• 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.

Yahoo: Why Some Vegetarians Start Craving Meat

Status
Not open for further replies.

lem0n

Gold Member
embarrassing.. why does anyone need to say childish shit like this? i eat meat but i don't get it, why do you feel the need to provoke vegetarians? insecurity or something?
Yeah I'm self-conscious about my burger eating. I need to take it out on forum-goers.

I'm just poking fun. No need to be upset. Sorry if I offended.
 
A panda is part of the order of Carnivora, which doesn't necessarily mean it's a carnivore, as this order just means they came from a common ancestor as wolves, bears, dogs, raccoon and cats. It just happens that nearly all of those are carnivores, but bears and raccoon (and maybe even dogs) are omnivores, so it's not exclusive to carnivores.

The panda is also a poor example because its entirely body is built to eat meat. It's horrible at digesting bamboo. It's not built for that at all and it's merely an adaptation of its environment. The only reason it can even digest the plant matter it eats is because of gut bacteria, not because its body was ever intended to eat what it eats. It has to eat constantly just to remain alive and is basically in a constant state of pooping because of all the matter it can't digest.

Technically, you could actually classify a panda as a carnivore, just based on its biology. If people found panda fossils a million years from now they'd never assume a panda ate almost exclusively plant matter.

But that's essentially my point though. I'm just trying to point out that these are labels we superimpose on nature, they are not fixed in any way. If your point however is that it doesn't really follow up with my preceding point that since our ancestors were natural herbivores and we therefore in the end are better suited to eat plant-based diets, then I agree. It's just that at the end of the day, the current classifications (herbi,carni,omni etc,) only gives you so much information and aren't set in stone.

Those studies are flawed though. A vegetarian is going to be more aware of his food intake then a normal person would, especially when the normal person in America is obese. This just means that vegetarians are more healthy then standard americans, which isnt saying that much.

And cooking food is a lot less efficient then just eating raw meat. We would have had very similar teeth to primates at the time, which are a lot sharper and strongers then our current teeth, and we wouldve been able to eat raw meat fairly easily. Cooking meats require one to collect firewood, collect food, and start a fire, which are all giant pains in the ass. Cooked meats literally just taste a whole lot better then uncooked meats, and with the invention of fire, we were able to cook our foods and make them taste far better then raw meat. This had the unintended consequence of making humans healtheir because now they didnt have to focus so much time and effort to digestion.

Like I said, the idea that an all plant based diet is somehow healthier then a normal healthy diet that's very balanced is wrong, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not as nearly as unhealthy as eating McDonalds or going and ordering a pizza which is basically the average American's diet.

I think you should read the actual data, there is a lot of research that support these claims. And many of those have been corrected for other lifestyle decisions. It's really no coincidence that more and more physicians are starting to recommend plant-based diets.

You mean you don't kill things that you can perceive as suffering in ways that mammals do and that you can relate to.

Again like I said, and supported with data, there is no sane reason to assume that plants are capable of nociception or suffering in any shape or form. If you want to argue that plants do suffer, that will require some extraordinary form of evidence.

Don't see how it's contradictory at all. All I was pointing out was that being vegetarian does not necessarily mean a sustainable path or one that sees less suffering, which is a big reason why lots of people choose to embark on such a path. Lots of plant eating can definitely be a part of the lifestyle I'm talking about, but you need animals in that mix as well. They are part of the cycle and you really can't just remove them because you feel sorry for them.

Well it's pretty hard to be unsustainable on a plant-based diet, assuming all other conventions stay the same. Now vegetarians that still consume animal products of course still contribute to certain problems inherent to animal husbandry. Your comments about the cycle (of life) seem to steer in the direction of some kind of it's natural fallacy, and seem to ignore any further moral argument for veganism.

Or you can ensure your meat came from sustainable wild caught or free range animals and still enjoy meat while remaining sustainable.

Crocodiles often wrestle with prey for hours. During this time, the beast almost drowns several times, while one or several of its legs are broken and it's probably bleeding either externally or internally. So basically, crocodiles waterboard their prey until they give up and are eaten, often in a savage feast between several crocs bickering with each other and tearing flesh off. The carcass then sits by the water until it's consumed by scavengers like hyena and vultures.

A cow on a free range farm has a pretty good life compared to his cousin the bison in African. He lives his life on a farm with no predators, eating as much as he can consume until eventually he's led into a barn and instantly dies a painless death.

Sure there are horrible living conditions for meat production, but there also aren't. You can remain sustainable and humane to animals and still eat meat as long as you're careful and chose your meat properly. It's also healthier meat and tastes better.

We could argue a lot about how well of cows actually are, it won't change the fact that their status is that of slaves, they are used as property. Sentient beings are killed, families separated etc. and that all just for our enjoyment. I don't agree with the idea that there is anything humane about slaughter. If it isn't considered a humane treatment for the human animal, then how come it's supposed to be for the non-human animal? Clearly this 'humane' is nothing else than a form of doublespeak.

Bottom line is that the so called 'enjoyment' requires the inherent suffering of animals. People tend to talk and think of meat in a disconnected way, the actual animal which death made it possible relegated to the realm of the absent referent. Even if you try to butcher the animal as painless as possible, you are still taking the life of an innocent. You are using a living sentient being as property.

Interesting discussion...

I've eaten meat all my life, love just about any type of beef/pork/chicken. I'm very physically active and consume what I would argue is a higher than average amount of protein (meat/powder) in a given day.

That said, my fiancee and I recently tried to go vegetarian. I lasted a month before going back to meat. Why? I certainly craved meat, that's for sure. But what did me in was that I felt sluggish, tired, and mentally as though I'd dropped about 30 IQ points by the end of that month. I made sure I was consuming as many calories as before I cut out meat, but it seemed to make no difference: my body simply would not adjust and actually I felt dramatically less healthy.

Maybe I didn't stick with it long enough to break the craving stage and allow my body to fully adjust, but good god was it rough. Probably won't try vegetarianism again unless forced to.

Eating is not only about calories, have you actually looked at what you was eating protein, carb, mineral and vitamin wise? There are some very good nutritional plans out there for vegetarian/vegan athletes. See the mistake many people make is that they assume that what works on a carnist diet, also works on plant-based diets. But it's all a balancing act of the actual nutrients. Personally I work out multiple times a week and feel great. There are many athletes that perform very well on plant-based diets, a famous example would be Carl Lewis.
 

Celegus

Member
That sounds crazy. Meat sounds like the most disgusting thing in the world, I haven't been the slightest bit "tempted" even once since I stopped eating it however many years ago.
 

Tesseract

Banned
That sounds crazy. Meat sounds like the most disgusting thing in the world, I haven't been the slightest bit "tempted" even once since I stopped eating it however many years ago.

meat is awesome, eating things that have nervous systems is what i live for
 
We could argue a lot about how well of cows actually are, it won't change the fact that their status is that of slaves, they are used as property. Sentient beings are killed, families separated etc. and that all just for our enjoyment. I don't agree with the idea that there is anything humane about slaughter. If it isn't considered a humane treatment for the human animal, then how come it's supposed to be for the non-human animal? Clearly this 'humane' is nothing else than a form of doublespeak.

Bottom line is that the so called 'enjoyment' requires the inherent suffering of animals. People tend to talk and think of meat in a disconnected way, the actual animal which death made it possible relegated to the realm of the absent referent. Even if you try to butcher the animal as painless as possible, you are still taking the life of an innocent. You are using a living sentient being as property.
Are you against the concept of a pet? Pet's are property kept for human's amusement.
 

okno

Member
No we aren't, I'm not even sure how someone comes to that conclusion. We can't even eat meat unless we cook it (no other animal does that). We're omnivores meaning our natural diet is plants and bugs.

Everything else we eat comes from our ingenuity in comparison to the rest of the animal kingdom.

This is absolutely false. There are plenty of ways to eat totally raw meat, and many, many, many countries do it. Morocco is quite famous for its raw meat dishes, camel being one of them. Plenty of people will crack open a skull and eat the brain raw. One could argue they are able to do so, because it has been in their culture for centuries and they are used to it, but that also isn't totally true, because people from outside of these cultures travel there to eat these things and don't have anything negative happen to them.

Beef tartar, beef carpaccio, pate, liver. All of these are things that are eaten raw.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Again like I said, and supported with data, there is no sane reason to assume that plants are capable of nociception or suffering in any shape or form. If you want to argue that plants do suffer, that will require some extraordinary form of evidence.

In the end, it's still taking life. I don't have any evidence that plants suffer, because it probably doesn't exist. Then again, that may just be an issue with the limits of our understanding of plants, since we aren't plants. It is clear that a lot of plant life does not want to be eaten by predators. The opposite is true for others, of course.

Well it's pretty hard to be unsustainable on a plant-based diet, assuming all other conventions stay the same. Now vegetarians that still consume animal products of course still contribute to certain problems inherent to animal husbandry. Your comments about the cycle (of life) seem to steer in the direction of some kind of it's natural fallacy, and seem to ignore any further moral argument for veganism.

How is it a natural fallacy? How would you propose we grow plant life without animals? They don't just will themselves into exist with a bit sunshine and optimism.

a famous example would be Carl Lewis.

Yes, a famous example of someone whose adoption of a vegan diet either caused or simply coincided with a gradual decline in performance. I'll agree with that.
 
Are you against the concept of a pet? Pet's are property kept for human's amusement.

Pets are a bit more complicated because most people tend to view and treat them like part of the family more than something they own, although often they still use the language of property "I'm it's owner" etc. But generally speaking, yes I do oppose the idea of animals being held as pets, because we still limit their freedom and natural urges that way. However in for let's say the case of dogs, it's extra complicated because so much of their evolutionary path and identity is mixed with ours. Taking care of animals that would else stay at shelters seems like a perfectly morally thing to do, to me.

In the end, it's still taking life. I don't have any evidence that plants suffer, because it probably doesn't exist. Then again, that may just be an issue with the limits of our understanding of plants, since we aren't plants. It is clear that a lot of plant life does not want to be eaten by predators. The opposite is true for others, of course.

Yes it's taking life, but we have to ask ourselves, what is it about life that makes it important to us? Without clear consciousness, emotions etc. life would lose a lot of it's splendor. This is why we all instinctively understand that killing a plant and killing a dog are very different types of actions. Plants do try to maximize their survivability and therefore employ certain defenses, in a sense this could all be explained according to a 'selfish' gene theory.

How is it a natural fallacy? How would you propose we grow plant life without animals? They don't just will themselves into exist with a bit sunshine and optimism.

Plants require nutrients and ways to propagate themselves, and animals are often used to do that. Nowhere have I argued animals aren't necessary, nor have I said that the elements of life aren't part of some sort of cycle. I'm just saying that the cycle of life itself, isn't a very strong argument to eat meat. It ignores the fact that we do many things nowadays that are 'unnatural' simply because they are better or morally just.

Yes, a famous example of someone whose adoption of a vegan diet either caused or simply coincided with a gradual decline in performance. I'll agree with that.

Well objectively speaking and according to his own words, his best results were achieved during the time when he was on a vegan diet. I'm not going to argue about any other type of correlation or causation except for the simple fact that he ate vegan for over 8 months ,and clearly fueled his body with plants when he achieved his 'greatest results'.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I think meat is healthy for my own body (I have tried to go without), but I find all the ethical reasons that vegetarians do what they do very wise.

Bring on the synthetic no-suffering meat, I say!
 

Principate

Saint Titanfall
Seafood, beef and most (all?) meat in general is digestible if raw. Just because modern humans don't eat raw meat often doesn't mean it's inedible. Plus man's biggest advantages over most animals, tool building and critical thinking, are advantageous for hunting. We're also really good at stalking and endurance. We also have the teeth for ripping and tearing flesh to eat it and our bodies require a good amount of protein.

This is also ignoring the good amount of vegetables we can't eat unless they're cooked (try eating a raw potato). And how humans are terrible at a simple thing like drinking water without getting ill. Honestly, uncooked chicken is not much more dangerous than raw water.



We can't even drink most water without becoming extremely ill. A lot of our food born illnesses are also a product of mass production.

That's the same with most animals, and even humans resistance depending on their water supply.

Natural-born means just that, if a child with no education, or knowledge passed down from generation to generation was forced to survive in the wild, his diet would be plants and bugs if he/she survived that long, never mind if they figured out how to effectively produce fire.

Natural-born is just that base instincts and capabilities, our current diet comes from a culmination of culinary knowledge and technical capability, we learnt how to prepare the majority of safely for us to it, but there's nothing natural-born about it.

Yes we can eat certain kinds of meat raw, just like we can eat certain kinds of bugs, but those are extremely rare and specialised for the average human to do innately. There's a reason why you don't see primates eating meat often.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Yes it's taking life, but we have to ask ourselves, what is it about life that makes it important to us? Without clear consciousness, emotions etc. life would lose a lot of it's splendor. This is why we all instinctively understand that killing a plant and killing a dog are very different types of actions. Plants do try to maximize their survivability and therefore employ certain defenses, in a sense this could all be explained according to a 'selfish' gene theory.

This is what I'm getting at. Just because we as humans can't perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Doesn't mean it does, either, but I hesitate to make definitive factual statements about something.

Plants require nutrients and ways to propagate themselves, and animals are often used to do that. Nowhere have I argued animals aren't necessary, nor have I said that the elements of life aren't part of some sort of cycle. I'm just saying that the cycle of life itself, isn't a very strong argument to eat meat. It ignores the fact that we do many things nowadays that are 'unnatural' simply because they are better or morally just.

Often? What are these non-animal/animal-based products that are used to provide nutrients to plants?

Well objectively speaking and according to his own words, his best results were achieved during the time when he was on a vegan diet. I'm not going to argue about any other type of correlation or causation except for the simple fact that he ate vegan for over 8 months ,and clearly fueled his body with plants when he achieved his 'greatest results'.

Yes, 8 months on the diet is when he achieved his best results and then he began to decline thereafter. I'd be much more inclined to think that his amazing feats were the product of his efforts over the years leading up to then rather than the diet he had been on for a relatively very short amount of time. Especially when you see his performance thereafter.

That's the same with most animals, and even humans resistance depending on their water supply.

Natural-born means just that, if a child with no education, or knowledge passed down from generation to generation was forced to survive in the wild, his diet would be plants and bugs if he/she survived that long, never mind if they figured out how to effectively produce fire.

Natural-born is just that base instincts and capabilities, our current diet comes from a culmination of culinary knowledge and technical capability, we learnt how to prepare the majority of safely for us to it, but there's nothing natural-born about it.

Yes we can eat certain kinds of meat raw, just like we can eat certain kinds of bugs, but those are extremely rare and specialised for the average human to do innately. There's a reason why you don't see primates eating meat often.

Sounds like a great deal of baseless speculation that ignores our evolutionary history. We ate plenty of raw meat (and bugs and plants and anything else we could get). We wouldn't be here as we are today without having done so.
 
This is what I'm getting at. Just because we as humans can't perceive something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Doesn't mean it does, either, but I hesitate to make definitive factual statements about something.

We could go on about plants forever, using absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence rhetoric etc. Fact of the matter is however that plants don't have brains, don't have central nervous systems and so on. As the Daniel Chamovitz quote illustrated, there is nothing part of plant physiology that even slightly suggests a capacity to suffer.
And as I have argued multiple times already, it wouldn't even make evolutionary sense for plants to have pain perception, because they don't have a way to flee from danger or harm.

Often? What are these non-animal/animal-based products that are used to provide nutrients to plants?

I'm not sure what your point is? The nutrients plants use are naturally occurring in healthy soil. Plant life colonized the earth's surface long before the first land animals evolved. Besides that most of the fertilizer used nowadays is synthetic. The anthropogenic use of animals clearly is unnecessary, nature takes care of itself just fine and alternatively we can directly supply the necessary elements in pure form.

Yes, 8 months on the diet is when he achieved his best results and then he began to decline thereafter. I'd be much more inclined to think that his amazing feats were the product of his efforts over the years leading up to then rather than the diet he had been on for a relatively very short amount of time. Especially when you see his performance thereafter.

We are just discussing Carl Lewis now, with there being dozens of other high performing vegan athletes. But it's generally understood that physical strength/fitness peaks somewhere around the time you are 25-30 years old and then slowly starts to decline. Since Carl Lewis was 30 at the time of his 'greatest' achievements, there is no particular reason to pinpoint veganism as the reason why he started to decline as he got older. I can think of many athletes that followed the exact same pattern. Carl Lewis still managed to win gold during the '96 games amongst other impressive results, so I can't shake the feeling we are arguing about something that holds very little relevance to a plant-based diet. I'm also convinced that our nutritional understanding especially concerning plant-based diets has grown considerably in the last 25 years.
 

Zoned

Actively hates charity
If you're vegetarian, making sure you're getting adequate supplementation is essential.

So many people become vegan/vegetarian without looking into the nutritional deficiencies beforehand.

That said, many omnivores don't give a shit either.

FWIW, the longest lived people in the US are vegans--Seven Days Adventist in California.

http://www.bluezones.com/2014/03/loma-linda-exploration-lessons/

But they do also do other things that promote health, not just diet.
All of this supplementary thing falls flat when you look at millions of people in India living well enough without any meat. Just like we are told not to eat lot of rice in US, and yet Asians eat shitload of that without any problem.
 
All of this supplementary thing falls flat when you look at millions of people in India living well enough without any meat. Just like we are told not to eat lot of rice in US, and yet Asians eat shitload of that without any problem.

Well as a vegan you really should supplement vitamin B12. Contrary to what many people think vitamin B12 is not of animal origin. It's produced by bacteria and is found in the soil amongst other places. It is theorized that people living on plants alone used to be able to get enough B12 from their diet, but with the increased use of synthetic fertilizer and our general hygienic standards of living, we are unable to reliably get enough B12 from eating plants alone. So anyone living in the modern world, eating a strictly plant-based diet should be so wise as to supplement vitamin B12 or eat fortified products.

Blame yourself, or God

God, really???

Look I don't blame Nature or whatever, the real question is why 'civilized' people should still continue to eat in ways that include the obvious suffering of others, when there are clear ways to avoid this and still be healthy, arguably healthier?
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
All of this supplementary thing falls flat when you look at millions of people in India living well enough without any meat. Just like we are told not to eat lot of rice in US, and yet Asians eat shitload of that without any problem.

Do you think there is no chance that their health could be better with meat?

arguably healthier?

That's an argument I'd be highly skeptical of and I'd like to hear it.
 

The Lamp

Member
Bottom line is that the so called 'enjoyment' requires the inherent suffering of animals. People tend to talk and think of meat in a disconnected way, the actual animal which death made it possible relegated to the realm of the absent referent. Even if you try to butcher the animal as painless as possible, you are still taking the life of an innocent. You are using a living sentient being as property.

"Taking the life of an innocent" to eat, you mean. Why is that inherently bad? Every carnivore in the world kills something to eat. That's how life on this planet works. A lion will not apologize for eating you if you stick around its habitat while it's hungry. Lots of predatory animals kill their prey in cruel ways.

Do you think because we are more intelligent than other animals that we have some sort of moral duty to not harm other animals ever, and animals don't have to obey this because they're not as smart as us, otherwise they would do the same?

If moral duty is a function of intelligence, I don't find that kind of ethics very convincing or compelling.
 

IceCold

Member
Humans can still eat raw meat. But the main benefit of cooking it, and cooking any food for that matter, is that you are making it easier for you stomach to digest it. You're also getting more nutrients for the same piece of food since some nutrients can't be broken down for your body to absorb it, unless it's cooked. So more nutrients + less energy spend on digesting = more energy for your brain, etc. It's the main recent why we evolved to be so much smarter.

This is also why those raw food diets are bullshit.

All of this supplementary thing falls flat when you look at millions of people in India living well enough without any meat. Just like we are told not to eat lot of rice in US, and yet Asians eat shitload of that without any problem.

The supplements part is more for vegans. Vegetarian Indians eat a lot of animal products: ghee, butter, eggs, milk, cheese, etc.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I was really hoping for an argument, not a collection of links.

Remember that the argument needs to be for vegetarianism and the health benefits to excluding meat and replacing it with plant products.

I clicked the vimeo link and it was about a doctor pushing for "predominantly plant-based" diets specifically to combat heart disease. Not quite the same...
 

entremet

Member
All of this supplementary thing falls flat when you look at millions of people in India living well enough without any meat. Just like we are told not to eat lot of rice in US, and yet Asians eat shitload of that without any problem.

East Asians are not predominately vegetarian, though.

Indians are also not vegan. Many eat butter and dairy products.
 
I can only laugh at vegetarians, as I bite into my juicy sirloin burger with bacon on top.

Thank you for being the very first person to ever make this comment.

I will never understand why vegetarians are the only group on this forum that is subjected to constant unchecked trolling in every thread about the matter. I eat meat from time to time but don't see what is so silly about someone choosing not to do so.
 

kess

Member
This allowed our brains to flourish incredibly as our stomach didnt have to have massive energy pushed towards fighting bacteria. Even with this, there are certain foods we can eat raw, fish comes to mind, as plenty of people eat sushi which contains raw meat. People also eat raw beef and other meats that arent that harmful to us.

I've read a similar conclusion regarding this phenomenon, when humans figured out how to process grain -- bread, obviously, has a ton of calories.
 

vatstep

This poster pulses with an appeal so broad the typical restraints of our societies fall by the wayside.
I haven't eaten meat in 13+ years. I recently dreamt that I ordered three cheeseburgers from McDonald's, and even in my dream, I couldn't take more than a couple of bites because the taste was off-putting and, more importantly, I was afraid of the sickness that was sure to follow (after not eating beef for so long, I mean). And that's pretty much one the reasons why I have no interest in trying meat again in real life. That, and the fact that I still genuinely don't have cravings at this point.
 

The Lamp

Member
I haven't eaten meat in 13+ years. I recently dreamt that I ordered three cheeseburgers from McDonald's, and even in my dream, I couldn't take more than a couple of bites because the taste was off-putting and, more importantly, I was afraid of the sickness that was sure to follow (after not eating beef for so long, I mean). And that's pretty much one the reasons why I have no interest in trying meat again in real life. That, and the fact that I still genuinely don't have cravings at this point.

but you were dreaming about McDonald's.
 

Mecha

Member
Darn it Raven Prime, why don't you understand a meat eaters dismay when you take a bite into that salad?? Do you know how many BEINGS DIED in SUFFERING for that food?

Do you think because we are more intelligent than other animals that we have some sort of moral duty to not harm other animals ever

We are intelligant enough to decide to live without killing them, so why not?


and animals don't have to obey this because they're not as smart as us, otherwise they would do the same?

They don't have the ability to choose, I don't know or care if they would do the same because that's theoretical BS.
 
"Taking the life of an innocent" to eat, you mean. Why is that inherently bad? Every carnivore in the world kills something to eat. That's how life on this planet works. A lion will not apologize for eating you if you stick around its habitat while it's hungry. Lots of predatory animals kill their prey in cruel ways.

Do you think because we are more intelligent than other animals that we have some sort of moral duty to not harm other animals ever, and animals don't have to obey this because they're not as smart as us, otherwise they would do the same?

If moral duty is a function of intelligence, I don't find that kind of ethics very convincing or compelling.

First of all we aren't carnivores. And far from 'obligate' carnivores like lions. If you wonder why taking the life of an innocent to eat is bad, just ask yourself why we frown upon cannibalism. Of course you could make a speciesistic argument that it's somehow different if you want to eat human animals compared to non-human animals. But that's where I and many other vegans would say it's the sentience that matters. Why would you kill a feeling being, some would argue a person, if like I said before you can easily be as healthy when not killing these sentient beings?

I also find it hard to judge the intelligence of other species, because we always judge it from our perspective, who is to say that elephants or dolphins aren't smarter than us?
How is it that some animals seem to understand our communication, but we can't understand theirs? But yes, in general because we are clearly an intelligent but perhaps more importantly a cultured and moral species, I find that we have certain responsibilities to others that we don't necessarily have to expect back in return.

In the end it revolves around necessity, decency and respecting the rights and freedoms of others. Hypothetically speaking, if we can't treat non-human animals morally, we have no right to ever expect an advanced alien civilization or A.I. to treat us morally. That would be hypocrisy. Then again don't you think there is this deep intuitive understanding that advanced civilizations and disregard for the freedoms of other sentient beings just don't go together?

Thanks for taking the time to respond, but I was really hoping for an argument, not a collection of links.

Remember that the argument needs to be for vegetarianism and the health benefits to excluding meat and replacing it with plant products.

I clicked the vimeo link and it was about a doctor pushing for "predominantly plant-based" diets specifically to combat heart disease. Not quite the same...

Well, again read all my posts and I think they form a pretty appealing argument.
To summarize, our ancestors were clear herbivores. Then later our CMAH gene mutated, causing our bodies to possibly treat Neu5Gc like a foreign body, triggering an immune response leading to inflammation even possibly leading to cancer. Neu5Gc is only found in animal tissue. Consumption of meat in general is linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease even diabetes. Plants and fruit on the other hand are filled with many beneficial nutrients, like anti-oxidants, fibers, vitamins, phytochemicals etc.
See if animal products promote cardiovascular disease and a plant-based diet protects against cardiovascular disease, assuming for the sake of argument that all other factors are equal, then I would argue that is a very strong argument for it being the healthier choice. If you had clicked the pcrm.org link, you would have come across this:

“Lean meat, processed meat, red meat – all meat – causes disease,” says Neal Barnard, M.D., Physicians Committee president. “The same can be said for low-fat dairy products.”
 

bsp

Member
"Taking the life of an innocent" to eat, you mean. Why is that inherently bad? Every carnivore in the world kills something to eat. That's how life on this planet works. A lion will not apologize for eating you if you stick around its habitat while it's hungry. Lots of predatory animals kill their prey in cruel ways.

Hi there, hope you don't mind if I respond to this even though I'm not the OP you quoted.

In the name of transparency, I don't think (nor think there is evidence to the contrary) that anything is "inherently" bad. I don't believe any deity decreed to us any set of universal rights and wrongs.

I will state that your comparison of a lion eating something and not feeling remorse is not an apt one. First of all, lions are/may be obligate carnivores, in that their health will severely deteriorate without meat consumption. They evolved almost solely to function from meat, which is absolutely not the same as humans as our capacity for diet variety is leagues beyond that of a carnivore. Secondly, you are assuming a cognition environment of parity between lions and humans. Other animals certainly are smarter than we use to think, but there is currently no evidence to assert that a lion has the kind of mental workings necessary to reflect on the grander scheme of things and change his behavior as a result. Humans simply have the larger brains, and functioning grey matter volume seem to coordinate strongly with higher levels of self-awareness and reflection. It seems disingenuous to level the playing field here and expect the same kind of social/cognitive behavioral moderation to other animals.

Do you think because we are more intelligent than other animals that we have some sort of moral duty to not harm other animals ever, and animals don't have to obey this because they're not as smart as us, otherwise they would do the same?

If moral duty is a function of intelligence, I don't find that kind of ethics very convincing or compelling.

I rarely will try and argue for veganism from the angle of moral duty due to my already stated thoughts on morality, so no. I just don't think other animals may even have the capacity to make the dietary/moral decision.

And you're right, ethics isn't really convincing at all outside of predefined goals, unless you're a theist. There are many other arguments for why veganism/greatly reduced animal consumption is objectively better than the alternative (objectively better when goals are defined, such as less resource use and less degradation of the planet), but that is hardly about extending the messy tangle of moral agency to other animals.

As for myself, I have chosen to model my behaviors around reducing suffering on sentient beings that can experience it, and try to maximize their welfare. Animals are sentient, and abusing them for taste falls clearly outside of my moral goals. Following this in return makes me feel good, but I think philosophical egoism/versions of hedonism is what drives nearly everything, anyways. Carbon that came alive just wants to feel good...
 
I dont understand what this has to do with his point. Why are you not directly addressing his point?
The act of killing an animal for meat is not inhumane. You can have inhumane methods of killing, but the very act itself is not. It's not even always inhumane when a human kills another human (for example, self defense).
 

theJohann

Member
Every carnivore in the world kills something to eat. That's how life on this planet works. A lion will not apologize for eating you if you stick around its habitat while it's hungry. Lots of predatory animals kill their prey in cruel ways.
This is all descriptive, whereas morality is usually a prescriptive topic. Many things that we now find unacceptable were, some time ago, how "life on this planet works".

Do you think because we are more intelligent than other animals that we have some sort of moral duty to not harm other animals ever, and animals don't have to obey this because they're not as smart as us, otherwise they would do the same?
A capacity for morality and a capacity for intelligence are, as far as I know, very much linked. How this capacity for morality is now manifested – in the idea that we should not let animals needlessly suffer, or even die – has no intrinsic link to this intelligence, however. In my view, it is more prescription than it is obligation.
 

The Lamp

Member
Interesting viewpoints, you guys. I'll consider them.

But I *hate vegetables.

*
most of the time. I only like them in dishes mixed with meat lol
 

Mecha

Member
The act of killing an animal for meat is not inhumane. You can have inhumane methods of killing, but the very act itself is not. It's not even always inhumane when a human kills another human (for example, self defense).

There are very few situations where killing something can be humane (relieving a dying individual of extreme pain), killing an animal because we want to eat it isn't one of them. I don't see anything compassionate about taking something life.
 
There are very few situations where killing something can be humane (relieving a dying individual of extreme pain), killing an animal because we want to eat it isn't one of them. I don't see anything compassionate about taking something life.

Everything you eat to stay alive was a living thing. Things must die in order for you to live.
 
There are very few situations where killing something can be humane (relieving a dying individual of extreme pain), killing an animal because we want to eat it isn't one of them. I don't see anything compassionate about taking something life.
Eating meat is part of the human diet. It always has been for as long as humans were humans. Whether it was picking picking ticks off our body and eating them or working together to build tools and hunt in a pack to take down a mammoth. There's no compassion there because there doesn't need to be and shouldn't. It's just part of survival and how nature moves energy between living organisms.
 
Eating meat is part of the human diet. It always has been for as long as humans were humans. Whether it was picking picking ticks off our body and eating them or working together to build tools and hunt in a pack to take down a mammoth. There's no compassion there because there doesn't need to be and shouldn't. It's just part of survival and how nature moves energy between living organisms.

But the fact that now we have the technological means to survive without killing animals should not be ignored
 

Mecha

Member
Everything you eat to stay alive was a living thing. Things must die in order for you to live.

Your point is? I never called killing planets humane. Plants do not suffer, because I have to eat to survive I might as well choose something that causes the least amount of harm.

Eating meat is part of the human diet. It always has been for as long as humans were humans. Whether it was picking picking ticks off our body and eating them or working together to build tools and hunt in a pack to take down a mammoth. There's no compassion there because there doesn't need to be and shouldn't. It's just part of survival and how nature moves energy between living organisms.

If we were still living with woolly mammoth I might agree with you.

I can get behind vegetarianism but I see veganism as a not needed extreme

The milk and egg industry is still pretty terrible.
 

Apt101

Member
I tried vegan. I did get weird feelings while on it, and would get immense cravings on the order I'd never experienced a few months in. I switched to pescatarian recently and I no longer get those urges. Sometimes I get bored of seafood and tofu, but I have so much more energy and better movements so I live it.
 
I haven't eaten meat in 13+ years. I recently dreamt that I ordered three cheeseburgers from McDonald's, and even in my dream, I couldn't take more than a couple of bites because the taste was off-putting and, more importantly, I was afraid of the sickness that was sure to follow (after not eating beef for so long, I mean). And that's pretty much one the reasons why I have no interest in trying meat again in real life. That, and the fact that I still genuinely don't have cravings at this point.

McDonald's, of course you felt sick. Try dreaming about real meat, that'll do.
 
 

Game4life

Banned
Eating meat is part of the human diet. It always has been for as long as humans were humans. Whether it was picking picking ticks off our body and eating them or working together to build tools and hunt in a pack to take down a mammoth. There's no compassion there because there doesn't need to be and shouldn't. It's just part of survival and how nature moves energy between living organisms.

Meat is not essential for survival at all.

Also to the poster's equating a lions moral construct to a human's - Plenty in the animal kingdom also practice cannibalism and do not ponder over taking the life of another member within the same species for survival sake. Can we extend that principle to Humans to? The point is Humans are not expected to derive their arguments of morality from animal behavior given that we are top of the pile in the evolutionary chain. Ancient philosophers have argued the moral reasoning behind vegetarianism - Any life that can understand the concept of past, present and future and has memory, and can for sure experience pain ( at least in the conventional sense) should not be killed. In fact these philosophers argue that all other species that do not fit this description can be killed only if extreme circumstances require that it be killed. I am not sure what animals fall outside this bracket but I remember someone comparing a snail to a chair and arguing that outside of reproduction the ability of the snail to experience these emotions is virtually zero and for all purposes can be compared to a chair. I happen to agree with this view. I feel there is a distinct difference between killing a dog and killing a snail because of these reasons. Similarly the same arguments apply to meat eating in general. Now I know there will always be people who reject these moral constructs and they are free to do so. But it highlights at least where some of us vegetarians are coming from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom