Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[Dissident Dan]

I just dug up the following document: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/pct-bb/catl0104.txt

It states that in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (ranked 1, 3, and 4 in cattle population in 1998 according to http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/ranking/lrank97.htm#allcattle), only 2.9 million (down from 3.7 million in 2003) cattle and cavles are estimated to be grazing on "Small Grain Pasture" in 2004. These states are estimated to have 26.65 million cattle and calves. That means that only 11% are "Grazing on Small Grain Pasture".

 

[Les Sleeth]

As for the responsibility thing; I am not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

Sorry, I just saw your response. As I said, I personally cannot bear to participate in killing and eating animals. It is the "should" in your statement that makes me hesitate. Killing animials is how the universe works here on planet Earth. I can't see how to derive some morality for all humans from the nature of things, or (especially) from what I find repusive.

 

[Averagesupernova]

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless. Let me clue you in about beef cattle: I own them and as we speak their calves are being born. They choose to drop them out in the dirt. They have the choice to go inside on clean concrete lined with nice fresh straw if they want. They have been inside but still choose the calve elsewhere. As we speak, it is raining. Guess where all the calves are? That's right, outside. Do you feel sorry for them? I do sort of, but not really. Ever hear the phrase 'not smart enough to come in out of the rain'? How about you come out here and convince my cattle to get their calves into the barn? You will soon realize just how different humans are from other animals. For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless
...
For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

 

[russ_watters]

...[re: racism]

The only possible way to connect racism to animal rights is the fact that racism is not now, nor was it ever based on science. It was an emotional issue only. Animal rights is not based on science or philosophy. It is also strictly an emotional issue.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.

Awareness is the other half of the definition of sentience - the part that enables you to have feelings. Otherwise, feelings are indistinguishable from stimulus-response.

2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.

So how exactly do you test for sentience? Remember: now you are arguing real science. You cannot just assume animals to be senteint. You have to prove it scientifically. From what I understand, there is not much debate about animal sentience in the scientific community (ie, the scientific community does not accept that animals are sentient) except in the case of a handful of higher level mammals. Scientists consider the mirror test to be one of very few valid ones for self-awareness.

3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

Quite possibly - and we already do treat them different in a lot of cases. But you wouldn't want to draw a line, would you...? Feel free to argue where that line should be though, if you want.

[re:cats and mice] Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

Ok, so you're saying cats are immoral. Good. Now, how did you punish this cat for these atrocious acts of immorality? Does your state have a death penalty for example? While we're at it, any animal that has ever killed another animal is guilty of murder, right? They all need to be executed then, don't they? Am I starting to sound at all absurd to you? (I sure hope so)

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights.

And you base this on what exactly? Which of the great philosophers discussed this issue? AFAIK, the principle authority on rights (Locke) never mentioned animal rights.

As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society.

That is not what I said. Have you read any of the philosophy of rights? Learning the modern understanding of rights would be a good place to start before deciding these concepts can be extended to animals. A little taste: According to Locke, rights are inherrent in humans and are endowed by 'nature' - natural law. To some, that may imply God, to others, it may sound like the laws of science...

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals.

I pointed out several differences - whether you consider them relevant or not, philosophers considered them relevant enough to not even consider the possibility that animals have rights. In order to change that, you will need to come up with some good philosophy/science of your own. Good luck though - part of my cat exercise that you ignored was critical: You certainly have not ever discussed rights with a cat. What if the cat disagrees with you? No, that's not meant to be funny - it really is critical. You want to say animals have rights, yet at the same time you want to force your interpretation of rights on both us and them. It's a catch-22: if they are sentient and therefore worthy of rights, then their opinion matters (and guess what - they outnumber us).

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation.

All I want you to do is prove it. Prove they are sentient. Prove they are worthy of rights. Prove they will agree with us on what rights are.

One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

Interesting that you'd bring that up: the part of the brain where conscious thought resides is the cerebrum. The front. You just gave an important piece of evidence against those emotions being connected with conscious thought but rather just being pre-programmed stimulus-response. The cerebral cortex is what makes humans different from other animals.

There is a great Far Side cartoon where a wife paramecium is nagging her husband: 'stimulus/response, stimulus/response - don't you ever think?!' Important question and you are assuming the answer to be yes.

 

[Averagesupernova]

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

I realize what large scale ag does to the economy and I also realize what foreign competition does. But to completely ELIMINATE a legititmate market is a completely different thing. It takes a lot of balls on your part to ASSUME my livestock are treated poorly. BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

Nice way to skirt the fact that you know nothing about ag.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have used the idiot comment, but the whole argument still stands up. I have never justified cruel treatment. I am arguing about what actually IS cruel treatment.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

If you listen to a lot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations. The US imported an insect that looks a lot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back. Don't argue about genetically modified crops that stand up to things like corn borers because what the GM crop actually does is kill the invader. The corn borer doesn't simply decide he doesn't like the taste, he eats it without knowing and it kills him. You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

 

[Dayle Record]

Here is an interesting link to personal consumption habits and how many Earth's we would need to support us, if the resources were doled out according to how we use them. http://myfootprint.org/

There is a religion in India called the Jains, who even wear little cards in front of their mouths lest they inhale flies and harm them. They have a long history from 6th century BC until now, and number at approximately 6.5 million individuals, mostly in the business class. Meat is very high on the food chain, we all know this, and takes a lot of resources to make, that could make us, and take the pressures off the Oceans, and plains and rivers, and ultimately take the pressure off our DNA. Predator viruses arise in us, go out into other hosts, and return to us with a vengeance. Like begets like, so if we ate far less animal protein, we would be exponentially safer from food borne predators. Other animal proteins also trigger immune responses in us, there was some discussion a few years ago regarding the onset of Type 1 diabetes, and consumption of cows milk before the second year of human life, there was a strong auto immune link indicated.

Anyway, that is my fourty cent continuum of commentary on this issue. I had a bacon and egg and potato burrito for breakfast and chicken at lunch. If only I had more compassion, I would be vegetarian again, I was for seven years, and ran a vegetarian restaurant during that time. It will come back to me.

 

[Dissident Dan]

BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

No, I don't. If you read my whole post, you will see that I stated that I prefer small-scale agriculture.

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

If you listen to a lot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

Not at all. The extinction or near extinction of farmed animals would be a good thing, because they no longer have any niche other than being raised for slaughter and milk. There would no longer animals born only to live short lives of misery on farms. I do not care so much about the preservation of species. I care about the reduction of suffering.

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural...but it's not acceptable.

The US imported an insect that looks a lot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back.
...
You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

It is sad that pesticides are used so gratuitously in plant agriculture. However, most crops consumed in the USA are actually fed to animals raised for food--mainly soybeans, corn, and grains. By reducing consumption of animals, we are reducing consumption of crops, and therefore pesticide use, drastically. BTW, I'm very interested in something called Aeroponics. It could eliminate the "need" for pesticides.

According to http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/ED2002WEB/demfactsf.PDF , the animal feed makes up 66% of the USA's grain consumption.

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

What are you argueing with this?

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

Also, many, if not all, the arguments that you have brought up have already been addressed in previous posts.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

 

[loseyourname]

Dan, you're really going to run into problems here arguing from animal suffering, given that we just don't know what animals are even capable of suffering. There can be no doubt that they respond to stimuli, as the mentor (I forget his name) continually points out, but this doesn't mean that they are actually experiencing any pain. Even single celled organisms move away from harmful factors, but I think we can be pretty certain that they experience nothing when they are being attacked. It should be obvious that some animals that are not human do experience consciousness, if not to the same degree as us, at least in that they experience pain and can suffer. I have no idea where to draw the line, and much as I do when arguing against abortion, I would say that this is sufficient to justify not inflicting the negative stimuli on these animals the way we do. It seems to me that if they may be experiencing pain, and certainly most birds and mammals are high enough on the evolutionary path that it is fairly likely, then we should not take the chance, but no one seems to buy into this. They would rather make an error than play it safe morally.

I think it would be more fruitful for you to argue from an ecological standpoint. The energy used when we move up the trophic chain is immense. If the entire world were to convert to vegetarianism, the reduction of ecological footprint would be huge. As it stands now, we are already past carrying capacity given the footprint we have, and this is with most underdeveloped and developing nations eating a mostly vegetarian diet. As they advance in wealth and acquire our eating habits, the strain put on the biosphere will increase a great deal. You can also argue from air pollution. Currently, the second most prevalent pollutant behind carbon dioxide is methane, and the number one methane producer in the world are methanogens that exist within the digestive cavities of cattle. A vegetarian world would put far less strain on the land, would use less land, produce more calories (which in turn would feed more people), be more cost-efficient, and reduce air pollution. These are not as vague as the ethical issues you might have. No one can argue against the fact that vegetarianism is the way to go in terms of conservation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

I have no doubt that other animals experience pleasure and pain. The first and most obvious measure is behavior. Other animals' behavior is similar to my own to such a degree that it would be ludicrous to suggest that they don't experience. Their behavior is much more complex than that of any microscopic organism.

The second measure is structure. They have brains very similar to our own. The most glaring difference in nervous systems is our enlarged and wrinkled forebrains. However, basic emotions have long been known to be based in the midbrain and hindbrain, which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have (although I'm not quite sure of how similar the fish brain is).
The third "measure" is evolution. We come from a common background at some point. The fact that humans weren't just dropped down from the sky by god, separate from other animals, indicates that other animals have mental capacities similar to my own.

I do not find the evidence for animal sentience any less strong than the evidence for human sentience.

The distinctions that people draw in their minds between humans and other animals are mostly religious or cultural, not scientific.

 

[Dayle Record]

People who state that there is some question as to animals ability to suffer, are simply not doing their research. There is plenty of research, to back up unpleasant stimulus, vs pleasant. Oh come on, almost all behavioral research uses pain, or threat of pain to some extent; as the opposite of pleasure to control behavior.

I saw this Nova about the goings on at a set of springs somewhere in Africa. The discussion was about Hippopotamai, and how fierce they are. No one at the water hole messes with them, including the Crocs. In this vignette, one Hippo has passed away, and you see its companion, open its mouth, and grieve. The Hippo is crying, and crying, and you see the pathos plainly, the tears are abundant. Even the Crocs understand that, because they wait for that to pass. Only after the Hippo has grieved, does it move on, and leave the Crocs to ravage the carcass.

There is sentience at every level of the equation that is Earth, and we are simply the most viscious, and capable of the predators here. We could choose to be the conservators, of life, and many cases, we do just that. Every life form feels pain, it is a part of our basic aversion to damage, mechanism. If animals felt no pain, then they would not protect their bodies from harm. That is why pain exists in the first place.

Let me help you with this, it hurts like hell when some human hits you over the head with a sledge hammer, whether you are a cow, horse, human, bird, or fish. It really hurts when they begin to dismember you, before you are dead. This is how the meat is kept fresh, by the meat industry, and how labor cost is kept to a minimum.

The technology is abundantly available, to end life painlessly. We just don't afford that courtesy to our prey, nor to our enemies.

 

[Averagesupernova]

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural...but it's not acceptable.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

What are you argueing with this?

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers. At first I thought this was a completely horrible thing and still do. But the instinct of survival kicks in when a little 10 year old pulls the pin and tosses one at you. The next 10 year old you see who is looking right at you and ready to pull the pin is going to get wasted. I'm not condoning wasting little kids, but the whole opinion can change when you actually are educated with experience of those who were there or actually were there yourself. You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

It seemed to me that you implying that their not being very intelligent was a reason to disregard them. Perhaps I was wrong. I don't think that I stated that their thoughts are almost just like human thoughts. I've stated that, like humans, they can think and feel emotions.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

Please, let's keep personal attacks out of this. Those get us nowhere. I didn't state that I find a natural rape urge. I was speaking historically. After all, what is considered natural is history; natural usually just means "the way that things have been for a long time".

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I would prefer to die a painful death than live an entire life in agony.

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers.
...
You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Firstly, there are no farmed animals throwing grenades at anyone,. There are no real reasons to consume meat other than preference and societal influences.
Also, just as I cannot pretend to know exactly how your particular farm operates, you would be assuming too much to think that most farms operate however yours is. I've seen stuff from many different farms and slaughterhouses, and I've seen statistics. Checking valid statistics in combination with a wide enough personal sampling of "farms" and slaughterhouses is a very good, if not the only, way to determine this.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

I'm glad that we agree in some areas. Please don't take anything I say to necessarily refer to the conditions of your animals. I can only make general statements on what is common in the industry or comments on specific things that I have seen and/or heard. The things that I have seen and read about are quite appalling. There are many websites, books, and videos detailing the situations.

 

[loseyourname]

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

Well, to begin with, I'm not really sure that animal suffering, or anybody's suffering, is more important than conserving the biosphere that supports all life. But that isn't really my point anyway.

What I'm saying is that your argument from animal suffering can be disputed, and will be disputed, no matter how obvious it is that livestock experience suffering, simply because people will always point out that we can't talk to them and ask them. The argument from ecosystem conservation can't be disputed. No one can argue with the fact that filtering the energy from the sun through several layers, or even just one layer, of livestock, greatly reduces the amount that makes it to us, and so greatly increases the volume of the crops we must grow and the land we must use. It is just an extremely inefficient way to utilize photosynthesis when we can simply get the calories straight from the plants. Doing so would go a very great distance toward lessening the strain we place on ecosystems, do away with a great deal of deforestation, and decrease air pollution and increase the productivity of agriculture. A small lifestyle change could very nearly cut in half the impact we have on the planet, if only everyone would make the switch. One step up the trophic change entails a tenfold increase in the amount of total calories consumed, by both livestock and humans. That means ten times as much grain is needed to feed livestock that will then feed us than would be needed simply to feed us. Imagine the difference that could be made.

Let us not forget how much of an impact agriculture has. As a case in point, take the Salton Sea. As of right now, the Salton Sea stands as the only refuge for about 300 species of birds that migrate south through California every winter. The coastal wetlands are all but gone due to development. Eutrophication through agricultural runoff causes immense algal blooms that suck all of the oxygen out of the water, killing all the fish, and periodically leaving the migrating birds with nothing to eat. If this continues at the rate it is currently moving in, within ten years there will be no more fish, and the last refuge for these birds will be gone. This is the only place on the entire west coast that they can go to, and destroying it will effectively end the existence of 300 species west of the Rockies. This is only one example. If the land used was cut by a factor of ten, the problem would all but disappear. Another large problem is the need of agriculture for water. The Colorado river right now stands as the only source of water for three huge metropolitan areas: Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles, none of which have their own water. The strain put on natural resources by the size of the populations, and by the amount of farm land that exists out in Riverside County, is devastating. Removal of livestock in favor of exclusively vegetable and grain crops would not do away with the this problem entirely, as overpopulation of a basically desert environment is a large part of it as well, but it would be a great start.

 

[cragwolf]

I'm too lazy to read this long thread, so I'm sorry if I raise issues that have already been raised. I'll just state my opinion here.

I'm a hypocrite. I eat meat, but I recognise that there really is no valid reason for my doing so. Why should animals die just to satisfy my taste for their BBQ'd flesh? A proper vegetarian diet would provide all the necessary nutrients I need. There certainly are some people who live in some places in the world where a meat diet is justified. Meat for these people might be the only way they can obtain their required nutrients. But in my first-world society of plenty, that is not an applicable argument.

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

 

[Galatea]

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior. I fear anyone who will end a living creatures life for any reason besides minimizing its suffering.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Even devout meat eaters feel a twinge in their conscience when they think about factory farming. I've yet to meet anyone who says, "Yeah, factory farming is great. I think they treat these animals just fine." I think that more humane ways of killing them are certainly a step in the right direction - at the very least, it might at least indicate an evolution of thought about these issues.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

 

[Dayle Record]

I saw this study regarding empathy, and animals.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994901

 

[cragwolf]

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior.

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

 

[loseyourname]

At least the hunter does not hurt the environment. If he is skilled, he will also inflict no suffering on the animal he kills.

 

[TheBestOfMe]

Wow, First off, I'd like to commend all these agruments and points you all place. You really think outside the box.

But, as it goes, I take a postion, I stand on the side of Dan(whom is doing a very good job on his own).

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

 

[KingNothing]

I think vegetarianism as a form of protest has a great heart and goal in mind but is a horrible attempt at making progress. It's not the facts like "the animals are being so mistreated" that really relate, so much, its more the issue of "how much does this accomplish?"

For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Humans are quite obviously the top of the 'chain' when it comes to planet earth...by that I mean, we have basic control over the populations of all other animals...we are the king animals of the earth. Why not let us be the top of the food chain, too? I'm sure animals don't like being killing...buut, animals are killed no matter what.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.

 

[russ_watters]

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane."

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

 

[Yossarian]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

earth worked perfectly fine without humans eating meat. Earth will alwasy adjust itself to the population fluctuations whether it is a few hundred amamals one way or the other or, millions of anamals. the foodchain will always readjust itself.

 

[Yossarian]

I have been a vegitarian my entire life and am the prosses of going vegan. I am an athlete as well and workout. i have never encountered any physical problems with my being a vegitarian. it is quite easy to get all that is required for a healthy diet.

I am also quite curious to see what you so aptly called other things that one must take into consideration. i agree that you must be more carful but it is quite easy to do.

I would also like to know what other things you would suggest to do. and in respose to what.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Be careful there . . . I don't think you can make your case when you say it is less healthy to be vegetarian. I know nutrition quite well, and I also can compare the first 25 years of my life as a meat eater, and the last 32 years as a vegetarian. I can report there is no comparison, not even close! I feel much better, digest food easier, have more energy (e.g., I play racquetball for 3 hours without a break, not bad for a 57 yo), get over the few colds I ever get faster, and more.

Healthwise, I am convinced the vegetarian diet wins hands down (obviously it has to be eating good food and a well-rounded diet . . . an all Twinkie diet is vegetarian). But I still can't see how it is anybody's business whether others eat meat or not, and so cannot be considered a "should" socially. If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.

 

[TheBestOfMe]

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. .

Well, many doctors and scientists have done numerous experements on whether it is unhealthy or not. I'm assuming you've read or gotten information that its unhealthier? maybe by personal experience?
But It has been PROVEN that vegetarians are much more healtheir. Did you know that heart disease, cancer, strokes, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, and other diseases have all been linked to meat and dairy consumption. In fact, the risk of developing heart disease among meat-eaters is 50% higher than that of vegetarians. One more thing, Vegetarians and vegans live, on avegerage, 6-10 years longer than meat-eaters.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

When a friend introduces me to someone and teasingly says "he's a vegetarian," I always deny it and say instead, "there is simply no meat [nor fish or eggs] any of the dishes I eat."

If they ask me why I say, "because I don't like flesh [or eggs]."

They might continue by saying how "good" meat tastes, etc. To that I say, "maybe, but I feel better when I don't eat it."

There you have it. Fully justified with evidence, logic, and reason . . . no glossing over. Of course, I am not a vegetarian either.

 

[Alliance]

I definitely agree with Dan's side of the argument here (and well done to him by the way for all the great points he's making) as I'm a vegetarian myself. Firstly I don't know how people can say a vegetarian diet is less healthy than a meat eaters diet. I agree with KingNothing in that you can't just see protein on a food label and think that is enough, but I don't agree that eating meat is the only way to gain all the essential amino acids you need. And as for the rest of your argument, you are basically saying let's do it because we can. Hitler was the dictator in Germany and killed millions of Jews. Because he was top of the Chain, does that make it right?

 

[motai]

but I don't agree that eating meat is the only way to gain all the essential amino acids you need.

It isnt. Soy contains the essential eight amino acids and higher amount of high-quality proteins.

http://vegweb.com/articles/monique-1003688934.shtml

 

[Dayle Record]

This is a little bit more regarding empathy and other life forms here on Earth.

I ended up with some parakeets. I am allergic to feathers, and still I ended up with them. They make a comfortable noise, we had them when I was a kid. Anyway, Mr and Mrs Bird had, in their third year fallen in love, and danced at each other, and sang and sang, and daily they were lovers in the afternoon light. Later Mrs. Bird became very ill, and I didn't know what to do for her, though she was three years old, it seemed that she had some problem laying an egg, or so it seemed.

I knew she was having a hard time, and on the last day of her life, Mr Bird supported her on the perch, and held her head under his wing. I had a nest for them and everything I could think of to make their life work. There they were in this embrace, and I just remembered that day again, when I came back home she had passed away, and we had the funeral out back, and she rests near Miss Kitty.

Mr Bird looked into the mirror for three months after that. HE never sang ANOTHER NOTE. He mourned in silence, until I couldn't stand it any more and I bought another bird to keep him company. Parakeets for sale are so juvenile that it is hard to determine the gender. He perked up within a week, and they seem to get along. But people who question the connection, and sentience of animals as a rationalization well, what other blatant things do they also ignore, for their emotional convenience?

 

[Galatea]

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

I disagree. I don't think everyone really knows. I certainly didn't know until I decided to become a vegetarian - even when I began, it wasn't for moral reasons. It was simply for health. I didn't even think about what it meant to eat meat until after. It is such a commonly accepted practice that most people just go along with it; if you ask a lot of people why they eat meat, they will simply say it tastes good. To them, it is as though you asked why they breathe air. You might get some silly answers about them "needing" the protein and "important nutrients" etc. but often these people haven't the slightest clue as to what kinds of proteins and nutrients meat contains, nor do they know how much the daily requirement(s) are. They are even less educated about the dangers of such things. This is not to say all meat eaters are uneducated - quite the contrary, a great many know quite a bit about nutrition and I've seen many points favoring an omnivorous diet.

However, I will agree with you that far too many people are cowards and hypocrites. It bothers me quite a bit that the people I know won't even buy organic meat (which benefits their health more than the animals!) People simply do not care. To cause a disruption in their lives is unthinkable.

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

A lot of people don't think of plants as food. I should introduce you to my southern US, "fry everything until it looks like charcoal", won't eat anything without an animal product family

My point was, if you feel guilty about eating meat (as you appear to), one of the best things to do is to stop thinking of animals as food. The toughest thing to do is to change your manner of thinking about such a topic. Actually eating vegetarian food is quite simple. Thinking animals aren't food will make it easier when you realize there is no steak on your plate and that's OK.

I needn't reiterate the many points about animals ability to feel pain. That is why you shouldn't consider them food, as opposed to asparagus or what have you.

FWIW, I don't kill insects either.

 

[loseyourname]

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane." Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

Have you even looked at any of the ecological arguments made? Granted, what I've posted is nothing but an outline, but if you'd like, I can go into more detail and include some figures.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane."

How am I doing this?

Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

What arguments are you looking for? Logical, scientific arguments that animal agriculture causes environmental degradation? Logical, scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthy? Logical scientific evidence that it is ethically wrong to eat animals? All these topics have been addressed. What, specifically, are you looking for?

 

[russ_watters]

How am I doing this?

By applying it to non-humans.

What arguments are you looking for? Logical, scientific arguments that animal agriculture causes environmental degradation? Logical, scientific evidence that a vegetarian diet is healthy? Logical scientific evidence that it is ethically wrong to eat animals? All these topics have been addressed. What, specifically, are you looking for?

This thread is about the morality of eating meat - so clearlly the 3rd one. You've asserted a number of times that animals are our equals, but you have yet to show any evidence, not for specific animals or animals in general (a number of people have asked about "the line" and you haven't addressed it). I even stipulated to the intelligence of certain animals, partially as bait of course, and I think that's why you didn't elaborate. And you have completely ignored the next step: developing the philosophical/moral/practical implications (my cat cases - they get pretty comical, but they're for real).

edit: scrolling back, DD, you provided a number of links outlining how animals are treated - but I stipulated to that long ago. I even stated that I don't like the way calves are treated to make veal (for example). What you haven't shown a single piece of evidence for is that that treatment is actually wrong. That's the crux of the argument you are glossing over!

Now, I think I know why: you consider it axiomatic. That's fine for you as a pseudo-religous belief, but I don't hold that as a belief and and the scientific community doesn't either. You need to prove it.

Dayle Record, incidentally was the only one who made an attempt - he posted a link to a scientific study on animals and empathy, but he didn't say anything about it...

Have you even looked at any of the ecological arguments made? Granted, what I've posted is nothing but an outline, but if you'd like, I can go into more detail and include some figures.

Go for it - I'm not sure I've ever heard an ecological argument on this. If you're just talking about forests being converted to farm/grazing lands - well, I live in Southeastern Pennsylvania where farmland is being converted to subdivisions. I don't see that as a very compelling argument. Quite frankly, it looks like a smokescreen to me.

 

[Dissident Dan]

By applying it to non-humans. This thread is about the morality of eating meat - so clearlly the 3rd one. You've asserted a number of times that animals are our equals, but you have yet to show any evidence, not for specific animals or animals in general (a number of people have asked about "the line" and you haven't addressed it). I even stipulated to the intelligence of certain animals, partially as bait of course, and I think that's why you didn't elaborate. And you have completely ignored the next step: developing the philosophical/moral/practical implications (my cat cases - they get pretty comical, but they're for real).

edit: scrolling back, DD, you provided a number of links outlining how animals are treated - but I stipulated to that long ago. I even stated that I don't like the way calves are treated to make veal (for example). What you haven't shown a single piece of evidence for is that that treatment is actually wrong. That's the crux of the argument you are glossing over!

Now, I think I know why: you consider it axiomatic. That's fine for you as a pseudo-religous belief, but I don't hold that as a belief and and the scientific community doesn't either. You need to prove it.

Level of intelligence is irrelevant. If it can be shown that a creature feels, then it is wrong to harm the creature. I have stated (briefly, at least) at least 3 different ways of coming to the conclusion that non-human animals are sentient (have the ability to experience):

1) Behavior-
The behavior of all animals with which we are familiar indicates that they are conscious. Furthermore, if you pay attention, you notice personality differences among animals that cannot be attributed to mere "instinct". There are no human behaviors which are evidence any stronger than those of non-human animals.
In the case of mammals, we can see concern for family and anguish when families are torn apart.
2) Structure-
Most animals are structurally like oneself in the relevant ways--those dealing with the nervous system. Animals that have nervous systems with sensory nerves and brains (and perhaps even some with ganglia that can't quite be considered "brains"--it's hard to rule out completely) experience. Neuroscientists have known for a long time now that our basic emotions like fear, attraction, anger, etc. are correlated with activity in the hind- and mid-brain--regions such as the thalamus, amygdalla, and medulla oblongata (I may have misspelled that). Scientists have been able to reproduce the same types of emotionally-correlated behaviors in both mammals and reptiles through neural stimulation. In case you may believe that the cerebrum is necessary, even reptiles have at least small cerebrums. Mammals and birds have rather well-developed forebrains.
3) Evolutionary-
Conscious experience involving pain and pleasure is a necessary part of being an animal. A plant does not need these. They would only be detrimental, as a plant cannot escape a displeasurable stimulus or approach an attractive one. Animals, however, need emotional motivation.
The discovery of evolution serves to let oneself realize how similar oneself really is to members of other species. It was not that long ago, evolutionarily speaking, that the human species branched off from other known species. Humans split off from chimps and bonobos only about 6 million years ago! Knowledge of this common past should do away with preconceptions of fundamentally different humans and "animals".

In all these cases, the relevant data does not have significant differences between humans and nonhumans. If I am to conclude that humans other than myself are sentient, I would be inconsistent to doubt the same in other species.