Depends on where you are. Some places it's a delicacy.
Chocolate covered are around, but like other candies they died off as a fad. The insect eating portion you're right, though. It really depends on the culture which is expressive to adaptations to the local environment. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, insect farming is more energy conserving than farming other main modern sources of protein.
The insect eating is too often hand waved by animal rights activists. Then again these are the same people that buy lobsters from a local super market and then fly them back to the northeast to release them into the wild. So much for eating grubs by liberals!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
It's been a little while since I weighed in on a debate thread. Four years? But this subject has always fascinated me.
The aspect of vegetarianism that I most appreciate is that it's an example of moral idealism taking priority over biological drives - of self-control and discipline and moral outrage making a significant impact on a person's life. There aren't enough examples of that in society - pleasure-seeking and the road of least resistance tend to be the norm, not principle and denial or sacrificing for just causes. I think it's transformative, and good for the soul.
But there are a number of reasons that my approval is from afar.
The first is that the brand of vegetarianism that I'm most accustomed to seeing rests upon a very simple source: distaste for violence and killing living beings that we can identify with. For me, that final phrase takes vegetarianism out of the realm of intelligible ethics and into the realm of sentiment.
It's coherent to object to needlessly taking the life of a being on the principle that life is sacred and should be respected. But in most of the vegetarians I meet, the objection isn't founded upon carefully examined principle, but because our culture has acclimated them to associate violence with cruelty and selfishness - and/or acclimated them to regarding most animals as an "us" worthy of protection.
I do not share that tendency to anthropomorphize animals - I think it's a popular conceit that we've taken a step or two beyond logic. We are affectionate to animals - but animals are not as a rule affectionate to us. We may tend to forget this reality in the safety and convenience of our grocery stores, but the state of nature is struggle between species in pursuit of survival. There is nothing more "natural" than for a lion or a tiger or a bear to devour prey in defense of their lives. They bear no sense of duty or obligation to us - and the extension of a duty to animals is a gift, not a covenant, most often founded upon the animals' cuteness quotient rather than an altrustic, unselfish respect for life. We may grant an animal life - but I would not expect them to truly appreciate that in any meaningful sense, or to expect that same charity or humane regard from a hungry carnivore, or even a panicked stampede of herbivores. I have no instinct of sentimentality towards creatures that would readily feast upon my own dead carcass, given the chance. On the whole, I regard the tendency to overly romanticize or humanize the animal kingdom as a popular but strikingly false conceit.
To the extent that the belief is based upon an abhorrence of violence generally, I think it's far more consistent and admirable. But I think abhorrence of violence is far more useful as a general rule, than as an absolute imperative.
Sure - but to be fair, it's pretty easy to beat up on the opponents that you choose for yourself.
An interesting issue that often isn't fully discussed in these debates is the scope of morality - should we/do we have any duty to act morally in relation to animals? Should we observe some limits on behavior to animals regardless? Is the ability to experience pain/plant life a relevant distinction? Is intelligence? Sophistication? Is this an ends justify the means scenario? And of course, there's always the root question on the fundamental nature of morality itself.
You can make the debate a real headache, if you like. If you go that far down the rabbit hole, you're not going to get people to agree on the basic assumptions, and you can construct some pretty decent, pretty solid reasoning at a higher level than that to justify the ethics of it.
As far as my own stance goes, I think it's mentally healthy for individuals to practice treating other beings, even less intelligent ones, with respect. But I don't accept the logic that there ought to be a binding obligation to treat life that can scarcely understand the concept of a "right" as you would a fully intelligent and sentient being.
(1) Seizing all potential living habitat for cows, pigs, sheep, chicken, and all other edible animal species, and making the animals virtually extinct.
(2) Living in a symbiotic relationship with humans where those animal species have habitat set aside for them to live in populations of anywhere from a billionish (cows) to 30 billionish (chickens).
It's an EITHER OR proposition. If Vegetarians have a version where we stop eating chickens, and we give them someplace to LIVE, then I'd love to hear it. If you're a so called "animal rights activist", then you should not only NOT EAT CHICKEN... but you should buy some property for some to live on... or pay somebody to do it. Right now, my dollars spent on meat go towards room and board for domesticated animals.
Meanwhile vegetarians say "let them eat air, drink cloud moisture and live in over the rainbow".
If we stop eating cow tomorrow, children of 2050 will only know most cow species from old youtube videos.
But at this point in time, we have no clear understanding of what intelligence and sentience truly mean. We have no good standard way to quantify or even determine them qualitatively. We also have very little understanding of how these processes, already ill understood with humans, work out with other animals. There's a huge lack of data for most species. People are often very quick to take the dichotomic stance of "animals dumb humans smart" and be done with it. Recent research however shows various species are capable of various thought processes similar to those perceived in humans, at different levels of sophistication. That's not even getting into the problem of accurately determining and agreeing on a moral criterion: complex emotions? conceptual thinking? social intelligence?
Quit trolling me.
Yes, quantifying intelligence precisely is probably a problem. Determining that average cows are measurably dumber than average humans? Not exactly a startling scientific proposition, I'm sure you'd agree.
It may be difficult to pin down exact numbers, but if you can find a cow that can beat you at Chess, color me impressed.
There are differences. They are perceptible. Based on those differences, it's possible to find logical reasons (for good or ill) to considers animals as not being entitled to moral rights. (Though we may choose to grant them some level of regard, despite that.)
Quote from Mad Mat »
In addition to this, humans have a long history of eating meat, introducing a major historical bias to this debate. It's not even just the few fringe species we protect anyway: most of the major meat species on earth are suspected to be amongst the most intelligent on earth as well.
Historical bias, hmm?
That may be, but I'm having trouble seeing how that bias affects the proposition that cows are perceptibly less intelligent than humankind. If you're suggesting folks are inclined to view as tasty and come up with reasons to justify eating a juicy steak, then sure, I agree with that point, as far as it goes. But that doesn't quite win the argument, does it?
Quote from Mad Mat »
It's very easy to make an analogy between the current debate on animal rights and the issues in the past with treatment of other human races/peoples.
Sir, I think the social and ethnic groups that you just compared to livestock may wish to have a quiet word with you outside...
I'd like to take a moment to address some of the environmental factors.
Greenhouse gas Emissions: The article estimates that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport". There are two issues with that statement. The first is that the comparison is taking every aspect of the livestock industry, from transportation of corn and cattle, farming practices, and cattle processing, and compares that to on the road vehicles. So already the comparison is misleading since it doesn't take into consideration the mining or processing involved in the automotive industry. The second issue is that this reflects the global cattle industry. The United States has strong regulations and one of the most efficient practices in the world. Output of CO2 from the US livestock industry is estimated to maybe 3%. If Greenhouse Gas is your big concern then you are better off advocating the purchase of American Beef.
Loss of Biodiversity: Moderate stocking rates of cattle have been shown to increase biodiversity and decrease the presence of invasive species. Stocking strategies have included creating mosaics of vegetation on the landscape and even targeted grazing on invasive species. Organizations like the Nature Conservancy have seen the benefits of grazing as a tool to maintain and increase biodiversity and have even used it to earn a little extra money to help maintain the natural community.
Land Degradation: During the late 1800's and early 1900's the plan was to maximize stocking rates as much as possible. This resulted in huge problems that heavily degraded the land. Since then there has been a major shift in strategy on our rangeland to accommodate multiple use and sound environmental practices. These include moderate stocking rates with stricter adherence to best available science. People are much more aware of what is needed to maintain healthy rangeland and work hard to maintain it that way since their livelihood relies on it.
Deforestation: The vast majority of rangeland in the united states exists in Arid and Semi-arid ecosystems that are devoid of trees. There were practices of removing shrubs and replacing them with crested wheatgrass, but that ended in the early 70's. There is a massive effort to reduce quantities of juniper woodlands, but they have expanded dramatically from historical norms since the early 1900's at great cost to economic and health factors. In short there is no "clearing the land for cattle" in the United States.
In many ways the environmental reasons for becoming a vegetarian or vegan are riddled in missinformation if not completely false. The attack on ranching in america by some environmental groups have caused much more environmental harm than anything productive. Degrading landscapes, putting people out of business, and increasing the transition of landscapes to condos. If you want to protect the environment then buy American Beef.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
early man had to survive winters
during winter plants are alot harder to come by then meats
im sure indians had to figure out ways to survive winter
they probly seen the bears eatting fish alot right befor winter
so they probly mimic'd the bears
since indians learned alot from watching nature they probly watched how the animals foraged for whatever was there
as far as why humans have to cook are meat unlike other animals.. well we dont technicaly have to
but long ago im sure humans realized salting or sun drying "cooking" there food kept it longer and made it taste good.. and the whole killing germs thing.. but that was just a unexpected good side effect of that
Taking this 'common sense' approach is very dangerous though. Biases as the one I spoke of are emphasized. It becomes much easier to ignore things that would contradict your starting position, for instance because things would get 'too complex' otherwise. You're basically denying the need for further research, accepting that your current impressions are enough to justify your behavior. People did and do this all the time, sure, but lots of problems arise from this position as well. It's antithetical to the scientific method.
Sir, I'm not throwing science at you because you're not, in fact, arguing science. You're arguing subjectivism. If I brought you studies saying that cows are dumb as bricks, you'd argue that it doesn't demonstrate to your satisfaction that they're significantly more dumb than humans, or that they're dumb in the meaningful ways.
There's nothing logically inconsistent with your drawing the intelligence line in the sand where you're drawing it, but for myself, its not a persuasive idea to apply human morality to creatures that can't even understand it.
Quote from Mad Mat »
Using your chess example: the intelligence required to play chess well is a specific sort. Under this 'common sense' approach, there's a strong bias in favor of certain sorts of intelligence (the ones your everyday human fellows excel in) and downplay or even ignore others. Without proper study, it's also difficult to determine how important these other types of intelligence are.
*Delicately pops balloon with a needle*
This really is not an area where you can claim the scientific or methodological high ground and sit upon a hill. Pointing out that cows have brains the size of a grapefruit and wits to match does not mean that you should consider your debate partner a "common-sense" (with air quotes) philistine.
As for the importance of "types" of intelligence, I rather doubt you'll find remarkable intelligence of any type in creatures whose most difficult daily intellectual tasks are digging worms out of the ground, producing manure, and finding greener pastures.
Quote from Mad Mat »
I never said it wins the argument. It suggests strong caution in this debate. It's like when someone points at the enormous amounts of lobby money going around a certain issue. It doesn't win an argument, but it signals that there are some very high stakes endangering objectivity.
*smiles* You really are in love with appropriate methodology, aren't you?
Nothing wrong with that - its just you're applying that argument even where it doesn't seem quite on point to what your debate partner's saying. Seems like something you probably lean on quite a bit.
Quote from Mad Mat »
I'm sure the poor farmers of Europe would have objected to be compared in their inferiority to the black peoples of Africa as well.
Let me know when the cows would like to lodge a similar objection.
I know that I've got a post above, but I thought of something while reading this quoted in Mad Mat's post above.
I find this approach problematic because, imo, it incorrectly creates a false dilemma regarding moral rights by presuming that you either give a body every moral right or give them none at all. I see no reason to presume that this must be the case - why is it illogical or unworkable to give animals only select rights that humans share?
Not a false dilemma - just a base-level assumption for me, for the reasons I've explained. Feel free to decide differently based on an arbitrary root assumption of your own.
If you want to use these animals for meat production though, you'll encounter certain problems. The most important one will be that you'll either have drastically lower yields or you'll need enormous amounts of additional land (associated with transport cost).
Not true. Properly maintained rangeland have increased in production rather than decreased in production. Yields are lower than what was tried in the early 1900's, but it is sustainable and you'd be hard pressed to find any rancher that isn't employing some strategy for landscape sustainability. This isn't new science, ranchers have been adjusting for nearly 50 years and our beef production is still the best in the world.
[landscapes Degradation] Same problem applies as above. You can trim down the impact somewhat, but this is always associated with lower yields per unit area.
This is not a problem. Lower yields for a more sustainable landscape means moderate stocking rates. Well actually there's a slew of strategies that include seasonality of grazing, high stocking high rotation, low stocking low rotation, placement of saltlick, and type of forage available. My point is that this transition has already happened for the betterment of the ranching industry in America.
You see the problem with the environmental argument is that the majority of issues cited as problems were rampant in the late 1800's early 1900's, but are not practiced today. Degraded landscapes put people out of business and took decades to recover. But we've been there, done that, and now know better. Yields are lower than before, but they are still very profitable.
Probably, deforestation in favor of rangeland nowadays is pretty rare in the US, as it's a developed economy, but how much of this rangeland was forest two centuries ago?
Practically none of the current rangeland was forest two centuries ago. The majority of land used is in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. We're talking about grasslands and shrublands that only had trees isolated in rocky outcropings or in sheltered riparian areas. Today there are actually more trees on rangeland now than there ever has been in the past 10,000 years, Which is actually a problem.
I have a hard time believing environmental groups could be that powerful in the US (of all places).
You do realize that you'd be hard pressed to find any nation that has more national parks, national wildlife refuge, and wilderness status landscapes than the US. Even the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management strategies have changed from the economic thoughts of the early 1900's to multiple use practices, prioritizing wildlife. We also have strict clean air and water acts and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) that regulate environmental issues. These were all driven by the environmental movement.
Environmental groups have decimated the logging industry in the North Western United States, forced hundreds of people out of work, and cost the US government tens of millions of dollars every year through litigation. Government agencies can't dig a hole without having to put together an environmental impact statement and risk getting sued by one of those environmental groups.
With regard to ranching. There are environmental groups such as the "western watersheds" who's goal is to completely remove cattle from all public lands in the US. They use the Endangered Species Act as a tool, basically claiming that cattle harm the endangered species and suing the government to stop the practice. The problem is that there'd be no science to suggest that cattle harm the endangered species, but it is on the rancher to prove otherwise and until scientific inquiry states otherwise the ranchers will have to pull their cattle. When someone goes out to try to study cattle impacts on the endangered species the western watersheds'll sue to stop the research because as long as no research exists they can claim whatever they want and tie things up in court. Western Watersheds are currently using this strategy with the slickspot peppergrass in southern Idaho, but if that fails they can always use the pygmy rabbit and sage grouse.
I do have to say that not all environmental groups should be lumped together like this. There are some that are very respectable, like the Nature Conservancy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***Official Rune Master and Rational Extremest of The Called***
************************From Sound to Sea**********************
And I guess that I'm a lucky one for the truth of what I know. For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go. I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone. If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
I do have to say that not all environmental groups should be lumped together like this. There are some that are very respectable, like the Nature Conservancy.
Sagebrush rebels is a group that attempted to influence environmental policy in the American West during the 1970s and 1980s, surviving into the 21st century in public lands states (generally, the 13 western states where federal land holdings include 30% to more than 50% of a state's area), and surviving in organized groups pressuring public lands policy makers, especially for grazing of sheep and cattle on public lands, and for mineral extraction policies.
An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of government owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies. Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, Utah. Reagan was faced with opposition with conservation organizations. This struggle persists today after changing form, with the "wise-use movement" in 1988. George H. W. Bush helped work around restrictive environmental laws to help mining, ranching, and real estate developing industries that created jobs in the states.
The term "Sagebrush Rebellion" was coined during fights over designation of National Wilderness lands, especially in western states, and especially after the National Forest Service (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted required surveys of plots of public lands of at least 5,000 acres (20 km²) that were unroaded, after 1972, for potential designation as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. This process was known as the Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE, or later, RARE I). The process developed significant opposition by environmental groups and by public lands users, and was challenged in federal court. Results of RARE I were tabled by the courts for lack of uniform criteria for evaluation of lands and other procedural problems, and a second review started in 1977, known as RARE II, involving more than 60 million acres (240,000 km²) of wildland under federal jurisdiction. RARE II was completed in 1979. Controversy, and lack of support from the Reagan administration starting in 1981, largely sidelined a formal, national wilderness assessment. Congress has designated several wilderness areas since 1981, sometimes using data acquired through the RARE processes.
The National Wilderness Preservation System grew out of recommendations of a Kennedy-administration Presidential Commission, the Outdoor Recreational Resources Review Commission (ORRRC)[1] chaired by Laurence S. Rockefeller, whose 1962 report suggested legislation to protect recreational resources in a "national system of wild and scenic rivers," a national wilderness system, a national trails system, the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, and recreation areas administered by then-existing public lands agencies beyond National Parks and National Monuments (both of which are administered in the Department of the Interior by the National Parks Administration).
Much of the wildland was sagebrush, not particularly pretty to look at, but useful for grazing, off-road vehicle use, and other development. Some advocates urged that, instead of designating more federal wilderness protection, some or much of the land be granted to states or private parties. These advocates took on phrase "Sagebrush Rebellion" to describe their opposition.
[edit]Public Lands history
Complaints about federal management of public lands constantly roil relations between public lands users—ranchers, miners, researchers, off-road vehicle (ORV) enthusiasts, hikers, campers and conservation advocates—and the agencies. Ranchers complain that grazing fees are too high, that grazing regulations are too onerous, and that promised improvements to grazing on federal lands does not occur. Miners complain of restricted access to claims, or to lands to prospect. Researchers complain of the difficulty of getting research permits, only to encounter other obstacles in research, including uncooperative permit holders and, especially in archeology, vandalized sites with key information destroyed. ORV users want free access, hikers and campers and conservationists complain grazing is not regulated enough, some mineral lease holders abuse other lands, and ORV use destroys the resource. Each of these complaints has a long history.
Federal holding of public lands was originally an accident of history. Among the first pieces of legislation passed under the U.S. Constitution was the Northwest Ordinance, which was designed to dispose of lands the federal government held after state claims were conceded, in the Northwest Territories (now Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana). The Constitution makes no specific provision for the federal government to hold any lands other than the federal reserve for the capital (the District of Columbia); the hypothesis was that all lands would be sold or granted into private ownership.
In order to encourage settlement of western lands, Congress passed the Morrell Act in 1862, granting parcels in 40-acre (160,000 m2) increments to homesteaders who could maintain a living on land for a period of time. Congress also made huge land grants to various railroads working to complete a transcontinental rail system. Much of these latter grants intentionally included mineral- and timber-rich lands, so that the railroads could get financing to build. Again, the hypothesis was that the railroads would sell off the land to get money.
Ultimately, however, it turned out that much land west of the Missouri River was too wild for homesteading, because of mountainous terrain or lack of available water. By the early 20th century, the federal government held significant portions of most western states that had simply not been claimed for any use. Conservationists prevailed on President Theodore Roosevelt to set aside lands for forest preservation, and for special scientific or natural history interest. Much land still remained unclaimed, even after such reserves were initially set up. The Department of Interior held millions of acres in the western states (with Arizona and New Mexico joining the union by 1913). President Hoover proposed to deed these lands to the states in 1932, but the states complained that the lands had been overgrazed and would in other ways impose a burden on cash-strapped state budgets. The Bureau of Land Management was created to manage much of that land.
[edit]Congressional Support for the Sagebrush Rebellion
Various bills to transfer federal public lands to western states had been proposed after 1932, all failing to garner much attention, let alone action. Among key objections to such transfers were the increasing value to the federal treasury of mineral lease receipts, and complaints that the "crown jewels" of the national lands holdings, the National Parks, could not be managed adequately or fairly by individual states. Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks were considered to be national treasures, and few legislators would concur with turning them over to the states.
The spark that turned these complaints into a "rebellion" was the enactment in 1976 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), which sought to establish a system of land management by the BLM, recognizing that most of the BLM holdings would not be turned into private hands. While FLPMA required BLM to plan land use accommodating all users, specifically naming ranching, grazing, and mining, it also introduced formal processes to consider preservation of the land from ranching, grazing and mining. Western land users regarded the act as a bureaucratic power grab at best, or the imposition of a totalitarian socialist regime at the radical worst.
Newly-elected Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, joined in land transfer legislation in 1977, after loud complaints from ranchers and oilmen from Utah, coupled with strong support from several Utah county governments. By late 1979 Hatch was the one legislator most interested in land transfers. He sought to introduce a transfer bill that would get hearings and potential action. Upon advice of members of the Utah Wilderness Commission, appointed by Utah Governor Scott Matheson, Hatch agreed to leave National Parks and National Monuments in federal hands, and he drafted a bill that would allow states to apply for control over selected parcels. With 16 cosponsors, he introduced the bill in 1980, and again in 1981. Partly because Hatch's bill dealt with major objections to previous bills, news outlets for the first time covered the bill as if it had a serious chance of passing. This provided a huge morale boost to long-aggrieved public lands users other than conservationists, and started a two-year newspaper, radio and television fight for the legislation.
Ultimately Hatch's bill got little more than press attention. The election of Ronald Reagan as president put a friend to the Sagebrush Rebels in the White House. Reagan appointees slowed down or closed down wilderness designation legislation, and by Reagan's second term, the Sagebrush Rebellion was back to simmering on the back burner of federal land management agencies.
It's an important piece of the American argument, and this goes in even before the logging trade issues between the States and Canada through supposed dumping by the Canadians. Japan equally has been able to regrow their forests by buying North American timber.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Wow, just came back to this board. Very happy to see that I started an almost 5 month long debate. All I really wanted was for people to talk about it openly. Seems that was achieved. Thanks for all who participated.
If you use morals and feelings the issue will never come to an equilibrium because there are a variety of different feelings and emotions which can counteract each other. The answer is whatever society wants and what individuals want. If we want that kind of world where survival is based off of consuming other living tissue, then that's what we have. You could try and say "logically it helps the human race survives", but at the same time, so what if it survives? You'd only suggest that because of some kind of emotion.
I watch my cat cripple a mouse then give it to her kittens to practice hunting on.
A boltgun to the cow's head seems much nicer in comparison.
It does seem like that, but why would you care about suffering for reasons other than your emotions?
Oh I know this is an old thread and this question wasn't directed at me buuuut I would like to reply to it anyway. Sorry about the grave digging... just came across this on google and signed up. Anyway... onto my response. A meat eater would care about the suffering of a prey animal because ... if an animal is suffering, sick, ect it makes for poor quality meat as well as there being more of a risk of food poisoning or gaining illness from said meat. If they are properly taken care of, happy, ect the meat is of a much better quality which makes it healthier. Just the logic of this meat eater... may not be the logic of others though.
I watch my cat cripple a mouse then give it to her kittens to practice hunting on.
A boltgun to the cow's head seems much nicer in comparison.
It does seem like that, but why would you care about suffering for reasons other than your emotions?
Oh I know this is an old thread and this question wasn't directed at me buuuut I would like to reply to it anyway. Sorry about the grave digging... just came across this on google and signed up. Anyway... onto my response. A meat eater would care about the suffering of a prey animal because ... if an animal is suffering, sick, ect it makes for poor quality meat as well as there being more of a risk of food poisoning or gaining illness from said meat. If they are properly taken care of, happy, ect the meat is of a much better quality which makes it healthier. Just the logic of this meat eater... may not be the logic of others though.
If you revive a thread discussing the merits of vegetarianism... are we all still driven to consume braaaaains, or do we have to seek out a tofu substitute?
A meat eater that can easily die if he doesn't find a meal isn't as picky as most humans. They go after the injured, sick, and often the dying/already dead, because the alternative is going hungry. Even among humans, when food isn't readily available we expose ourselves to "less desirable" sources of protein.
I'm a meat eater. I don't want to give up meat. But after giving the subject more and more thought, it seems vegetarianism is a more moral path. I have a few pretty weak moral justifications for eating meat, but they are just that: justifications. I feel eventually I'm going to come to the ultimate conclusion that slaughtering animals for food is immoral, and I'll be at a crossroads: follow my morals at the cost of never eating meat again or live with a tiny bit of guilt (that is less powerful than the benefit of eating meat) every time I eat meat.
So, I pretty much know all of standard vegetarianism-is-moral arguments. Can people provide me with some good meat-eating-is-moral arguments?
By the way, I'm not just looking for additional justifications. I haven't fully concluded meat eating is immoral. I'm just looking for good arguments from all sides before I make up my mind. The advantage is going towards vegetarianism right now, but is being cancelled out by my bias of loving meat.
A few common ones probably already mentioned.
"Why are plants better than animals? Why not starve ourselves alltogether and become fertilizer."
"We evolved as omnivores. You wouldn't ask a wolf to quit eating meat would you?"
"I'm for humane treatment of animals but I'm still gonna eat them."
"Eating smaller amounts of lean meat is healthier than an all vegan diet."
As an omnivore, I eat pretty much anything if it tastes good.
Like others have said, would you call a wolf immoral for eating a deer?
My concern is responsible farming/culling.
I'd even eat dolphin if they were hunted/farmed responsibly. Just like I'm all for logging if we replant new forests, we should ensure the future survival of species we like to eat.
I mean, I LOVE gator jerky. A place here in Oregon makes some amazing gator jerky. If we irresponsibly ate them all though, then I'd never get to have it again.
So there are many "selfish" reasons to be good stewards of the animals we enjoy consuming.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I personally believe that it is wrong to eat any animal with an advanced enough nervous system that they can feel pain. I would eat things like clams, but I keep kosher so I can't. While other animals eat animals all the time, we don't have to. We are sentient. We can make decisions between right and wrong, even if they aren't what nature intended. And I believe that it is wrong to bring pain to other living things. I do not care if other people agree with me, but those are my personal views.
Like others have said, would you call a wolf immoral for eating a deer?
No.
Because eating is not the immoral act, killing is.
Would you call immoral a wolf that kills a human ?
What about a human that kills a human ?
It was said right in the beginning of this thread. Morality != Nature. Otherwise basically anything that exist would be moral, since everything that exist exists in nature.
Like others have said, would you call a wolf immoral for eating a deer?
No.
Because eating is not the immoral act, killing is.
Would you call immoral a wolf that kills a human ?
What about a human that kills a human ?
It was said right in the beginning of this thread. Morality != Nature. Otherwise basically anything that exist would be moral, since everything that exist exists in nature.
Argue first, that killing is indeed immoral. I'll wait.
No, I would not call a wolf immoral for killing a human, he doesn't see Jim, the guy who works at Cosco with two kids and a mortgage. He sees "meat".
A human that kills another human, without context, is no more immoral than anything else. Describe the why and how, or it's an empty statement.
Not all killings are murders, and furthermore, not all murders are immoral.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I personally believe that it is wrong to eat any animal with an advanced enough nervous system that they can feel pain.
Why?
I would eat things like clams, but I keep kosher so I can't.
Wait, what?
You keep kosher and you're talking about it being morally wrong to eat animals? How can you possibly argue this? By the Jewish faith, it's not only morally correct to eat animals, but you are in fact required to.
Chocolate covered are around, but like other candies they died off as a fad. The insect eating portion you're right, though. It really depends on the culture which is expressive to adaptations to the local environment. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, insect farming is more energy conserving than farming other main modern sources of protein.
The insect eating is too often hand waved by animal rights activists. Then again these are the same people that buy lobsters from a local super market and then fly them back to the northeast to release them into the wild. So much for eating grubs by liberals!
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
The aspect of vegetarianism that I most appreciate is that it's an example of moral idealism taking priority over biological drives - of self-control and discipline and moral outrage making a significant impact on a person's life. There aren't enough examples of that in society - pleasure-seeking and the road of least resistance tend to be the norm, not principle and denial or sacrificing for just causes. I think it's transformative, and good for the soul.
But there are a number of reasons that my approval is from afar.
The first is that the brand of vegetarianism that I'm most accustomed to seeing rests upon a very simple source: distaste for violence and killing living beings that we can identify with. For me, that final phrase takes vegetarianism out of the realm of intelligible ethics and into the realm of sentiment.
It's coherent to object to needlessly taking the life of a being on the principle that life is sacred and should be respected. But in most of the vegetarians I meet, the objection isn't founded upon carefully examined principle, but because our culture has acclimated them to associate violence with cruelty and selfishness - and/or acclimated them to regarding most animals as an "us" worthy of protection.
I do not share that tendency to anthropomorphize animals - I think it's a popular conceit that we've taken a step or two beyond logic. We are affectionate to animals - but animals are not as a rule affectionate to us. We may tend to forget this reality in the safety and convenience of our grocery stores, but the state of nature is struggle between species in pursuit of survival. There is nothing more "natural" than for a lion or a tiger or a bear to devour prey in defense of their lives. They bear no sense of duty or obligation to us - and the extension of a duty to animals is a gift, not a covenant, most often founded upon the animals' cuteness quotient rather than an altrustic, unselfish respect for life. We may grant an animal life - but I would not expect them to truly appreciate that in any meaningful sense, or to expect that same charity or humane regard from a hungry carnivore, or even a panicked stampede of herbivores. I have no instinct of sentimentality towards creatures that would readily feast upon my own dead carcass, given the chance. On the whole, I regard the tendency to overly romanticize or humanize the animal kingdom as a popular but strikingly false conceit.
To the extent that the belief is based upon an abhorrence of violence generally, I think it's far more consistent and admirable. But I think abhorrence of violence is far more useful as a general rule, than as an absolute imperative.
An interesting issue that often isn't fully discussed in these debates is the scope of morality - should we/do we have any duty to act morally in relation to animals? Should we observe some limits on behavior to animals regardless? Is the ability to experience pain/plant life a relevant distinction? Is intelligence? Sophistication? Is this an ends justify the means scenario? And of course, there's always the root question on the fundamental nature of morality itself.
You can make the debate a real headache, if you like. If you go that far down the rabbit hole, you're not going to get people to agree on the basic assumptions, and you can construct some pretty decent, pretty solid reasoning at a higher level than that to justify the ethics of it.
As far as my own stance goes, I think it's mentally healthy for individuals to practice treating other beings, even less intelligent ones, with respect. But I don't accept the logic that there ought to be a binding obligation to treat life that can scarcely understand the concept of a "right" as you would a fully intelligent and sentient being.
(1) Seizing all potential living habitat for cows, pigs, sheep, chicken, and all other edible animal species, and making the animals virtually extinct.
(2) Living in a symbiotic relationship with humans where those animal species have habitat set aside for them to live in populations of anywhere from a billionish (cows) to 30 billionish (chickens).
It's an EITHER OR proposition. If Vegetarians have a version where we stop eating chickens, and we give them someplace to LIVE, then I'd love to hear it. If you're a so called "animal rights activist", then you should not only NOT EAT CHICKEN... but you should buy some property for some to live on... or pay somebody to do it. Right now, my dollars spent on meat go towards room and board for domesticated animals.
Meanwhile vegetarians say "let them eat air, drink cloud moisture and live in over the rainbow".
If we stop eating cow tomorrow, children of 2050 will only know most cow species from old youtube videos.
Quit trolling me.
Yes, quantifying intelligence precisely is probably a problem. Determining that average cows are measurably dumber than average humans? Not exactly a startling scientific proposition, I'm sure you'd agree.
It may be difficult to pin down exact numbers, but if you can find a cow that can beat you at Chess, color me impressed.
There are differences. They are perceptible. Based on those differences, it's possible to find logical reasons (for good or ill) to considers animals as not being entitled to moral rights. (Though we may choose to grant them some level of regard, despite that.)
Historical bias, hmm?
That may be, but I'm having trouble seeing how that bias affects the proposition that cows are perceptibly less intelligent than humankind. If you're suggesting folks are inclined to view as tasty and come up with reasons to justify eating a juicy steak, then sure, I agree with that point, as far as it goes. But that doesn't quite win the argument, does it?
Sir, I think the social and ethnic groups that you just compared to livestock may wish to have a quiet word with you outside...
I collect Knowledge Pools!
I'd like to take a moment to address some of the environmental factors.
Greenhouse gas Emissions: The article estimates that "livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport". There are two issues with that statement. The first is that the comparison is taking every aspect of the livestock industry, from transportation of corn and cattle, farming practices, and cattle processing, and compares that to on the road vehicles. So already the comparison is misleading since it doesn't take into consideration the mining or processing involved in the automotive industry. The second issue is that this reflects the global cattle industry. The United States has strong regulations and one of the most efficient practices in the world. Output of CO2 from the US livestock industry is estimated to maybe 3%. If Greenhouse Gas is your big concern then you are better off advocating the purchase of American Beef.
Loss of Biodiversity: Moderate stocking rates of cattle have been shown to increase biodiversity and decrease the presence of invasive species. Stocking strategies have included creating mosaics of vegetation on the landscape and even targeted grazing on invasive species. Organizations like the Nature Conservancy have seen the benefits of grazing as a tool to maintain and increase biodiversity and have even used it to earn a little extra money to help maintain the natural community.
Land Degradation: During the late 1800's and early 1900's the plan was to maximize stocking rates as much as possible. This resulted in huge problems that heavily degraded the land. Since then there has been a major shift in strategy on our rangeland to accommodate multiple use and sound environmental practices. These include moderate stocking rates with stricter adherence to best available science. People are much more aware of what is needed to maintain healthy rangeland and work hard to maintain it that way since their livelihood relies on it.
Deforestation: The vast majority of rangeland in the united states exists in Arid and Semi-arid ecosystems that are devoid of trees. There were practices of removing shrubs and replacing them with crested wheatgrass, but that ended in the early 70's. There is a massive effort to reduce quantities of juniper woodlands, but they have expanded dramatically from historical norms since the early 1900's at great cost to economic and health factors. In short there is no "clearing the land for cattle" in the United States.
In many ways the environmental reasons for becoming a vegetarian or vegan are riddled in missinformation if not completely false. The attack on ranching in america by some environmental groups have caused much more environmental harm than anything productive. Degrading landscapes, putting people out of business, and increasing the transition of landscapes to condos. If you want to protect the environment then buy American Beef.
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
during winter plants are alot harder to come by then meats
im sure indians had to figure out ways to survive winter
they probly seen the bears eatting fish alot right befor winter
so they probly mimic'd the bears
since indians learned alot from watching nature they probly watched how the animals foraged for whatever was there
as far as why humans have to cook are meat unlike other animals.. well we dont technicaly have to
but long ago im sure humans realized salting or sun drying "cooking" there food kept it longer and made it taste good.. and the whole killing germs thing.. but that was just a unexpected good side effect of that
sig by Sioux
Sir, I'm not throwing science at you because you're not, in fact, arguing science. You're arguing subjectivism. If I brought you studies saying that cows are dumb as bricks, you'd argue that it doesn't demonstrate to your satisfaction that they're significantly more dumb than humans, or that they're dumb in the meaningful ways.
There's nothing logically inconsistent with your drawing the intelligence line in the sand where you're drawing it, but for myself, its not a persuasive idea to apply human morality to creatures that can't even understand it.
*Delicately pops balloon with a needle*
This really is not an area where you can claim the scientific or methodological high ground and sit upon a hill. Pointing out that cows have brains the size of a grapefruit and wits to match does not mean that you should consider your debate partner a "common-sense" (with air quotes) philistine.
As for the importance of "types" of intelligence, I rather doubt you'll find remarkable intelligence of any type in creatures whose most difficult daily intellectual tasks are digging worms out of the ground, producing manure, and finding greener pastures.
*smiles* You really are in love with appropriate methodology, aren't you?
Nothing wrong with that - its just you're applying that argument even where it doesn't seem quite on point to what your debate partner's saying. Seems like something you probably lean on quite a bit.
Let me know when the cows would like to lodge a similar objection.
Not a false dilemma - just a base-level assumption for me, for the reasons I've explained. Feel free to decide differently based on an arbitrary root assumption of your own.
Not true. Properly maintained rangeland have increased in production rather than decreased in production. Yields are lower than what was tried in the early 1900's, but it is sustainable and you'd be hard pressed to find any rancher that isn't employing some strategy for landscape sustainability. This isn't new science, ranchers have been adjusting for nearly 50 years and our beef production is still the best in the world.
This is not a problem. Lower yields for a more sustainable landscape means moderate stocking rates. Well actually there's a slew of strategies that include seasonality of grazing, high stocking high rotation, low stocking low rotation, placement of saltlick, and type of forage available. My point is that this transition has already happened for the betterment of the ranching industry in America.
You see the problem with the environmental argument is that the majority of issues cited as problems were rampant in the late 1800's early 1900's, but are not practiced today. Degraded landscapes put people out of business and took decades to recover. But we've been there, done that, and now know better. Yields are lower than before, but they are still very profitable.
Practically none of the current rangeland was forest two centuries ago. The majority of land used is in arid and semi-arid ecosystems. We're talking about grasslands and shrublands that only had trees isolated in rocky outcropings or in sheltered riparian areas. Today there are actually more trees on rangeland now than there ever has been in the past 10,000 years, Which is actually a problem.
You do realize that you'd be hard pressed to find any nation that has more national parks, national wildlife refuge, and wilderness status landscapes than the US. Even the National Forest and Bureau of Land Management strategies have changed from the economic thoughts of the early 1900's to multiple use practices, prioritizing wildlife. We also have strict clean air and water acts and the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) that regulate environmental issues. These were all driven by the environmental movement.
Environmental groups have decimated the logging industry in the North Western United States, forced hundreds of people out of work, and cost the US government tens of millions of dollars every year through litigation. Government agencies can't dig a hole without having to put together an environmental impact statement and risk getting sued by one of those environmental groups.
With regard to ranching. There are environmental groups such as the "western watersheds" who's goal is to completely remove cattle from all public lands in the US. They use the Endangered Species Act as a tool, basically claiming that cattle harm the endangered species and suing the government to stop the practice. The problem is that there'd be no science to suggest that cattle harm the endangered species, but it is on the rancher to prove otherwise and until scientific inquiry states otherwise the ranchers will have to pull their cattle. When someone goes out to try to study cattle impacts on the endangered species the western watersheds'll sue to stop the research because as long as no research exists they can claim whatever they want and tie things up in court. Western Watersheds are currently using this strategy with the slickspot peppergrass in southern Idaho, but if that fails they can always use the pygmy rabbit and sage grouse.
I do have to say that not all environmental groups should be lumped together like this. There are some that are very respectable, like the Nature Conservancy.
For my heart had not denied me and I have somewhere to go.
I shall never be a prisoner of steel and glass and stone.
If I leave, I will return again to my Rocky Mountain home.
Moderator Helpdesk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_rebels
Sage Brush Rebellions:
It's an important piece of the American argument, and this goes in even before the logging trade issues between the States and Canada through supposed dumping by the Canadians. Japan equally has been able to regrow their forests by buying North American timber.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Guaco
A boltgun to the cow's head seems much nicer in comparison.
DCI Rules Advisor
:symg::symw::symb: Junk Rites
Trades
It does seem like that, but why would you care about suffering for reasons other than your emotions?
Oh I know this is an old thread and this question wasn't directed at me buuuut I would like to reply to it anyway. Sorry about the grave digging... just came across this on google and signed up. Anyway... onto my response. A meat eater would care about the suffering of a prey animal because ... if an animal is suffering, sick, ect it makes for poor quality meat as well as there being more of a risk of food poisoning or gaining illness from said meat. If they are properly taken care of, happy, ect the meat is of a much better quality which makes it healthier. Just the logic of this meat eater... may not be the logic of others though.
If you revive a thread discussing the merits of vegetarianism... are we all still driven to consume braaaaains, or do we have to seek out a tofu substitute?
A meat eater that can easily die if he doesn't find a meal isn't as picky as most humans. They go after the injured, sick, and often the dying/already dead, because the alternative is going hungry. Even among humans, when food isn't readily available we expose ourselves to "less desirable" sources of protein.
A few common ones probably already mentioned.
"Why are plants better than animals? Why not starve ourselves alltogether and become fertilizer."
"We evolved as omnivores. You wouldn't ask a wolf to quit eating meat would you?"
"I'm for humane treatment of animals but I'm still gonna eat them."
"Eating smaller amounts of lean meat is healthier than an all vegan diet."
Like others have said, would you call a wolf immoral for eating a deer?
My concern is responsible farming/culling.
I'd even eat dolphin if they were hunted/farmed responsibly. Just like I'm all for logging if we replant new forests, we should ensure the future survival of species we like to eat.
I mean, I LOVE gator jerky. A place here in Oregon makes some amazing gator jerky. If we irresponsibly ate them all though, then I'd never get to have it again.
So there are many "selfish" reasons to be good stewards of the animals we enjoy consuming.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
No.
Because eating is not the immoral act, killing is.
Would you call immoral a wolf that kills a human ?
What about a human that kills a human ?
It was said right in the beginning of this thread. Morality != Nature. Otherwise basically anything that exist would be moral, since everything that exist exists in nature.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Argue first, that killing is indeed immoral. I'll wait.
No, I would not call a wolf immoral for killing a human, he doesn't see Jim, the guy who works at Cosco with two kids and a mortgage. He sees "meat".
A human that kills another human, without context, is no more immoral than anything else. Describe the why and how, or it's an empty statement.
Not all killings are murders, and furthermore, not all murders are immoral.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Why?
Wait, what?
You keep kosher and you're talking about it being morally wrong to eat animals? How can you possibly argue this? By the Jewish faith, it's not only morally correct to eat animals, but you are in fact required to.
Inherent problem with this arguement is that new studies are showing plants can feel pain...
So now what can you eat?
Evverything alive consumes something else that is or was alive
Grammar is the difference between knowing your ****, and knowing you're ****.
It doesn't say that plants can feel pain. It says that they can remember events. Pain and memory are not the same thing.
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.