Here's another scenario: In my town, the deer are overpopulated. So there are groups of bowhunters who routinely run around culling the deer population. Is this wrong?
Due to man's steady consumption of natural habitats and elimination of various predators due to the threats they posed in the past to both people and their livestock, many natural predators are extinct or at the very least endangered and/or driven to other habitats. The result of that is, whether vegans/vegetarians/activists like it or not, in many areas man is the only predator left in the region. It is not unheard of at all for deer populations to grow large enough that there are food and space shortages, resulting in increased cases of starvation and disease. In such cases man has to fill the role that can no longer be filled by wolves, cougars, etc.
I have to apologize, but I haven't read all 21 pages of this thread, so this post may be out of place. I've read in this thread a statement that all animals, including humans are equal. I agree with this. Every animal from earth worms to doves to cattle to humans fill a necessary niche in nature that keeps everything moving like a "Well oiled machine." Though, that is also my reason for believing we have the same rights to eat other animals as they do. Humans are omnivores obviously, and there are a lot of things we just can't get without meat, or other things produced by animals. Vitamin B12 for example. Also, I can't remember the technical definition or name for it, but it isn't uncommon for vegetarians to have low iron levels as well. We need meat in moderation the same ways we need grain, fruits, vegetables and even fat in moderation.
Also, I've seen comments about growing vegetables and such being more efficient than producing meat (cattle for example) in the same lot of land. While you can produce more, over time the soil is depleted of nutrients and will eventually stop producing for you. Animals, and their waste, help give the soil time to replenish itself naturally, as well as to fertilize it with their waste. What agriculturalists call this is Crop Rotation, where they will have a field separated into 2, 3, 4, etc. lots with a fence, we will use 4 for example. in lot 1 they may have wheat, in lot 2 they may have goats, in lot 3 they may have corn, and cattle in 4. This is a rare combination, but it's 6:00 AM and It's just an example. The point is that growing only crops will not work over long periods of time without taking years off and manually adding nutrients/fertilizers to the soil, or using crop rotations. Although, the same can be said against focusing too heavily on livestock, you need to rotate them as well, to give them some variety in what they eat, and allowing plant life to grow unchecked when/if necessary.
I apologize for the long post, just by two cents as a Kentucky farmhand, lol.
The worst thing that could possibly happen to cows, pigs, and chicken as species, is that we would stop eating them. The worst thing that could happen for forests is that we stop using paper and wood. The worst thing that could happen for fish and ocean life is that we stop eating it. This is a capitalist world. The second those resources become valueless, they're gone. Who's going to bother keeping cows around when we don't eat them anymore? When no one has a financial interest in maintaining their existence, they're going to be pushed and developed into extinction.
I think you may have overestimated the extent to which humans influence the global ecosystem. Not that we can't completely develop every inch of land on the planet for human "capitol" use, but we currently don't and I don't suspect we ever will. Also "using paper and wood" does nothing but bad for forests, but that's another topic.
Admittedly there would be far fewer cows living if humans didn't raise them, but I maintain that veganism (in some forms) is the right thing to do because of the quality of life of the animals who are being raised.
As many others have mentioned, it is absurd to suggest that tomorrow the entire human population would decide to be vegan. That isn't going to happen. So the "resources" will not become "valueless," they will simply be less-desired.
It's eating, people. Of all the things we shouldn't be having moral discussions about, I would think this would be number two, next to breathing.
I don't understand why the choices you make when eating are necessarily any less important than the choices you make when voting, raising children, shopping, etc.
For some its a matter of personal morals. Some people don't want to eat a creature thats been beaten and abused in captivity for it's whole life.
I doubt that any food animals are literally beaten and abused their entire life, but I would rather not support (with my money) any abuse when obviously I don't have to.
Here's another scenario: In my town, the deer are overpopulated. So there are groups of bowhunters who routinely run around culling the deer population. Is this wrong?
I don't think so. I am actually not against killing at all; my reason for veganism is entirely a "quality of life" issue. I wouldn't be surprised if humans were responsible for your overpopulation problem in the first place, but then that's all the more reason to try to fix it.
If this is directed at me, I never made that argument. I said that it was unnecessary for most people, not that we should know better. What we should or should not know is a hollow argument, frequently made by those who assume they know more than others and can, therefore, determine what is and is not important knowledge, when all knowledge is equal.
Oh, I apologise, I didn't mean my post to come off as an argument directed at anyone. Like I said, I was a bit tired, so my wording was poor, I apologize.
Equal does not mean the same. In the case that I said that we are equal, I meant something more akin to the legal definition. I.e., we should have similar rights, based upon situation.
I'm sure that I misunderstood how you said that, but if humans and animals had the same legal rights, would be able to keep them as pets and such? I don't stand adamant either way, as I see arguments for both sides as reasonable. I, personally believe nature's laws should apply to everything. Survival of the fittest and such. How animals eat other animals in nature can be a great deal more painful than how we as humans kill and eat them, I think.
We are all undoubtedly familiar with this practice. It, regardless, ignores the fact that animals eat plants to make meat. This is going to be an inevitably inefficient method, because nothing is a 100% efficient conversion of energy. As such, it will always, inarguably be less efficient to eat meat, provided that your measure is the grain that is consumable by both species.
The point is that having animals rotated in and out of the lots, it allows the plants to continue to grow efficiently. Also, meat has nutrition to it that plants does not have. It may be less efficient in providing the things plants provide, but it has fat and protein, amongst other things that plants are inarguably less efficient in. It's not healthy to eat just plants, or just meat, that is why we are omnivores. We need to eat both plants and meat to have the optimum diet. There are also other things animals provide. Milk, wool, etc. that we may not necessarily eat but certainly make them valuable to have around.
Also, meat has nutrition to it that plants does not have. It may be less efficient in providing the things plants provide, but it has fat and protein, amongst other things that plants are inarguably less efficient in. It's not healthy to eat just plants, or just meat, that is why we are omnivores. We need to eat both plants and meat to have the optimum diet.
There is no one "optimum diet" for everybody; each person has his or her own optimum diet and there may be more than one for a single person.
Plants are by no means less efficient at providing fat. In fact, the fats you generally want (mono-unsaturated as well as linoleic and linolenic) can be found in far higher quantities in plant foods than in beef, chicken, or dairy (although Salmon and Mackerel are higher in linolenic than most plants). Eating most of your daily recommended fats from plant groups is generally a great way to lower cholesterol.
Protein can be tricky, but there are plant foods that provide all 9 essential amino acids. Soybeans are the most common example, and most soybean products provide enough protein for a day in a relatively small portion.
It is far more convenient to get your nutrition from a variety of plants and meats, but if you are paying attention to your intake of certain key nutrients a vegetarian or even vegan diet can be just as healthy as an omnivorous diet.
It has been proven time and time again that plants can, and do, provide all essential nutrients for the human body. In terms of healthy eating, vegetarianism is unparalleled. I, myself, am omnivorous and proud of it, although I do acknowledege that there is nothing wrong with vegetarianism. While plants can provide oneself with everything one needs, all while lowering cholesterol in the process, I believe that meat does it in a more natural manner. Long-term, I believe that a vegetarian diet might result in a slightly frail digestive system, although I am not a dietrician, but an egocentric 15 year-old kid, and this is not based off of any clinical study. If you have evidence that suggests otherwise, I'd be happy to hear it. I do not agree with the environmentalist, non-health based reasons for becoming a vegetarian, but wholeheartedly support those in search of a better, healthier, self.
I personally dont like veggies. I only eat meat and fruits. Well I have no problems with people eating veggies, actually I envy them. I wish I could eat em, but my mouth just can take the taste and texture, the way I bite it makes me vomit.
Veggies are full of vitamins and nutrients and how I wish Im an Omnivore..^_^
I eat meat and fruits, and take food supplements that has the same nutritional content as veggies. I exercise daily to keep me healthy too.
What are your thoughts on vegetarianism and veganism? To what extent do they make a difference, and what do you support and disprove of about them?
As a vegetarian myself, I chose to make the switch for a multitude of reason. As a globally minded person, the main reason I made the choice was because of efficiency and consumerism. In a world where millions go starving, I think it is crucial to make the most efficient use of the resources that are bestowed upon us by nature. In the same amount of time and space it takes to raise a single animal for meat, pound for pound, ten times the amount of vegetable or grain can be produced (depending on the crop).
Also, anyone who knows the working of a food chain knows that energy is lost at each level of the pyramid. By eating a vegetarian diet, you are eliminating a lot of energy loss through the levels and, once again, increasing the efficiency and productivity of the food we consume. maybe if we had efficiency in mind, a lot of food shortages could be alleviated.
A lot of vegetarians choose their lifestyle because of animal rights, something that is less important to me, but still a factor. I admire those who stand up for animal right, not just for the animals, but simply because (as stated in "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer) "All animals are equal. We are no exception."
of course there are some issues with a vegetarian diet, and any vegetarian knows the risks of one. I find it very foolish when people rush into a vegetarian diet without weighing and properly rectifying any damages that it may cause.
So what are your thoughts on vegetarianism? Is any of it worth it, or if you are a vegetarian, why did you choose to become one?
My roomate is a vegetarian. His reasoning for choosing that lifestyle was probably the best I've ever heard from anyone: He wanted to see if he could do it. Three years now and is doing well. Would have been four years but the first year he became one his mom would make this tofu soup for him and bless her Korean soul was putting sardines in in the soup stock.
Anyhow, over the years my roomate and I have had many, many long driven discussions, debates, and even hellish snipes at each other at Perkins at 3am with coffee and smokes. Honestly, I think its great he's able to commit to something and be passionate about it. Sometimes he forgets he hates people preaching at him and he does a little of his own. Especially when he brings up animal cruelty, when he really, doesn't care.
The funny bit is that I eat more veggies than he does He sees green and he's not going to eat it. He lives pretty much on rice, black beans and Chap Chae if he can get it without meat. I try to make him a nice healthy salad, he goes no thanks. I make some bomb ass Tofu soup with cumin and curry and mushrooms and peas and he won't eat it. Not that I'm any healthier than him. I'm fat and lazy and smoke too much. He's lean and active and can stand up quickly without wheezing.
Now he's there thing I don't get. I ponder on stupid things from time to time but one argument we have really sticks in my roommate's craw pretty bad. It's the "nervous system" and "brain" argument about why eating animals are bad in addition to the "cruelty". The argument I had for my roommate was that I need to know where the line is drawn. When someone says "I'm a vegetarian" it's not really distinct. I'm not talking about letting fish and chickens slide either. I'm talking about what really defines an animal? And why animals exclusively? Life on Earth is divided into 5 or (depending on who's counting) 6 Kingdoms. Why do vegetarians refuse to consume from Animalia? I've heard a lot of arguments. My favorite is the "brain" + "face" + "nervous system" = conscience and awareness argument. Well how far down the Animal Kingdom do we go before we stop seeing faces and nervous systems? Last I checked a clam has no face. Does that exclude it from the "I'm refraining from eating you Club?" Echinoderms (see Starfish) lack a brain all together, as to Jellyfish. Do we strike them off the list? So what makes them animals? They move around?
Then there's the argument that plants cannot feel pain. The funny thing is that we don't talk about what "pain" is. If I'm correct... I hear some vegetarians say that animals feel pain so to kill them to eat for ourselves is wrong. But here's the thing. Are we talking about "ouchy pain" or are we talking about a response system an organism has to tell its body to "avoid danger"? Fish lack nerve endings at the ends of their mouths (why would fish need them, they don't have lips!) so when they're caught on a hook they don't feel it like a human would feel with a huge hook caught in his cheek. Yes the fish is responding to a trapped situation. But its not going "ouch!". It's going "I need to survive, lemme outta here!". Now as to plants feeling pain, I've read articles on plants "screaming" or producing high frequency pitches when cut or heated or boiled or whatever. Yay for us for not being able to hear them, we'd all starve to death if a carrot screamed in pain.
Here's a good read to somewhat explain what I'm trying to ramble about:
So anyhow, after that argument. My roomate brought up that I'm being too picky. I explained to him that I need to be picky, I need a concrete definition of what it means to be vegetarian. I brought up the beans and rice allegory and how I loves me some broccoli and brussels sprouts while he doesn't. He didn't think it was very amusing. But my point stood. At what arbitrary point do you place on calling an organism an "animal" and thus refusing to eat it because you are a vegetarian. What criteria do you make up for yourself if you don't have a handy scientist to point out to you what is and isn't an animal? Well he pointed out that animals move around, have responses to stimuli, and some even have lips and eyebrows to make smiley faces like people do! Well then I had him sit down and watch the Private Lives of Plants hosted by David Attenborough. Bless that man. I showed him how plants do the same exact thing. Granted on a slower time scale. I asked him what arbitration made it okay for us to eat those and not the fuzzy woodland creatures. And of course he got all pissed at me for being a "smart ass". The sad part was I really was not being a smart ass. Plants move. Plants respond to stimuli. Plants even have to out evolve other plants AND animals (AND fungi and bacteria and protists whee) to survive on this earth. Hell, some plants even eat other animals. All plants also must take nutrients from the ground that usually came from other living things as well. And even though they do that, I don't see why its still "better" to eat them than another organism on this earth that pretty much does the same exact thing as it yet we call it an animal so now its not okay.
So of course he gets pissed at me again. Mostly it was because I looked up an article and showed him that they used fish bones in the finings for brewing Guiness. Sometimes the animal matter slips in. To my chagrin, he stopped drinking the wonderful stuff. Cause what really got to me was that okay... He'll wear the leather on his feet, but he won't let it pass through his digestive tract. Cause if you look at it, its the same thing: An animal died so he can live.
Case in point: as sad as it sounds, that's life. Something dies so something else can live. It's been that way since the first organism existed, and will continue to do so until evolution and natural selection finds a happy medium where everyone wins.
Now as for animal cruelty. Yes, my heart bleeds. Yes, I've seen factory farming and the insanity that ensues. But what gets to me is that its usually only for animals with faces. Faces, like two eyes, a mouth and a nose and a pair of ears. Just mammalian enough for someone to go "Oh look I got a face too! That reminds me of me! I'm sad now". I don't see anyone standing up for honeybees.
The point is this: Being a vegetarian is fine. It's awesome if you find meat making you want to hork and the taste is icky. My roomate uses it as a great excuse when he ate something and then didn't like it much. "Someone must have used worchestershire sauce in this!" But in all honesty. When I go to a show, and someone shoves a factory farm pamphlet in my face it annoys the crap out of me. I don't shove a hamburger in theirs. I don't take a chicken and clip its beak off and wave it in front of him. Personal crusades are great and dandy. They make people feel like they're special in this world. Like recycling. Or adopting a lone tree in the rainforest. It lets them forget the real problems in this world and helps them get along in their day. I'm all for that. But its the preaching that needs to stop. I never and will never try to convince anyone, including my roomate, to eat a burger. I don't go up to his face and go "MMMM This steak burrito is more delicious than than your black bean only burrito" when we go to Chipotle. This is in spite of the treatment I get from him when he's munching on his GAWDAWFUL morningstar farms fake ass chicken patty. Oh the nummy noises, oh the ranting and raving about how delicious his cardboard fake chicken patty is.
That reminds me of one last thing. The whole "organic" food crap. Aka I pay a dollar extra to make me feel sinless. I never knew that food could be used as an indulgence but hey, its a capitalistic society. It's not so much the actual process of what makes a definition of "organic" (which cracks me up, last I checked "organic" meant it contains carbon, my gas tank has a ton of "organic" material wheeee) But some of the labeling. Morningstar Farms, heh, thats funny in itself. Might as well call it Beelzebub's Bbq or Satans Snacks. Er anyway, its that one brand. The "Smart" food. Packaging on "organically raised" food be it veggie or meaty has a stupid smugness to it. And that smug crap needs to stop. Now.
Edit
Oh and now I remember what I was trying to say in the first place: What really bothers me most is the preaching. Yes I've mentioned that. But the way I mean it is another argument I had with my roomate. I read about pet owners (specifically cats and dogs) forcing their pets to have the same diet as their masters do. In other words, I've read about people that have been forcing their pets to be vegetarians like them. You can see where this is very bad. It's crap like that which really pisses me the hell off. I mean I can almost, ALMOST see where "animal rights" can actually mean something. I mean sure... dogs and cats are cute, dogs even have eyebrows to make funny faces at us and to which makes us think they're human. But still. THIS if anything is TRUE animal cruelty. It makes me weep so very, very much.
That's an extremely good point. I think it doesn't come up that much in practice; I haven't ever been offered starfish, but it is something for every vegetarian to think about. As I mentioned earlier, my reason for veganism is a quality-of-life thing, so I think that helps defend my position that it is OK to eat a carrot. Carrots typically aren't living crappy lives on farms.
That's an extremely good point. I think it doesn't come up that much in practice; I haven't ever been offered starfish, but it is something for every vegetarian to think about. As I mentioned earlier, my reason for veganism is a quality-of-life thing, so I think that helps defend my position that it is OK to eat a carrot. Carrots typically aren't living crappy lives on farms.
Well in a lot of non-western cultures eating animals include non-chordates. Sea cucumbers are also echidnoderms, and make fine food. I suspect that many westerners notions of eating animals usually are the ones with backbones, cause well we don't really have a lot save for mollusks on the menu. And being honest here, I really think its eating something with a face that makes people sad
Now as for speaking for the carrot... How do we know what a carrot wants or what constitutes "crappy life" for the vegetable? Vegetables are just as domesticated as livestock. They're grown exclusively for the parts that we find edible and tasty and through our own selective breeding programs, produce monstrosities that are delectable to ourselves and ourselves only. We do harm to undesireable plants which are competing for life just as much as say a Cauliflower does. We promote the welfare and lives of plants we want for ourselves, and let the others that aren't as desirable to die off.
Does the carrot really want to be eaten? The one pure motivation for ALL life is survival. Domestication of plants and animals have allowed survival for certain species of animals that would have otherwise died out. Cows didn't just "exist" before man. They were bred selectively until they became cows. Cows have no other life outside of man's demenses. The argument was brought up that if cows were released into the "wild" they would die off as they have no defenses against predators. The question that I have to ask is: What the heck is a cow's natural environment? Exactly what "wild" would they be released to? There lies the dilemma. So if all of mankind in the effort for Animal Liberation suddenly "liberated" cows. What would it's ultimate destiny be? Most possibly extinction. If we go to the whole extreme of vegan thought, the milk and leather would be off limits. Cows now have no function for us so we leave them alone. Cows have been domesticated, selectively bred to be defenseless and docile, so the millennia it would take for them to develop natural defenses wouldn't be fast enough. Cows would die off and there would be no more cows. Cows would cease to exist. How is that "cruelty free"?
And again, I'm not saying its great to start injecting cows with growth hormone to make massive udders which ironically ends up in the milk we drink and now I have big flabby man-boobs that swing around when I jog =\ Go science.
Just because we don't hear the carrot cry about how its been bred to have an enormous girth doesn't mean it isn't going against "nature" as a human breeding bulldogs over and over causing them to have extremely large heads and resulting neck problems. I do however understand context. Cows and pigs and chickens do have nerve endings. And I do understand that they probably feel pain like we do. But where's the line drawn? Is it purely empathy for an animal that motivates not "harming" (i.e. killing it to eat) it? Everything, including us, are food to something else. Until nature can find a way to have cells replicate without exhausting its own energy supply, its just the way things are going to have to be.
Honestly I think its tyrannical and hypocritical to devour vegetables instead of animals because some animals can cry. Life is life. It gets eaten by something. "Suffering" is not a concept in nature. Its a human concept. We like to place our human values upon non-conscience things.
Now for a purely philosophical argument: I suspect our eating habits concerning the animal kingdom would be drastically different if we co-evolved with another sentinent species. If we co-evolved with another species that has a totally alien mindset to ours, it would be interesting to see. Like if Rabbits suddenly were able to talk and voice their opinion on certain subjects. Would be neato. Suddenly I'm reminded of that Futurama episode with the Popplers.
Here's another philosophical argument: What if the food not only wanted to, but demanded to be eaten? Think to the Resturant at the End of the Universe where the cow offered itself to be eaten, even suggesting choice parts. The human found it to be barbaric and basically immoral because the animal in question was a sentinent being, albeit one that was content with its fate. The rest of the universe (i.e. Zaphod Breeblebrox) argued that it's more barbaric to forcefully consume an animal to which it does not comprehend its fate.
Although i understand the reasoning behind being a vegetarian, i feel it is pointless. Realistically, you won't be able to stop animals being killed. However, there are others ways too help. For example, only buy free range chicken. If people follow, farmers may feel forced to follow the trend and make their chicken free range as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Why are all the terrorists named saddam? Saddam Hussein, Saddam Bin Laddin..."
I've been a vegitarian for about a year now. I may be the exception to the rule though, I don't really care about animal rights. I think animals are important and wonderful parts of life, but I feel that humans are more important, and if we can figure out ways to utilize life to make it better (without doing needless and/or undue harm, which is a major point in some cases) then why not?
I know some vegans that don't buy vinal records because there are animal protiens in them.
It's the same reason I'm for stem-cell research, but that's getting off topic.
I'm a vegitarian simply because I think too much. Everytime I ate a chicken wing or a beef taco I could see the animal that it used to be. I would involuntarily picture a bloody headless fish being cleans on a dock as I bit into my McFish sandwich. Now I don't really think animals have emotions (beside instint-level reations to stimuli), it's just that that thing's flesh was a lot like my own. Even though I personally think that humans can reason and rationalize for better than the smartest pig could ever dream of those strips of fat that were pulled from its flank probably didn't taste that different that the strips of fat on my own flank.
--
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Listen to my M:tG flavor Podcast: Story Circle! (Newest episode is all about Innistrad previews.)
If I didn't love meat so much, I'd be a vegetarian. But my love of meat outweighs my guilt. I guess most people feel the same way, or act like it hopeless so they don't feel guilty.
Killing is bad. Animal farms are really, really, really bad.
And that circle of life ******** doesn't count as a real argument. Meat is good for the body, but we eat WAY more meat than we need. If its the health issue I'm okay with you eating a little meat once in a while, but its no excuse to just shrug your shoulders and continue to eat the way you're doing so.
Do I regulate how much meat I eat? No. But at least I don't try to justify it.
And that circle of life ******** doesn't count as a real argument. Meat is good for the body, but we eat WAY more meat than we need. If its the health issue I'm okay with you eating a little meat once in a while, but its no excuse to just shrug your shoulders and continue to eat the way you're doing so.
I wasn't aware eating meat required an excuse. It's food, we eat it, end of story.
Due to man's steady consumption of natural habitats and elimination of various predators due to the threats they posed in the past to both people and their livestock, many natural predators are extinct or at the very least endangered and/or driven to other habitats. The result of that is, whether vegans/vegetarians/activists like it or not, in many areas man is the only predator left in the region. It is not unheard of at all for deer populations to grow large enough that there are food and space shortages, resulting in increased cases of starvation and disease. In such cases man has to fill the role that can no longer be filled by wolves, cougars, etc.
Record: 3-2
Simpsons Mafia (Newbie) - Vanilla Mafia - Win
The Fiasco Corporation - Town Reporter - Loss
Doomsday Mafia - Mafia Roleblocker - Win
Battle Royale Mafia - Serial Daykiller - Loss
Danger City Mafia - Vanilla Town - Win
Also, I've seen comments about growing vegetables and such being more efficient than producing meat (cattle for example) in the same lot of land. While you can produce more, over time the soil is depleted of nutrients and will eventually stop producing for you. Animals, and their waste, help give the soil time to replenish itself naturally, as well as to fertilize it with their waste. What agriculturalists call this is Crop Rotation, where they will have a field separated into 2, 3, 4, etc. lots with a fence, we will use 4 for example. in lot 1 they may have wheat, in lot 2 they may have goats, in lot 3 they may have corn, and cattle in 4. This is a rare combination, but it's 6:00 AM and It's just an example. The point is that growing only crops will not work over long periods of time without taking years off and manually adding nutrients/fertilizers to the soil, or using crop rotations. Although, the same can be said against focusing too heavily on livestock, you need to rotate them as well, to give them some variety in what they eat, and allowing plant life to grow unchecked when/if necessary.
I apologize for the long post, just by two cents as a Kentucky farmhand, lol.
^ = My trade thread, because I didn't make it a nifty hyperlink.
I think you may have overestimated the extent to which humans influence the global ecosystem. Not that we can't completely develop every inch of land on the planet for human "capitol" use, but we currently don't and I don't suspect we ever will. Also "using paper and wood" does nothing but bad for forests, but that's another topic.
Admittedly there would be far fewer cows living if humans didn't raise them, but I maintain that veganism (in some forms) is the right thing to do because of the quality of life of the animals who are being raised.
As many others have mentioned, it is absurd to suggest that tomorrow the entire human population would decide to be vegan. That isn't going to happen. So the "resources" will not become "valueless," they will simply be less-desired.
I don't understand why the choices you make when eating are necessarily any less important than the choices you make when voting, raising children, shopping, etc.
I doubt that any food animals are literally beaten and abused their entire life, but I would rather not support (with my money) any abuse when obviously I don't have to.
I don't think so. I am actually not against killing at all; my reason for veganism is entirely a "quality of life" issue. I wouldn't be surprised if humans were responsible for your overpopulation problem in the first place, but then that's all the more reason to try to fix it.
Oh, I apologise, I didn't mean my post to come off as an argument directed at anyone. Like I said, I was a bit tired, so my wording was poor, I apologize.
I'm sure that I misunderstood how you said that, but if humans and animals had the same legal rights, would be able to keep them as pets and such? I don't stand adamant either way, as I see arguments for both sides as reasonable. I, personally believe nature's laws should apply to everything. Survival of the fittest and such. How animals eat other animals in nature can be a great deal more painful than how we as humans kill and eat them, I think.
The point is that having animals rotated in and out of the lots, it allows the plants to continue to grow efficiently. Also, meat has nutrition to it that plants does not have. It may be less efficient in providing the things plants provide, but it has fat and protein, amongst other things that plants are inarguably less efficient in. It's not healthy to eat just plants, or just meat, that is why we are omnivores. We need to eat both plants and meat to have the optimum diet. There are also other things animals provide. Milk, wool, etc. that we may not necessarily eat but certainly make them valuable to have around.
^ = My trade thread, because I didn't make it a nifty hyperlink.
There is no one "optimum diet" for everybody; each person has his or her own optimum diet and there may be more than one for a single person.
Plants are by no means less efficient at providing fat. In fact, the fats you generally want (mono-unsaturated as well as linoleic and linolenic) can be found in far higher quantities in plant foods than in beef, chicken, or dairy (although Salmon and Mackerel are higher in linolenic than most plants). Eating most of your daily recommended fats from plant groups is generally a great way to lower cholesterol.
Protein can be tricky, but there are plant foods that provide all 9 essential amino acids. Soybeans are the most common example, and most soybean products provide enough protein for a day in a relatively small portion.
It is far more convenient to get your nutrition from a variety of plants and meats, but if you are paying attention to your intake of certain key nutrients a vegetarian or even vegan diet can be just as healthy as an omnivorous diet.
Veggies are full of vitamins and nutrients and how I wish Im an Omnivore..^_^
I eat meat and fruits, and take food supplements that has the same nutritional content as veggies. I exercise daily to keep me healthy too.
Monogreen 2007 | Jund Aggro MTGO 2013
My roomate is a vegetarian. His reasoning for choosing that lifestyle was probably the best I've ever heard from anyone: He wanted to see if he could do it. Three years now and is doing well. Would have been four years but the first year he became one his mom would make this tofu soup for him and bless her Korean soul was putting sardines in in the soup stock.
Anyhow, over the years my roomate and I have had many, many long driven discussions, debates, and even hellish snipes at each other at Perkins at 3am with coffee and smokes. Honestly, I think its great he's able to commit to something and be passionate about it. Sometimes he forgets he hates people preaching at him and he does a little of his own. Especially when he brings up animal cruelty, when he really, doesn't care.
The funny bit is that I eat more veggies than he does He sees green and he's not going to eat it. He lives pretty much on rice, black beans and Chap Chae if he can get it without meat. I try to make him a nice healthy salad, he goes no thanks. I make some bomb ass Tofu soup with cumin and curry and mushrooms and peas and he won't eat it. Not that I'm any healthier than him. I'm fat and lazy and smoke too much. He's lean and active and can stand up quickly without wheezing.
Now he's there thing I don't get. I ponder on stupid things from time to time but one argument we have really sticks in my roommate's craw pretty bad. It's the "nervous system" and "brain" argument about why eating animals are bad in addition to the "cruelty". The argument I had for my roommate was that I need to know where the line is drawn. When someone says "I'm a vegetarian" it's not really distinct. I'm not talking about letting fish and chickens slide either. I'm talking about what really defines an animal? And why animals exclusively? Life on Earth is divided into 5 or (depending on who's counting) 6 Kingdoms. Why do vegetarians refuse to consume from Animalia? I've heard a lot of arguments. My favorite is the "brain" + "face" + "nervous system" = conscience and awareness argument. Well how far down the Animal Kingdom do we go before we stop seeing faces and nervous systems? Last I checked a clam has no face. Does that exclude it from the "I'm refraining from eating you Club?" Echinoderms (see Starfish) lack a brain all together, as to Jellyfish. Do we strike them off the list? So what makes them animals? They move around?
Then there's the argument that plants cannot feel pain. The funny thing is that we don't talk about what "pain" is. If I'm correct... I hear some vegetarians say that animals feel pain so to kill them to eat for ourselves is wrong. But here's the thing. Are we talking about "ouchy pain" or are we talking about a response system an organism has to tell its body to "avoid danger"? Fish lack nerve endings at the ends of their mouths (why would fish need them, they don't have lips!) so when they're caught on a hook they don't feel it like a human would feel with a huge hook caught in his cheek. Yes the fish is responding to a trapped situation. But its not going "ouch!". It's going "I need to survive, lemme outta here!". Now as to plants feeling pain, I've read articles on plants "screaming" or producing high frequency pitches when cut or heated or boiled or whatever. Yay for us for not being able to hear them, we'd all starve to death if a carrot screamed in pain.
Here's a good read to somewhat explain what I'm trying to ramble about:
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2004/08/lobsters_plant_.html
So anyhow, after that argument. My roomate brought up that I'm being too picky. I explained to him that I need to be picky, I need a concrete definition of what it means to be vegetarian. I brought up the beans and rice allegory and how I loves me some broccoli and brussels sprouts while he doesn't. He didn't think it was very amusing. But my point stood. At what arbitrary point do you place on calling an organism an "animal" and thus refusing to eat it because you are a vegetarian. What criteria do you make up for yourself if you don't have a handy scientist to point out to you what is and isn't an animal? Well he pointed out that animals move around, have responses to stimuli, and some even have lips and eyebrows to make smiley faces like people do! Well then I had him sit down and watch the Private Lives of Plants hosted by David Attenborough. Bless that man. I showed him how plants do the same exact thing. Granted on a slower time scale. I asked him what arbitration made it okay for us to eat those and not the fuzzy woodland creatures. And of course he got all pissed at me for being a "smart ass". The sad part was I really was not being a smart ass. Plants move. Plants respond to stimuli. Plants even have to out evolve other plants AND animals (AND fungi and bacteria and protists whee) to survive on this earth. Hell, some plants even eat other animals. All plants also must take nutrients from the ground that usually came from other living things as well. And even though they do that, I don't see why its still "better" to eat them than another organism on this earth that pretty much does the same exact thing as it yet we call it an animal so now its not okay.
So of course he gets pissed at me again. Mostly it was because I looked up an article and showed him that they used fish bones in the finings for brewing Guiness. Sometimes the animal matter slips in. To my chagrin, he stopped drinking the wonderful stuff. Cause what really got to me was that okay... He'll wear the leather on his feet, but he won't let it pass through his digestive tract. Cause if you look at it, its the same thing: An animal died so he can live.
Case in point: as sad as it sounds, that's life. Something dies so something else can live. It's been that way since the first organism existed, and will continue to do so until evolution and natural selection finds a happy medium where everyone wins.
Now as for animal cruelty. Yes, my heart bleeds. Yes, I've seen factory farming and the insanity that ensues. But what gets to me is that its usually only for animals with faces. Faces, like two eyes, a mouth and a nose and a pair of ears. Just mammalian enough for someone to go "Oh look I got a face too! That reminds me of me! I'm sad now". I don't see anyone standing up for honeybees.
Yes, I said honeybees. Its pretty appalling. I mean If you want to jump on the animal rights bandwagon. Here we got a bunch of people that steal ALL the honey and feed bees pretty much sugar water. A hive needs actual honey to properly create drones and other queen bees. Sure there's no ill effects so far. But thats what they said about feeding cows their own selves.
The point is this: Being a vegetarian is fine. It's awesome if you find meat making you want to hork and the taste is icky. My roomate uses it as a great excuse when he ate something and then didn't like it much. "Someone must have used worchestershire sauce in this!" But in all honesty. When I go to a show, and someone shoves a factory farm pamphlet in my face it annoys the crap out of me. I don't shove a hamburger in theirs. I don't take a chicken and clip its beak off and wave it in front of him. Personal crusades are great and dandy. They make people feel like they're special in this world. Like recycling. Or adopting a lone tree in the rainforest. It lets them forget the real problems in this world and helps them get along in their day. I'm all for that. But its the preaching that needs to stop. I never and will never try to convince anyone, including my roomate, to eat a burger. I don't go up to his face and go "MMMM This steak burrito is more delicious than than your black bean only burrito" when we go to Chipotle. This is in spite of the treatment I get from him when he's munching on his GAWDAWFUL morningstar farms fake ass chicken patty. Oh the nummy noises, oh the ranting and raving about how delicious his cardboard fake chicken patty is.
That reminds me of one last thing. The whole "organic" food crap. Aka I pay a dollar extra to make me feel sinless. I never knew that food could be used as an indulgence but hey, its a capitalistic society. It's not so much the actual process of what makes a definition of "organic" (which cracks me up, last I checked "organic" meant it contains carbon, my gas tank has a ton of "organic" material wheeee) But some of the labeling. Morningstar Farms, heh, thats funny in itself. Might as well call it Beelzebub's Bbq or Satans Snacks. Er anyway, its that one brand. The "Smart" food. Packaging on "organically raised" food be it veggie or meaty has a stupid smugness to it. And that smug crap needs to stop. Now.
Edit
Oh and now I remember what I was trying to say in the first place: What really bothers me most is the preaching. Yes I've mentioned that. But the way I mean it is another argument I had with my roomate. I read about pet owners (specifically cats and dogs) forcing their pets to have the same diet as their masters do. In other words, I've read about people that have been forcing their pets to be vegetarians like them. You can see where this is very bad. It's crap like that which really pisses me the hell off. I mean I can almost, ALMOST see where "animal rights" can actually mean something. I mean sure... dogs and cats are cute, dogs even have eyebrows to make funny faces at us and to which makes us think they're human. But still. THIS if anything is TRUE animal cruelty. It makes me weep so very, very much.
"Organic" means something different to the FDA than it does to a chemist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_farming
Well in a lot of non-western cultures eating animals include non-chordates. Sea cucumbers are also echidnoderms, and make fine food. I suspect that many westerners notions of eating animals usually are the ones with backbones, cause well we don't really have a lot save for mollusks on the menu. And being honest here, I really think its eating something with a face that makes people sad
Now as for speaking for the carrot... How do we know what a carrot wants or what constitutes "crappy life" for the vegetable? Vegetables are just as domesticated as livestock. They're grown exclusively for the parts that we find edible and tasty and through our own selective breeding programs, produce monstrosities that are delectable to ourselves and ourselves only. We do harm to undesireable plants which are competing for life just as much as say a Cauliflower does. We promote the welfare and lives of plants we want for ourselves, and let the others that aren't as desirable to die off.
Does the carrot really want to be eaten? The one pure motivation for ALL life is survival. Domestication of plants and animals have allowed survival for certain species of animals that would have otherwise died out. Cows didn't just "exist" before man. They were bred selectively until they became cows. Cows have no other life outside of man's demenses. The argument was brought up that if cows were released into the "wild" they would die off as they have no defenses against predators. The question that I have to ask is: What the heck is a cow's natural environment? Exactly what "wild" would they be released to? There lies the dilemma. So if all of mankind in the effort for Animal Liberation suddenly "liberated" cows. What would it's ultimate destiny be? Most possibly extinction. If we go to the whole extreme of vegan thought, the milk and leather would be off limits. Cows now have no function for us so we leave them alone. Cows have been domesticated, selectively bred to be defenseless and docile, so the millennia it would take for them to develop natural defenses wouldn't be fast enough. Cows would die off and there would be no more cows. Cows would cease to exist. How is that "cruelty free"?
And again, I'm not saying its great to start injecting cows with growth hormone to make massive udders which ironically ends up in the milk we drink and now I have big flabby man-boobs that swing around when I jog =\ Go science.
Just because we don't hear the carrot cry about how its been bred to have an enormous girth doesn't mean it isn't going against "nature" as a human breeding bulldogs over and over causing them to have extremely large heads and resulting neck problems. I do however understand context. Cows and pigs and chickens do have nerve endings. And I do understand that they probably feel pain like we do. But where's the line drawn? Is it purely empathy for an animal that motivates not "harming" (i.e. killing it to eat) it? Everything, including us, are food to something else. Until nature can find a way to have cells replicate without exhausting its own energy supply, its just the way things are going to have to be.
Honestly I think its tyrannical and hypocritical to devour vegetables instead of animals because some animals can cry. Life is life. It gets eaten by something. "Suffering" is not a concept in nature. Its a human concept. We like to place our human values upon non-conscience things.
Now for a purely philosophical argument: I suspect our eating habits concerning the animal kingdom would be drastically different if we co-evolved with another sentinent species. If we co-evolved with another species that has a totally alien mindset to ours, it would be interesting to see. Like if Rabbits suddenly were able to talk and voice their opinion on certain subjects. Would be neato. Suddenly I'm reminded of that Futurama episode with the Popplers.
Here's another philosophical argument: What if the food not only wanted to, but demanded to be eaten? Think to the Resturant at the End of the Universe where the cow offered itself to be eaten, even suggesting choice parts. The human found it to be barbaric and basically immoral because the animal in question was a sentinent being, albeit one that was content with its fate. The rest of the universe (i.e. Zaphod Breeblebrox) argued that it's more barbaric to forcefully consume an animal to which it does not comprehend its fate.
- My stupid friend
The greatest card in all of magic: HERE
I know some vegans that don't buy vinal records because there are animal protiens in them.
It's the same reason I'm for stem-cell research, but that's getting off topic.
I'm a vegitarian simply because I think too much. Everytime I ate a chicken wing or a beef taco I could see the animal that it used to be. I would involuntarily picture a bloody headless fish being cleans on a dock as I bit into my McFish sandwich. Now I don't really think animals have emotions (beside instint-level reations to stimuli), it's just that that thing's flesh was a lot like my own. Even though I personally think that humans can reason and rationalize for better than the smartest pig could ever dream of those strips of fat that were pulled from its flank probably didn't taste that different that the strips of fat on my own flank.
--
Winner of the 2nd Design Survivor Contest
Creator of the Vorthos Card Contest
Winner of 12th and the 18th Short Story Contests
Creator of the Vs. Tournament.
--Runner of the Superhero Vs. Tounrament
--Runner of the Villian Vs. Tournament.
Killing is bad. Animal farms are really, really, really bad.
And that circle of life ******** doesn't count as a real argument. Meat is good for the body, but we eat WAY more meat than we need. If its the health issue I'm okay with you eating a little meat once in a while, but its no excuse to just shrug your shoulders and continue to eat the way you're doing so.
Do I regulate how much meat I eat? No. But at least I don't try to justify it.
4th place at CCC&G Pro Tour
Chances of bad hands (<2 or >4 land):
21: 28.9%
22: 27.5%
23: 26.3%
24: 25.5%
25: 25.1%
26: 25.3%
I wasn't aware eating meat required an excuse. It's food, we eat it, end of story.