knows that "This thing in the mirror is me" (as some monkies are able to do), but something that also knows "I am the thing that is thinking about whether the thing in the mirror is me" HA HA. Ok, no one is going to understand that.

But I using the above necessary condition for a "right to life" you can see that babies qualify, but cows do not. Now this may be a lot of philosophical dancing to be able to defend my right to eat meat, but I think it is at least a consistent position.

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

 

[hypnagogue]

So, why do you think that cows don't have such a capacity? I remember when I brought my cat home as a kitten. He used to get all sketchy around windows and mirrors, thinking that the reflection he saw was another cat. Now, he seems clearly to know that the reflection he sees is himself. If the massive simularity between the cognitive architectures of different mammals justifies the inference that their mental capacities are, in general, on a par, then given what we know about our pets why should we think cows lack the capacity for self-awareness?

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

 

[cogito]

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror. While humans, dolphins, and some of the more intelligent apes appear to pass this test readily, to my knowledge the vast majority of mammals do not appear to pass the test. Of course, one can question the theoretical motivation behind the test (is self-recognition really completely co-extensive with self-awareness?) or the criteria for passing it (can behavioral clues completely resolve the issue? is using a visual test not biased against animals with inferior visual processing systems?).

It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror. It is possible that an animal, when looking in a mirror, believes something of the form "there is an animal there that is not me". Such self-referential belief content is indicative of self-consciousness. Do you have any evidence that mammals other than those you mentioned cannot recognize themselves in mirrors?

 

[Loren Booda]

Should the belief that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny influence our diet?

Also, are there any vegetarian alternatives for the raptors and snakes I feed?

 

[hitssquad]

Recognizing yourself in a mirror vs knowing what you look like

Generally, the accepted criterion for whether or not an animal has self-awareness is whether it can recognize its image in a mirror.

It's obvious that self-recognition is not necessary for self-consciousness, as an animal may know that it is the subject of various experiential states without knowing what it looks like in a mirror.

Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

 

[cogito]

Recognizing yourself in a mirror would seem to be not the same thing as knowing what you look like in a mirror. If you looked at the screen of a CRT monitor and saw an animated tree that reliably moved in sync with your own mental impluses and that reliably did not move in the absence of your own mental impulses, you might be said to be relatively correct in deducing that the animated tree shown in the monitor was you yourself.

Season the example to taste. Suppose the animal has a belief that 'that animal moves whenever I do" while looking in the mirror. Again, the self-referential content of the belief indicates self-consciousness, even though the animal fails to recognize the image in the mirror as its reflection.

 

[pace]

Sometimes I have NO idea who's in the mirror. I'm much too busy, and it's much too early in the morning.

 

[abitofnothingleft]

I don't think this is the most relevant question to the argument of whether we should eat meat or not. Of course there are reasons for eating and killing animals that make sense, it would be hard to argue otherwise. A more relevant question is should WE be eating meat given what we know (the destruction of the environment and the tremendous suffering of animals) when we don’t need it for healthy living.

well you can both look at the question either way you want but when asking either question you must look at one very permissible point (whichever way you want to word it): how are they killing the meat? if we were to simply take the animal out of the wild, or the non-industrial farm, would that be moral? i think that almost anyone can agree that the way farmers treat animals is inhumane and disgusting. that can be said with respects to how they kill the animal as well as what they do before and after the killing.

 

[envscigrl]

I am a vegetarian and have been for two years now. I eat fish and eggs and have recently started eating chicken again (not often, once every two weeks or so). I did this for protein resons because I am in college and on the go and don't often get enough protein from my current fav foods ( ie EZ Mac). However, I am very healthy, thin, and I would recommend vegetarianism over any fad diet (including the Atkins diet which is actully bad for your health) to anyone trying to lose weight. The whole diet situation is very interesting. I feel like I should write a book on it or something. Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling. My entire mental state concerning food had to change when I became a vegetarian and I honestly do not believe many people have the will power to do it even if it will greatly improve their health. So what it all comes down to is that I think it would beneficial to the health of our planet and the human population to switch to vegetarianism (with some fish eggs and chicken thrown in there ). But in reality this will never happen, peoples inherent instinct is to gorge and fat is where its at for most people.

 

[NUKEELT]

I am a vegetarian and have been for two years now. I eat fish and eggs and have recently started eating chicken again (not often, once every two weeks or so). I did this for protein resons because I am in college and on the go and don't often get enough protein from my current fav foods ( ie EZ Mac). However, I am very healthy, thin, and I would recommend vegetarianism over any fad diet (including the Atkins diet which is actully bad for your health) to anyone trying to lose weight. The whole diet situation is very interesting. I feel like I should write a book on it or something. Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling. My entire mental state concerning food had to change when I became a vegetarian and I honestly do not believe many people have the will power to do it even if it will greatly improve their health. So what it all comes down to is that I think it would beneficial to the health of our planet and the human population to switch to vegetarianism (with some fish eggs and chicken thrown in there ). But in reality this will never happen, peoples inherent instinct is to gorge and fat is where its at for most people.

It's great to hear you're healthy but eating chicken and fish is still meat so you're definitely not a vegitarian. It's wonderfully easy to get enough protien (I for one get monumentally more protien than when I ate meat) through simple foods. One glass of soymilk has more protien than a chicken breast for example. You can get a great full feeling with pasta and complex carbs. So you can still get all the benefit and spare the fish and chickens too.

 

[NUKEELT]

These facts make arguing that we shouldn't eat meat (due to a right to life of animals) very difficult: there isn't much in the way of writings by philosophers, with which to support the assertion.

As Prad pointed out above there's an abundance of writings on the topic many dating back centuries (pythagoras for example). But beside the point, just because nobody has thought of a concept before doesn't invalidate the assertion. In fact it's wonderfully easy to argue this topic just using common sense. It's not good for you, it's not good for the environment, it's definitely not good for the animals would be the "No you shouldn't" philosophy and well... I suppose It tastes good, or God makes animals for us to use would more or less be the standard "yes you should" arguement.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Anyway, What I have observed through my own experience is this:
Most Americans could not just become vegetarian. I eat in much smaller portions and much more frequently than I did when I ate meat. Americans love the feeling of being full even 'stuffed' or overly full and thus could not be a vegetarian because it is much harder to achieve such a feeling.

I get that feeling quite frequently...there's nothing about being vegetarian that says that you have to eat small portions.

 

[pace]

I'm really stuffed right now

 

[kouga]

should we not eat meat and let the animals of the world overpopulate it taking the needed room for our own expanding population?

 

[abitofnothingleft]

first of all, it would take a LONG time for animals to over populate the world.

second of all, i don't think that would happen because most animals have a shorter life span then that of humans

third of all, to defend my own opinions, i am against how people kill animals. not the actual eating of it. if things were done a little, no wait, a lot differently before and after an animals death maybee i wouldn't be against it so much but the fact that the poor animal is tortured and the meat tampered with is just utterly(no pun intended) digusting

 

[mee]

Short story

There is a short story by Gardner Dozois called I believe "A Kingdom by the Sea" It talks a great deal about a slaughter houses and used to be posted on the scifi.com website. It was published in 1972 I believe. Its worth a read.

 

[steveb]

Ah, the joy of a good steak, and baked potatoes.

Well, while all of you are debating whether or not we should kill animals for food, I'm going to sit here and enjoy my steak, and baked potatoes. I learned a long time ago, that food is for eating, and if the creator did not want us to eat it, he wouldn't have created it to begin with.
https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
Rolleyes
I think my favorite thus far is a grilled porterhouse, and red potatoes. Oh, and of course, we cannot forget Popeye's favorite... Spinach.
Of course, I do have to say that I do enjoy a good shark steak... and I can assure you, they do not just use the fin, and throw away the rest. And as for chicken's living in TINY cages, have you ever seen this? I haven't, and I've worked in chicken farms before. I'd like an image of this thing you've described. Ten thousand chickens, living in ten thousand tiny cages. Aside from the cost of the cages, they would be wasting chickens.
Then only true vegetarians that I've ever met were practicing hindu's, and they used it properly. Of course, they believe that the fly you just killed is their long dead greatgrandfather, so who knows.
Nope, give me a good steak, hamburger, chicken breast, etc... along with some other good foods, and I'll be a contented man.
Enjoy your debate though, perhaps you'll stop guys like me from going hunting one day,and killing that bambi that feeds my family once every few years. Now there is a good meat.
And I must say, I do agree with the native americans. Take only what you need, and eat what you take. Those who throw food away are hurting the rest of humanity. As my mother said when I was a child--- eat all your food, there are hungry, starving children in China. Too bad she never sent any of it off to our neighbors who were hungry.
Ahh... now that is a steak!

 

[geraldmcgarvey]

Quote from Albert Einstein

It is best to cut down on consumption of animal foods, particularly from factory farms. There are several benefits.
Protecting our environment:
. It takes much less resources and causes less pollution to produce plant food.
. Factory farms pollute our environment, partly because the pollutants are concentrated in small areas and are not properly filtered. Also because of the pesticides and herbicides used to grow the plants that the animals eat.
Compassion:
. Factory farms cause a tremendous amount of suffering to billions of animals. For example, chickens have their beaks sliced off and are put in tiny cages.
Our own health:
. Animal foods from factory farms are laced with antibiotics and added growth hormones.
. Nutrients such as protein and iron can be gotten in adequate amounts from plant foods, it just takes a little bit of research.
. I've seen conflicting information about soy, but soy is not the only source of protein from plant foods. I eat some soy and haven't had a problem.

Regarding a response such as "I expect vegetarians not to bother me.", people have a right to promote the benefits of eating less animal foods, it's called freedom of speech. What you eat is your choice, and you have a choice of whether to feel bothered. If you're not interested, don't read the thread.

From
http://www.vegetarianteen.com/articles/forenviron.shtml

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

Water - Animal food production uses up huge amounts of water resources. A pure vegetarian diet uses nearly 14 times less water to be produced than an animal based one.

Land - Overgrazing destroys millions of acres of land that would more efficiently be used to grow food that feeds people directly.

Pollution - Raising animals for food is the largest industrial polluter of water and topsoil. ...

Energy - Veggie diets consume less energy to produce. ...

Fishing - Hundreds of species of fish are now extinct or threatened due to the effects that fishing has on the world's oceans. ...

Resources - Producing animals for food depletes a huge amount of resources. ...

 

[hitssquad]

https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=102911#
Rolleyes

Your link to post 102911 doesn't work. Try this one:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=102911#post102911

 

[pace]

Ah, the joy of a good steak, and baked potatoes.

What is Love really compared to Beef with Onion. - George Bernard Shaw.