• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Should humans eat meat for non-moral reasons?

Status
Not open for further replies.

joe2187

Banned
lol what. For most of the world's population, meat is something they can't afford except for special celebrations. Meat is only cheap in America because the meat industry is heavily subsidized by the government. First-world, western meat-eaters are actually the privileged ones.

Beans and Peas are relatively cheap. Soybeans especially. You can easily make your own tempeh and tofu for less price then buying. Even then you can get that in bulk.

Other stuff like nuts,seeds, wheat gluten are cheap in bulk as well.

Plant protein is literally cheaper and more abundant/efficient by weight.

Once again People thinking eating healthy or meat free is somehow a way to end the starving poor or impoverished. In America it's alot cheaper to feed a family of four on $10 at McDonalds and get your protein, fats and starches then it is to buy some potatoes, greens and grains.

The lack of fresh, or even a limited variety of produce and options in poorer areas is a huge issue. You're not going to find fresh vegetables, tofu, quinoa, basil, or lentils while walking down skid row. Then you have the lack of knowledge on how to prepare that food, combined with the lack of resources and you're not going to find many if any poor American vegetarians.

Those countries in the rest of the world raise goats, cattle and other animals themselves to sustain themselves because it is a resource, to be traded. Animal hides, organs, bones, meat, milk, blood you name it.
 

rjinaz

Member
same. the moment i can get non-actual meat versions of my favorite meat then i'll immediately switch.

vegetarianism/veganism is something i applaud without having the strength to follow along with.

Basically where I am at too. I'm going to continue to eat meat, but I do so sparingly. I would be all over lab grown meat, I wouldn't care. Heck I often substitute veggies for actual burgers now because some taste pretty good. Not always though.
 
Once again People thinking eating healthy or meat free is somehow a way to end the starving poor or impoverished. In America it's alot cheaper to feed a family of four on $10 at McDonalds and get your protein, fats and starches then it is to buy some potatoes, greens and grains.

The lack of fresh, or even a limited variety of produce and options in poorer areas is a huge issue. You're not going to find fresh vegetables, tofu, quinoa, basil, or lentils while walking down skid row. Then you have the lack of knowledge on how to prepare that food, combined with the lack of resources and you're not going to find many if any poor American vegetarians.

Those countries in the rest of the world raise goats, cattle and other animals themselves to sustain themselves because it is a resource, to be traded. Animal hides, organs, bones, meat, milk, blood you name it.

I disagree about price being a valid excuse. Potatoes, rice, grains are cheap. Frozen vegetables are cheap all year round and as nutritious or more than "fresh" ones (which are rarely fresh or keep fresh).

Preparation time is understandable, though. Nobody except grandma wants to be boiling beans for 2 hours every day. And nobody sells bean or lentil meals for as cheap as McDonald's sells burgers precisely because that sort of food takes a ton of time to prepare and you cannot distribute it pre-made frozen like mcD's does with their patties and nuggets.
 
Well for one, I don't consider the act of killing an animal for food to be murder.

Sure, use whatever term you want. Killing, murder, let's not get caught up on that. Point is, if you say, "I won't kill my dog, but I will kill that cow/pig/chicken", then you're making moral choices about what animals are off-limits and what are. The question of whether the animal is a food source or not is irrelevant because that's still a life taken at the end of the day.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
And there's the pet gambit.
Collect $100

The moral absolutist stance is pretty ridiculous, really. I'm sure there are people who grew up with pigs, or chickens and won't eat those, but that isn't an absolute.
 
And there's the pet gambit.
Collect $100

Naw, I'm not trying to make some argument or handing out pamphlets. h1nch said that killing animals that think & feel has no moral component, that it's just an act of nature. I'm just making a philosophical argument that 1) we are all animals, 2) killing another person (and in most countries killing pets for non-medical reasons) by most standards contains a moral choice, therefore killing a non-human, non-pet animal also contains that moral choice. How someone weighs that action from a moral perspective is a different discussion.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
So edgy bro

Some say I'm the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Naw, I'm not trying to make some argument or handing out pamphlets. h1nch said that killing animals that think & feel has no moral component, that it's just an act of nature. I'm just making a philosophical argument that 1) we are all animals, 2) killing another person (and in most countries killing pets for non-medical reasons) by most standards contains a moral choice, therefore killing a non-human, non-pet animal also contains that moral choice. How someone weighs that action from a moral perspective is a different discussion.

Ah, I see. But there is a gulf of morality and psychology to killing for fun and killing for food. I find killing for sport repulsive, so yes it is on a varying moral scale.

The absolutist view is that it is killing and therefore it doesn't matter if it was a person or a cow.
 

h1nch

Member
Sure, use whatever term you want. Killing, murder, let's not get caught up on that. Point is, if you say, "I won't kill my dog, but I will kill that cow/pig/chicken", then you're making moral choices about what animals are off-limits and what are. The question of whether the animal is a food source or not is irrelevant because that's still a life taken at the end of the day.

Sure, I suppose. I guess I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
 
Some say I'm the sharpest knife in the drawer.


Ah, I see. But there is a gulf of morality and psychology to killing for fun and killing for food. I find killing for sport repulsive, so yes it is on a varying moral scale.

The absolutist view is that it is killing and therefore it doesn't matter if it was a person or a cow.
There is a moral dfference between killing for food when you need to do so for your survival and killing for fun, Sure. But when it isn't necessary for survival, the dilemma changes. Consider a human cannibal (again, this is not an equivocation, it is a thought experiment to demonstrate logic). A murderer cannot use 'I was hungry' as a defence for harming another. If, however, someone was in a situation where they and another human being were starving to death and the only way to survive was for one to eat the other, and a fight to the death ensued, I think most of us would be more lenient on the killer.

We, at least most of us, live in a world where it is not necessary for us to kill to survive. The only reasons to kill for food are to satisfy one's tastebuds (with convenience and tradition being sub factors, as I mentioned in an earlier post). So, when you choose the lamb kebab over the falafel and hummus, you are satisfying your own sensory preferences at the cost of suffering and death of a sentient being. Isn't that worryingly close to causing harm for 'fun', which you are against?
 

haimon

Member
Well for one, I don't consider the act of killing an animal for food to be murder.
You speciesist !
How dare you not consider the feelings of other animals. You might be eating the cow or pig or chicken that could be the one that cures all diseases and global warming.
 
lol what. For most of the world's population, meat is something they can't afford except for special celebrations. Meat is only cheap in America because the meat industry is heavily subsidized by the government. First-world, western meat-eaters are actually the privileged ones.

So is almost every other aspect of food grown in America. Corn, soybeans, etc. The entire agricultural system is heavily subsidized to protect farmers from the natural dangers of the business.

Sure, use whatever term you want. Killing, murder, let's not get caught up on that. Point is, if you say, "I won't kill my dog, but I will kill that cow/pig/chicken", then you're making moral choices about what animals are off-limits and what are. The question of whether the animal is a food source or not is irrelevant because that's still a life taken at the end of the day.

Have you ever tasted dog? Or cat? They aren't very fatty animals so I imagine they taste awful. The question is, in fact, of whether it is a food source that is worth eating rather than a moral choice. At least for me. I had pet chickens growing up but we still ate them eventually.
 

KonradLaw

Member
No need for meat when there are oysters! They are vegan



Some people might find reasons to argue it's ok to eat oyster if you have vegan-like morality, but they're still animals. You eat them, you're not a vegan and they definitely can';t be called vegan food.
 


Some people might find reasons to argue it's ok to eat oyster if you have vegan-like morality, but they're still animals. You eat them, you're not a vegan and they definitely can';t be called vegan food.
While I don't necessarily agree that oysters are vegan, I think a definition of veganism that is simply 'the belief that it is wrong to eat animals or animal products' is insufficient. For me and many others I have spoken to, it is an ethical position of reducing suffering to the greatest extent. If an animal is proven to be without sentience and incapable of suffering, I see no reason to consider it as part of my ethics.

Of course if by vegan you refer to wholly plant-based diets rather than a set of ethical principles, the flesh of oysters and any other animal can never be considered vegan products.
 
So is almost every other aspect of food grown in America. Corn, soybeans, etc. The entire agricultural system is heavily subsidized to protect farmers from the natural dangers of the business.

While many aspects of the agricultural system are subsidized, the meat and dairy industry is subsidized an order of magnitude higher ($38 Billion) as compared to vegetables and fruit growers ($17 million). Veg/fruit farmers get only 0.04% of the subsidies given to the meat and dairy industry.
 
If eggs and milk are ok, then protein intake is more than covered for the weightlifting crowd.

However, I think the protein per calorie of purely vegetarian foods is too expensive to accomplish, needing whey protein powder or unappealing tofu.

Take black beans. If I were to eat nothing but those, which would be a sad existence, I could only get 104 grams of protein on my diet of about 1500 calories. Weight lifters like to get 0.8 gram/pound or more of the weight they're targeting, which would put me 24 grams short.

My solution? Eat a little fish. It's not like we get vegetable protein sources from the sea, and the protein per calorie ratio is fantastic.

Isn't this a slippery slope being that fish in the long-term can be detrimental to health due to metals in the meat?
 

Shiggy

Member
Yes, to prevent climate change.

Right now, we have a lot of cattle (particularly cows) that produce methane gas, which contributes to climate change. By effectively killing and eating these, they are eliminated from further damaging planet earth.

Am I doing this right?
 
Isn't this a slippery slope being that fish in the long-term can be detrimental to health due to metals in the meat?

The future of aquaculture involves feeding farmed fish GMO plant and yeast food (instead of smaller feeder fish) that is high in the fatty omega acids that fish need. This will immensely reduce the amount of metals in fish, making the (overstated) health issue basically moot.

If we can farm fish with a smaller carbon footprint per gram of protein than tofu, do tofu eaters have a moral obligation to switch to fish? ;)
 
The future of aquaculture involves feeding farmed fish GMO plant and yeast food (instead of smaller feeder fish) that is high in the fatty omega acids that fish need. This will immensely reduce the amount of metals in fish, making the (overstated) health issue basically moot.

If we can farm fish with a smaller carbon footprint per gram of protein than tofu, do tofu eaters have a moral obligation to switch to fish? ;)

well thats a damn good question
 
While many aspects of the agricultural system are subsidized, the meat and dairy industry is subsidized an order of magnitude higher ($38 Billion) as compared to vegetables and fruit growers ($17 million). Veg/fruit farmers get only 0.04% of the subsidies given to the meat and dairy industry.

There is a pretty obvious reason why. I'll let you think on it. Are you done thinking yet? Once you are, move on to the next paragraph!

Oh! Look! Compare the price of raising and purchasing cattle to the price of buying and growing seeds! It's a little different. The average cow costs around $2500 hundred dollars in expenses while generating a little less than that per year. The issue comes from when a cow dies early, or birthing issues cause your herd to thin down. Sickness can wipe out entire groups if you're unlucky and Winter always has a toll to take. On the other hand, most crops mostly handle themselves being insulated from most diseases and pests by design, not to mention most people have their fields sprayed each year. Corn typically has a return of anywhere from $300-400 per acre whereas soybeans, while harder to sell and with less incentive as far as market goes, make anywhere from $500-$70.

So to break it down per acre:
Corn - $300-400
Soybeans - $500-600

But you can have multiple cattle per acre. We use a general 1.8 acres per cow-life rule. So the per acre profit of a cow per year would be somewhere around $1300-1400. So with the added costs, risks, and potential profit-loss (losing a Holstein while it's still a calf equates to losing approx $10k over a lifetime) the subsidization makes a lot more sense. Especially as cattle typically have a hard time damaging the land as opposed to ignorant farming practices that can ruin farmland for years. There are even other additional costs to owning large herds of cattle and maintaining them such as fencing, fluctuations in winter feed price, feed storage, birthing costs, etc. Whereas plants have field prep (barring initial equipment costs), fertilizers, pesticides, and final harvest - all of which are fairly inexpensive.

Might want to think about things a little harder in the future before Googling big numbers.

Source: Grew up on one of the largest farms in Indiana.

I eat so much meat. Between chicken, steak, and fish, I probably eat about 2 pounds of meat per day.

It's all very very lean, and cooked very cleanly using just a grill or pan and a teaspoon of olive oil and natural spices. But it's probably not the best thing for me with all of the inorganic hormones they give to animals.

I wish I could give it up, but I feel so weak without it.

There are so few convincing studies on genetic modifications and hormones to make me think they are damaging in any meaningful way to people's diet. Most hormones are simply boosts to the ones already naturally produced by the animals themselves.
 

Peltz

Member
I eat so much meat. Between chicken, steak, and fish, I probably eat about 2 pounds of meat per day.

It's all very very lean, and cooked very cleanly using just a grill or pan and a teaspoon of olive oil and natural spices. But it's probably not the best thing for me with all of the inorganic hormones they give to animals.

I wish I could give it up, but I feel so weak without it.
 
We're built to be omnivores. As long as the bulk of our diets is plants, grains, dairy, ect, then we should easily continue enjoying the meat in all its deliciousness glory!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom