Vegetarianism.

[curiousmind]

ok curious you quoted two separate people..lol.. because i didn't type the first one.

The first quote was of Aught3, it says so on my original post now- I couldn't figure out how to write who I was quoting, I probably figured it out while you were writing.

But OK... The ability to drive cars or write poetry has never been a driving force for evolution.
Admittedly, I was wrong, and the ability to make medicine has been, and still is. Maybe aggression (and thus nuclear war) were evolved into us as well.

I'll try wording this differently.
Ability to eat meat was something we evolved to be able to do. However, just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Ultimately the decision has to be made on an individual moral basis.


With regard to the starving children in Africa. Whether or not I eat a steak is irrelevant to them.
I can eat meat (and feel grateful) or eat vegetables (and feel grateful). To put it bluntly, I'm not vegetarian (for now) for them, I'm doing it for the animals.

 

[TheExylos]

and I can understand that, but you asked someone to play devils advocate personally i don't care what you eat....lol.. If you are vegitarian, ill be full carnivore and there will be more for both of us of our food of choice..lol

 

[Durakken]

There are 2 reasons that I find acceptable for vegetarianism... all others are the products of idiots

#1. It is slightly healthier than the largely all meat diet a lot of us partake in... but to argue that then you should be eating more like the chinese/japanese eat which is not vegetarianism, but just a higher % of plants

#2. Sustainability argument that Fact vs Religion made a while ago which makes a lot of sense.



Cruelty and killing are both flawed arguments, by a lot.

 

[Nogre]

Cruelty and killing are both flawed arguments, by a lot.

Why? Specifically about the cruelty part.

 

[Durakken]

Cruelty and killing are both flawed arguments, by a lot.

Why? Specifically about the cruelty part.

being killed is cruel in and of itself. Eating a plant is just as cruel as eating an animal...

 

[Aught3]

While I agree with you on some points i would like to bring up one, Desperately not trying to turn this into a circle discussion, you know the kind where we keep going back and forth and really solving nothing.

That's alright I enjoy this sort of thing.

As to your wife's childhood I can certainly agree that iron deficiency is a general problem for vegetarians, especially for young women. You do have to be careful if you want to get enough iron in your diet through non-animal sources. Other options are the fortified cereals that are becoming common in supermarkets. However, the B12 deficiency tells me that these vegans didn't really know what they were doing. It's incredibly easy to get enough B12 in your diet to remain healthy but the sources are a bit unconventional On the whole though I would agree that if someone had a dietary requirement to include some sort of meat for health reasons eating it would not pose an ethical problem. But would you agree that most people eat much more meat than is necessary for a healthy diet?

The other point I wanted to respond to was about our evolutionary path to drive cars and make medicine but not to be vegetarian. Surely you would agree that our minds are the result of evolution. This would include our sense of empathy and our capacity to reason - both of which can be brought to bear on the question of vegetarianism. Using contraception is a good example of us using our minds to overcome more primitive instincts left over from our evolutionary past.



Now I owe an answer to Curious on the question of killing animals. One of the reasons I separate humans from other animals is our capacity to appreciate the future. Killing me deprives me of the future which I could imagine and I think it is wrong to do so. However, I do not grant the same protection to animals (or plants :lol: ) because I see no reason to assume that they have the same cognitive capacity as us. Therefore, when we kill them we don't deprive them of anything and it is not morally wrong to do so. I don't know if you've ever read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy but in it there is a particular creature who has been bred to be aware of it's own death for the purposes of consumption and to relish in that future. I think most people would find that situation abhorrent because we know we are depriving that animal of its future. Suffering and pain, on the other hand, is something all animals can appreciate so I think we need to take that into consideration when making our decision about what to eat.

 

[curiousmind]

and I can understand that, but you asked someone to play devils advocate personally i don't care what you eat....lol.. If you are vegitarian, ill be full carnivore and there will be more for both of us of our food of choice..lol

Much appreciated, but I really enjoy discussions like this... I've changed opinion several times today.

One of the reasons I separate humans from other animals is our capacity to appreciate the future. Killing me deprives me of the future which I could imagine and I think it is wrong to do so. However, I do not grant the same protection to animals (or plants) because I see no reason to assume that they have the same cognitive capacity as us. Therefore, when we kill them we don't deprive them of anything and it is not morally wrong to do so.

That makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, couldn't you imagine the potential future an animal could have? And with such knowledge of their potential for further life, why shouldn't the concept of killing them become as abhorrent again, even if the animals themselves were unaware of it?

Actually, come to think about it, that argument may well be almost identical to simply claiming to have a moral inclination against killing...

 

[Aught3]

That makes a lot of sense, but on the other hand, couldn't you imagine the potential future an animal could have? And with such knowledge of their potential for further life, why shouldn't the concept of killing them become as abhorrent again, even if the animals themselves were unaware of it?

In the same way that a plant or even a rock has a future but is unaware of it? It's not just that I can imagine a potential future but whether I can believe that the animal itself can contemplate that future. For another human it is easy, all I have to assume is that their brain works the same way as mine does. For any other animal it is based on the capacity of their brain for complex thought process. Something like chimpanzees I would accept can think about their future, something like chickens - almost certainly not.

 

[xman]

It's not necessarily happiness, but preventing suffering that's the main utilitarian argument for vegetarianism

So I guess we're dismissing the fact that humans have intestinal tracts which are designed for vegetable and not animal consumption as non-utilitarian.

I would say no, there isn't another argument for vegetarianism.

Except for the one I just gave of course.

 

[Aught3]

So I guess we're dismissing the fact that humans have intestinal tracts which are designed for vegetable and not animal consumption as non-utilitarian.

I was my understanding that the human GI tract was midway between that of a carnivore and that of a herbivore. Also we have both cutting/tearing teeth and grinding molars to deal with both types of food.

 

[xman]

So I guess we're dismissing the fact that humans have intestinal tracts which are designed for vegetable and not animal consumption as non-utilitarian.

I was my understanding that the human GI tract was midway between that of a carnivore and that of a herbivore. Also we have both cutting/tearing teeth and grinding molars to deal with both types of food.

Well there might be some argument fro the fact that we can extract nutrients from meat, but the length of the intestine is certainly herbivorous. Horses also have cutting/tearing teeth, but they eat no meat of course. The canines of course are used for male dominance competition and ours are generally much smaller than our great ape cousins.

 

[Aught3]

Hmm on a quick browse around it appears that opinion is divided. Not that I think it matters too much, what we did do in the past isn't the best justification for what we should do in the future.

 

[xman]

You see, I am not arguing for what we should do from a moral standpoint. The arguments already propounded are sound IMO. I am looking at it from a technical point of order. We are designed to eat a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes and nuts. We have adapted to our nature and surroundings to be able to sustain ourselves on animal products as well, but it is certainly less natural for us to do so.

 

[TheExylos]

As to your wife's childhood I can certainly agree that iron deficiency is a general problem for vegetarians, especially for young women. You do have to be careful if you want to get enough iron in your diet through non-animal sources. Other options are the fortified cereals that are becoming common in supermarkets. However, the B12 deficiency tells me that these vegans didn't really know what they were doing. It's incredibly easy to get enough B12 in your diet to remain healthy but the sources are a bit unconventional On the whole though I would agree that if someone had a dietary requirement to include some sort of meat for health reasons eating it would not pose an ethical problem. But would you agree that most people eat much more meat than is necessary for a healthy diet?

The problem with my wife is that Vegetables are slower to digest, i thinks thats the best way to put it and we are talking about ten years ago.


The other point I wanted to respond to was about our evolutionary path to drive cars and make medicine but not to be vegetarian. Surely you would agree that our minds are the result of evolution. This would include our sense of empathy and our capacity to reason - both of which can be brought to bear on the question of vegetarianism. Using contraception is a good example of us using our minds to overcome more primitive instincts left over from our evolutionary past.

And this I definitely agree with hence why i said it, But i also do understand that the things we feel empathy for is different in the each person. For instance as i said with me I grew up in a Pagen, american Indian family, so i feel empathy for the animal, while at the same time, I believe it is showing the respect for the animals life and death to eat it. I can understand why you would feel differently, but that is what makes human so much fun we are all different with different beliefs. For instance if we didn't have the fundies of the world who would we complain about? Then what fun would we have?



Xman umm i was taught in my medical training under the heading of vitamins, and foods we are Omnivores, the animal that closest to us is the pig, our teeth are more like that of a pig than any other animal as our stomachs and Digestive tracks are closest to pigs, which is a Omnivore.

Hopefully i got this in prior to you answering:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

This website explains how we are omnivores and the confusion for the myth that we are naturally vegetarian.

 

[garytheagnostic]

From what I have gathered from the previous posts (granted I just skimmed) is that most of the repliers do not hunt or fish their own protein. Urban lifestyles interfere with availability to do such but, it is no reason to deny yourself of vital sustenance. I do buy store bought meat quite often but, most of my meat is salmon that I have caught, and on occasion deer or elk I've hunted.
I strongly disapprove of vegetarianism in a developing body and/or mother carrying fetus. Why? Well first off the protein argument has been debunked. Yes you can get all the protein and amino acids the human body needs from flora. However, the quantities and varieties needed to do such are vastly disproportional. The B12 argument is still in debate so I won't use that. Fatty acids and lipids are one supplement that is needed for proper brain development. The reason us humans have such large brains is because of our omnivorous lineage. It is true that we could ALL become vegetarian and survive a happy existence, but, within a few generations we will have taken a step back evolutionarily.

In some parts of the world people are so hungry they would gladly kill another human for half of a cow. Discarding the human to rot as they feed the cow to their family. Here's where the moral dilemma falls into play. Would it not be more efficient to eat both the dead human and half the cow? Middle class and above lifestyles want to save the poor cute baby animals regardless of the demands of others. Life sucks for all life except for a few privileged homo sapiens. Most animals live a high stressed life with not enough to eat only to die from weather, starvation, disease, and predators. In all reality, animals bred for food live a more comforting lifestyle than they would in the wild, however short lived it may be. In fact most livestock has been bred to the point they could not survive otherwise.

Look at Greenland for example. Their primary food source is walrus and seal. Vegetables are a delicacy and seldom available. When they do get veges semi annually they are withered and pithy. Nothing like that succulent bunch of grapes you can find year round here in the States.

If people would pull their head out of their asses, they would realize Soylent Green is a viable option. First off there are almost too many to support, and we can breed like rabbits. "Oh look at the cute baby, I can't eat that". Grow a set people, life is rough. It's called natural selection for a reason.
A little off topic there

 

[Aught3]

Somehow I can't see cannibalism catching on as a viable alternative.

 

[garytheagnostic]

Somehow I can't see cannibalism catching on as a viable alternative.

You are fully correct. It will never catch on as an alternative. Yet it would be a viable and sustainable alternative.

 

[UltimateBlasphemer]

Somehow I can't see cannibalism catching on as a viable alternative.

You are fully correct. It will never catch on as an alternative. Yet it would be a viable and sustainable alternative.

 

[Andiferous]

The problem with my wife is that Vegetables are slower to digest, i thinks thats the best way to put it and we are talking about ten years ago.

Even so, it is difficult to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet, and people (like myself) who are not adventurous cooks tend to do very badly at acheiving that balance. It's probably safer to give children a non-vegetarian diet until they are old enough and are informed enough to make the decision for themselves.

I'm not suggesting being a vegetarian is a bad idea. I have personal issues with killing animals and am on a largely vegetarian diet myself.

• Children are vulnerable to malnutrition where there is ignorance in the vegetarian diet;
• A nutritionally sound vegetarian diet requires commitment and a great deal of food preparation, in an age when people are are lazy cooks and tend to eat out of a box;
• We're becoming more and more aware of food allergies (such as to gluten, milk) which further offset nutritional balance when trying to follow a vegetarian diet;
• I've read that horses have evolved with humankind, and there are theories that without their domestication they might have gone extinct centuries ago. Could the same be said for cows? I can't think of many places there are wild cows. If the world went vegetarian, I'm not sure what would happen to cows, seriously.
• As already pointed out, we're omnivores with generalised teeth.

On the other hand:

Even though we are omnivores, we don't eat raw meat. Cooking meat has evolved along with our diet. We cook meat for both sanitary reasons and to aid in digestion, and were we true carnivores in any sense, we shouldn't have to do this.

Even though I consider fish to be meat, a person could easily achieve a balance eating fish (as opposed to land animals) in their diet. If they can stomach them. I can't!

There is a potential for terrible cruelty involved in raising animals for slaughter. When taking this perspective, it's only reasonable to also look at the conditions from which milk and eggs are produced (which can be equally cruel).

 

[xman]

Xman umm i was taught in my medical training under the heading of vitamins, and foods we are Omnivores, the animal that closest to us is the pig, our teeth are more like that of a pig than any other animal as our stomachs and Digestive tracks are closest to pigs, which is a Omnivore.

Hopefully i got this in prior to you answering:
http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

This website explains how we are omnivores and the confusion for the myth that we are naturally vegetarian.

tyvm. I will explore this information at my earliest convenience.