Vegetarianism

[Ambitions]

Because meat tastes good? I'd never go total vegetarian but I used to eat meat every day and now I eat it like 3-4 times a week.

So do you condone the act of cannibalism? I mean, they just do it cuz it tastes good to them right?

About B12.


"Microorganisms, primarily bacteria, are the only known organisms that manufacture B12. These bacteria often live in bodies of water and soil. Animals get B12 by eating food and soil contaminated with these microorganisms." Read more here...

So B12 is created by microorganisms, and is (ideally) to be found in water and soil. It is also produced by bacteria in our intestines (Herbert V. Vitamin B12: Plant sources, requirements, and assay. Am J Clin Nutr 1988; 48: 852-858.). From PubMed: : "...the human small intestine also often harbours a considerable microflora and this is even more extensive in apparently healthy southern Indian subjects. We now show that at least two groups of organisms in the small bowel, Pseudomonas and Klebsiella sp., may synthesise significant amounts of the vitamin." B12 is also partially recycled in out bodies. Some people insists that in the ideal vegan world we could keep recycling the B12 we got from our mothers milk as babies, but almost everybody agree that we need a B12 intake - from an external source.

One very interesting article I've seen on B12 is this one: http://www.championtrees.org/topsoil/b12coblt.htm . Here's a quote from it:

"B12 is the only vitamin synthesized solely by certain microorganisms - many of which are abundant in soil. And the only vitamin containing a trace element: cobalt. B12 owes its chemical name 'cobalamin' to the cobalt at the center of its molecular structure. Humans and all vertebrates require cobalt, though it's assimilated only in the form of B12.

Cobalt is important in the plant world. Bacteria on root nodules of legumes (beans, alfalfa, clover) require cobalt (and other trace elements) to synthesize B12 and fix nitrogen from air. Soybeans grown without cobalt are severely retarded in growth and exhibit severe nitrogen deficiency, leading to death in about one of four plants. Adding only a few ounces of cobalt per acre can resolve deficiency symptoms in ten to 21 days.

Cobalt deficiency is far more dramatic in animals, particularly ruminants (cattle, deer, camels, and sheep) grazing on deficient pasture. These animals obtain all their B12 from their gut bacteria, but only if bacteria are provided cobalt salts from pasture. Legumes with less than 80 parts per billion (ppb) cobalt can't meet ruminant B12 needs. Under deficient conditions, calves and lambs thrive and grow normally for a few months as they draw on B12 reserves in liver and other tissue, but soon exhibit gradual loss of appetite and failure to grow, followed by anemia, rapid weight loss and finally death. Marginally deficient pastures cause birth of weak lambs and calves that don't survive long. These symptoms mirror B12 deficiency in human infants.

To prevent or alleviate cobalt-B12 deficiency, farmers routinely add cobalt to animal feeds or salt licks. Some fertilize pastures with cobalt-enriched fertilizers; others opt for periodic quick-fix B12 injections. With any of these measures, all symptoms are reversed and B12 in milk and colostrum dramatically increases.

The implication for humans subsisting on vegetarian diets are profound. B12 synthesis by indigenous bacteria is known to occur naturally in the human small intestine, primary site of B12 absorption. As long as gut bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce B12. In principle then, internal B12 synthesis could fulfill our needs without any B12 provided by diet.

But if cobalt in our diet is on the wane, perhaps the problem isn't so much lack of B12-synthesizing intestinal flora as lack of cobalt, the element with which bacteria weave their magic. The burning question then is: how cobalt deficient is our soil?"

Animals and plants require cobalt in order to synthesize / produce B12. (B12 is called cobalamin because of the cobalt atom in it's center). In reply to "where does the bacteria come from", one could maybe reply "from cobalt", but this isn't totally 100% correct. It comes from a combination of microorganisms and cobalt. B12 can sometimes be found on the surface of plants, and commercial B12 production is partly based on growing B12 on the surface of molasses. Animals need cobalt from the soil in order not to develop B12 deficiency, but where does cobalt come from?

Studies show that ie. spinach grown in maneured soil contains 17.8 mcg B12/kg (dry weight), but since spinach grown in unmaneured soil also contains B12 (6.9mcg), we can't really say that the B12 come from cow dung only.

Maybe soil and water always contains minute traces of humans, insects and animals? That might be, but it wouldn't worry me much: if drinking water from a mountain stream contain microscopic amounts of animal products, so be it. Nature is a giant recycle bin, and there's not much we can do about it. Microorganisms / bacteria is part of nature. B12 is not only to be found in water and soil, but also in grass, on dust and in bark!

To answer the question 'where does micro-organisms come from is a bit tricky - it's a little bit like 'If God created the Earth, who created God?"...

What we know, is that cobalt is the key to B12 synthesis, and cobalt isn't an animal, it doesn't have parents, no eyes, and for sure it doesn't try to run away when someone tries to eat it."

 

[cookie]

Even though the bacteria are in the small intestine from what I've read in several sources they occur too far along the intestine to be relied upon.

 

[Mitsuy]

The bacteria should die after you roast the meat.

 

[Kingdrom]

I'd like to point out that while meat is a very easy source of protein and nutrients, most people overdo it. Ambition's statistics assume that meat eaters are a bunch of fat middle age people, and while that is often true, it is an unfair stereotype.

The quality of the meat also affects whether you should eat it or not. Fast food like Mickey D's and Burger King should not even be considered as sources of nutrition from meat. Lean meats like chicken are important sources of nutrients, no one can deny that. Eating meat also allows a varied diet that doesn't have the blandness of a 4 fruit/5 vegetable/6 whole grains/spoon of fish oil with fucking omega 3's.

On the other hand, why are people vegetarians? Many of them are at least partially health-motivated, as in their doctors or someone else prescribe a no-meat diet. Thus, vegetarians will be more conscious of what they eat.

I think that meat is beneficial in small amounts but is given a bad name by the losers who go to the local drive-thru daily and create a huge demand for poorly-made meat.

 

[Ambitions]

Ambition's statistics assume that meat eaters are a bunch of fat middle age people, and while that is often true, it is an unfair stereotype.

It's not a stereotype of meat eaters, its a stereotype of Americans haha.

While Organic chicken may have critical vitamins in it, there are healthier ways to get those vitamins, especially protein.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

I noticed a few people earlier talking about chemicals, and I have some bad news for you. Everything you eat is 100% chemicals, and nothing done to it while it is being grown can change that. In fact, everything you've ever seen or known in your entire life is nothing but chemicals, including yourself. Being worried about "chemicals" in food is pretty much nonsense; one of the main reasons we eat at all is to acquire the proper chemicals our body needs. In order to consider chemicals added to food bad, you have to understand what those specific chemicals do. If you don't have data about it, there's no more basis to assume it is unhealthy than to assume it is healthy.

On that note, all meat is organic. Last I checked, it's all carbon compounds. On another note, I know humans are animals but for the sake of saving words, this post will use the word "animals" to refer to non-human animals. We're so far above them that I think it's justified.

I don't think the average moral argument for vegetarianism holds much merit. They most focus on the suffering of animals which, as horrible as I'm sure it sounds, is pretty trivial. We're already agreeing that the animal is going to die. This is a million times more bad for the animal than any degree of suffering you could inflict upon it; you can pretty much ignore the suffering. If you disagree, consider yourself offered a choice. You can either be brutally tortured (but allowed to leave afterward) or painlessly killed. What would you choose? Would any reasonable person actually choose death?

Really, the only significant harm on the animal is killing it, but consider just how these animals are. The average farm animal is a stupid, worthless creature that only exists because humans care for it. Released into the wild, none of them would last long as their instincts to deal with predators, etc. have long disappeared. If we're not going to eat them, we have no reason to care for them so they'd all die anyway. In the long run we're causing more death by allowing them to breed, but to call that bad is to suggest that allowing inferior creatures to reproduce is unethical which isn't a sound position. I'm also not so sure that killing them is bad even in the abstract. Wild animals kill each other all the time; killing and being killed is what animals do anyway. They're clearly radically inferior to us on pretty much every level anyway; I really don't think they are worth our effort to protect.

As per health concerns, I think that's a bad argument for universal vegetarianism. Over time by seeing how different everyone's diets are, I've concluded that universal statements about healthy diets are usually wrong. For instance, I have a really fast metabolism. It's good for me to eat a lot more than it is for those with slower metabolisms. I have a friend who is high risk for diabetes. It's good for him to eat a lot more meat than it is for me. Even if you look at how our taste buds work, you see that it's nearly impossible to find two people who think all the same things taste good (which is our body's way of suggesting to us what to eat). I find most nuts so disgusting that I literally cannot eat them, and I'm sure plenty of people feel the same way about soy. Clearly some people are going to do better without meat, but I think it's a pretty personal matter as per whether meat is a healthy choice or not.

That was way too long, but that's my long justification for not being a vegetarian and for eating "factory" meat.

 

[gsumbreon]

@ Amazing Ampharos:

By "organic" you are assuming that it occurs naturally. "Organic" in the food industry means that the animals are not injected with any hormones, fed properly (which in most cases is their natural diet; most meat industry animals are not fed what they would eat normally, resulting in unhealthy fats that are produced by the animal), and not genetically modified.

I love meat; I couldn't live without it. But I try to avoid non-organic foods in general, mostly because I have food sensitivities, and the shit passed off as food in the industry today makes me physically ill.

 

[Big Bayou]

On the "natural evolution" argument for factory farming...

Yes, it's possible to view the increasing industrialization of the meat industry as the natural evolution of predation, but...

1. If the purpose of eating meat is to gain nutrients so that our bodies remain healthy,
2. and factory farming produces less healthful meat than "organically grown" establishments (proven)

...then wouldn't this trend towards industrialization essentially be devolution? Sure, you're producing more meat to feed more people, but then why fault someone for trying to feed themselves better food if they can afford to do so?

Even if you look at how our taste buds work, you see that it's nearly impossible to find two people who think all the same things taste good (which is our body's way of suggesting to us what to eat).

Just as a sidebar, taste is not really correlated to healthfulness. Clearly young children are not being led by subconscious nutritional needs when they guzzle down antifreeze (which is supposedly pretty tasty).

 

[Brain]

The debate over whether one should be vegetarian/vegan is the debate on whether or not you think we are headed in a sustainable direction.

The meat industry produces more CO2 than any other and is the number one cause for deforestation. It cripples the lungs of our earth. It uses 2/3rds of our worlds fresh water supply.

After going out and doing research on my own, getting numbers and proven facts from both sides of the spectrum, I do not understand why any rational educated human being would not accept a vegetarian or vegan diet.

Because those arguments are against the meat industry (a recent development), not against eating meat (a not so recent development). A rational person cannot use those numbers to justify going vegan. They can only use them to justify eating less meat or getting it from alternate sources, such as wild animals. It's like complaining that because all land is used to grow corn then nobody should eat corn anymore.

I don't think the average moral argument for vegetarianism holds much merit. They most focus on the suffering of animals which, as horrible as I'm sure it sounds, is pretty trivial. We're already agreeing that the animal is going to die. This is a million times more bad for the animal than any degree of suffering you could inflict upon it; you can pretty much ignore the suffering. If you disagree, consider yourself offered a choice. You can either be brutally tortured (but allowed to leave afterward) or painlessly killed. What would you choose? Would any reasonable person actually choose death?

The animals suffer _and_ they die. But anyway, the only reason you do not choose death is that you have hope (perhaps irrational) that you will be fine after the torture. Remove that hope, convince someone that they'll be tortured forever and he'll probably pick death. Death is a lot preferable to a life of torture. For a rational agent, to keep on living despite torture is a gamble that his life will take a turn for the better. Prove to him that the rest of his life will be torture and they will choose death without exception. That's why some people commit suicide.

How you could possibly think that the suffering can be ignored is beyond me.

They're clearly radically inferior to us on pretty much every level anyway; I really don't think they are worth our effort to protect.

There exists no objective criterion of "superiority" or "inferiority". To say that we are superior because we are more intelligent is completely arbitrary and neglects a whole array of things that animals are better at. Let's get this clear: we are only superior to other species on the criteria that matter to us. Bacteria don't give two shits about it and neither does the bear that is going to maul you the next time you stray off the beaten path.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Well, if we view the world as a set of winners and losers, humanity pretty clearly won. It's completely up to our whims whether these animals live or die; no matter how you look at it we have nearly absolute power over everything else. I really don't want to subscribe to a "might makes right" model, but obviously we're doing something right that nothing else is even close to achieving. The other animals can't even build off their own history; even if a brilliant cow were born, cattle would gain nothing from its accomplishments. I don't think we are even really worse than the other animals at anything if you consider that we can just build a tool to make us do it better. The bear is stronger? He's not if I have a gun. The bacteria's multiplications let them adapt better? Climate control and worldwide transport of goods let us live on every inch of this planet if we desire which the bacteria certainly cannot do. If you don't allow for obscure situations like a guy being lost in the woods, I don't see anything that animals can do better than us since they mostly just go off instinct to find whatever solution works (if they find one at all) while we can analyze the situation discover why things happen as they do and create and optimum solution. Then we will never have to solve that particular problem again as we effectively share information with one another, and we can even build off that to solve other similar problems by referencing the work that solved the original problem. No the bear and the bacteria don't care, but that's only because they're too stupid to care. If we want to be better than any other animal at anything, we have the ability to build something that will let us do it better. I'd say that makes us superior on every parameter and thus easily able to claim objective superiority without even defining criteria.

As per the suffering, I'm saying it's insignificant in comparison. I wouldn't say it's a good thing, but complaining about animals being in pain before they die sounds to me like complaining that the thief tracked mud into the house when he stole your expensive television. Sure, tracking the mud was bad, but is it even rational to worry about that in the face of the far bigger problem?

I disagree that a life of torture is worse than death, but I was trying to look at being tortured and being killed as two isolated instances in which I think it's clear that one is incomparably worse than the other. The animals are going to die anyway; we're probably making their lives better than they would be if we just released them into a forest (certainly far longer in any case; defining what makes life better or worse for an animal isn't easy). Even if we're adding just a little bit more to how much life sucks for these animals, I don't think it's that big of a deal just on the basis that what's inevitably going to suck for them is far worse than what we're doing to them anyway.

About organic, what does "natural diet" even mean? I hope no one has any false ideas about these animals; they can't survive in "nature" except insofar as they are under human care. They're so bad at protecting themselves that 2-3 wolves could easily decimate any pack of farm animals. The only state they can exist in in nature is under human care so isn't their natural diet whatever we feed them? Likewise, every farm animal that has existed for quite a long time has been "genetically modified" insofar as farmers selectively bred their animals as long as farmers have kept animals. Over time, any genes they might have had that made them adept at being much of anything other than dinner died out, but that does mean they are in fact really good as a food source. Modern methods are more direct given that we can radically change them in a single generation, but isn't that just an increase in efficiency?

 

[akuchi]

death is preferable to torture; at least when you're dead you stop feeling it.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Your logic seems bizarre to me.

You seem to be suggesting that its ok to steal tvs with dirty shoes, because people wont mind if you trudge dirt into their homes so long as you steal their tv as well.

Have a nice day.

 

[mirza]

I disagree that a life of torture is worse than death, but I was trying to look at being tortured and being killed as two isolated instances in which I think it's clear that one is incomparably worse than the other. The animals are going to die anyway; we're probably making their lives better than they would be if we just released them into a forest (certainly far longer in any case; defining what makes life better or worse for an animal isn't easy). Even if we're adding just a little bit more to how much life sucks for these animals, I don't think it's that big of a deal just on the basis that what's inevitably going to suck for them is far worse than what we're doing to them anyway.

About organic, what does "natural diet" even mean? I hope no one has any false ideas about these animals; they can't survive in "nature" except insofar as they are under human care. They're so bad at protecting themselves that 2-3 wolves could easily decimate any pack of farm animals. The only state they can exist in in nature is under human care so isn't their natural diet whatever we feed them?

EDIT: fucked up the quote but it ends here and my post is below/

I don't you've ever seen someone or know anyone that's been tortured. My entire family (mother's and father's side) went through the receiving end the of Bosnian Muslim Genocide by Serbian forces for over 5 years in the 90's. Most people that were tortured either died of wounds or some type of mistreatment usually by starvation or beating. I've read several first hand accounts of survivors who saw things like people being shot in their legs or back and then being forced to sing or dance. Others had their wives raped and kids tortured and then killed in front of their own eyes. I don't know about you, but I'd rather die then live through that and spend the rest of my life in physical pain. This doesn't have anything to do with the cows being killed, just your view on death/torture for humans.

As for the cows not being able to survive in "nature," I'll gladly call bullshit as well as saying they're better off dead than released into the wild. Anyone who's ever lived on a farm or knows shit about cows will tell you whenever a wolf manages to break into a cow pen, they automatically form a circle around the calves and face the attacker. Hmmm, what other animals do this? Let's see, any type of "cow" that survives in the wild, Bison, African Buffalo, any type of wilderbeast. The cows' reaction is obviously done by instict, and cows can definantly survive in the wild as long as they're not too far from a water source. Even if most of the first generation did somehow fail, the survivors will adapt and live on.

As for the wolves killing the cows, your human superiorty statement fails in this case as well since 2-3 wolfes can kill a group of humans much more easily depending on the situation, and I'm sure you don't carry a gun with you 24/7.

Sorry for getting off topic, just wanted to reply to AA's post. As for not eating meat, I'm on the side of those who say the animals were going to die anyhow and it'd be wasting meat if I didn't eat it. Not to mention it's obvious humans eat meat by looking at our own teeth, and it tastes too good to give up imo.

 

[akuchi]

my logic or AA's?

 

[Mekkah]

Would any reasonable person actually choose death?

Not to go off-topic here but am I really the only person who would indeed choose death?

 

[Glen]

Not to go off-topic here but am I really the only person who would indeed choose death?

i dont understand why anyone would choose excrutiating and essentially unending pain over the unknown

how fucking scared of death are you? (rhetorical, obviously not directed at you mekkah)

 

[Big Bayou]

I don't think the average moral argument for vegetarianism holds much merit. They most focus on the suffering of animals which, as horrible as I'm sure it sounds, is pretty trivial. We're already agreeing that the animal is going to die. This is a million times more bad for the animal than any degree of suffering you could inflict upon it; you can pretty much ignore the suffering. If you disagree, consider yourself offered a choice. You can either be brutally tortured (but allowed to leave afterward) or painlessly killed. What would you choose? Would any reasonable person actually choose death?

First of all, what is the "average moral argument" of vegetarianism? Even this thread has shown that people refrain from eating meat for a variety of moral reasons.

Second of all, the hypothetical question that I bolded doesn't really apply to the factory-farm situation. The captive animals aren't going to be rewarded for their tenure in the slaughterhouse with endless fields of grain and troughs of honey; their suffering will be ended by an abrupt death.

The rest of that argument is grounded in the assumption that animals are inherently inferior to mankind, so how does posing a hypothetical question in decidedly human terms justify the maltreatment of animals anyway?

 

[Brain]

Well, if we view the world as a set of winners and losers, humanity pretty clearly won. It's completely up to our whims whether these animals live or die; no matter how you look at it we have nearly absolute power over everything else.

Nobody loses a chess game until they are checkmated. You might be a much better chess (or pokemon) player than I am, but I can't lose games that I don't play. Sure, we could decide that all other animal forms die and go through with it, but until we actually do it, how the fuck can you declare us the winners? Your reasoning is akin to saying that because a mad scientist could release a virus hand-tailored to wipe out humanity before it can react, that the virus is the winner and we are the losers.

You can't call winners and losers if no game was played. You can't say we "won" over species that we leave alone (or help out). I mean, sure, animals raised in the context of the meat industry are losers. But so were human slaves. So are people who die of sickness, and in that case it's puny viruses who win, not us. There are winners and losers in all species, all the time. If you want humanity to win, then drive all other species to extinction or submission. But hey - I don't care that you can snap my neck if I know you don't have the guts to do it.

I really don't want to subscribe to a "might makes right" model, but obviously we're doing something right that nothing else is even close to achieving.

I really don't want to subscribe to a "might makes right" model, but obviously only a very small part of humanity is behind "our" major achievements. Just pointing out that your argument is a direct route to the concepts of slavery and second-class citizen (based on intelligence rather than race, of course).

The other animals can't even build off their own history; even if a brilliant cow were born, cattle would gain nothing from its accomplishments. I don't think we are even really worse than the other animals at anything if you consider that we can just build a tool to make us do it better. The bear is stronger? He's not if I have a gun. The bacteria's multiplications let them adapt better? Climate control and worldwide transport of goods let us live on every inch of this planet if we desire which the bacteria certainly cannot do. If you don't allow for obscure situations like a guy being lost in the woods, I don't see anything that animals can do better than us since they mostly just go off instinct to find whatever solution works (if they find one at all) while we can analyze the situation discover why things happen as they do and create and optimum solution. Then we will never have to solve that particular problem again as we effectively share information with one another, and we can even build off that to solve other similar problems by referencing the work that solved the original problem. No the bear and the bacteria don't care, but that's only because they're too stupid to care. If we want to be better than any other animal at anything, we have the ability to build something that will let us do it better. I'd say that makes us superior on every parameter and thus easily able to claim objective superiority without even defining criteria.

Are you born with a gun? Do you carry a gun at all times? Didn't think so. The usefulness of tools is mitigated by the time it takes to develop and build them and the fact they are not always available. When you compare things, compare them properly: a built-in skill is always better than an equivalent tool. Put naked humans in the wilderness and they will start at a steep disadvantage which they will take ages to compensate for.

Furthermore, by saying that bears and bacteria are "too stupid to care" to live everywhere on the planet, you implicitly give an arbitrary criterion that you (and other humans in general) care about. But really, if a tiger is living a happy life, why should he give a shit that none of his kind could live in Antarctica? Why is it a criterion of "superiority"? If I told you all humans in the future will be living packed in small dirty cubicles working 20 hours a day doing uninteresting grunt work under the supervision of restless machines while pandas live like pashas in the few remaining wild areas, would you still be ranting about how we are superior to them because we have holo-tvs (usable 4 hours per day) and are putting colonies on Mars? You lack perspective on this.

Domesticated cats and dogs may be unable to survive without us, yet they often get much more from us than we get from them. This is not about what we can do, this is all about what we actually do and what we want to do. If an animal species came to be who was so cute and likable that humans would venerate and spoil them, they wouldn't need tools because we would be their tools. Are we above that? In one word: no.

As per the suffering, I'm saying it's insignificant in comparison. I wouldn't say it's a good thing, but complaining about animals being in pain before they die sounds to me like complaining that the thief tracked mud into the house when he stole your expensive television. Sure, tracking the mud was bad, but is it even rational to worry about that in the face of the far bigger problem?

First, from the looks of it, you're the only one here who thinks death is a far bigger problem than torture. Second, given that you die as soon as your expensive television is stolen, the only thing you will ever see are the mud tracks. Third, nobody gives a shit about mud tracks regardless of theft, so the example is misleading. If you use "one murder" and "fifty murders" instead of "leaving mud" and "stealing a tv", it's more difficult to say "who cares about a murder when there are so many others". Fourth, justification for stealing a tv (eat it) shifts the spotlight to the unjustified bad acts. One murder "pales" in comparison to fifty unless it was the only gratuitous one and the others were self-defense. Last, you cannot let your fear of death interfere with your rationality: when people die, they die and nothing happens for them. From the perspective of a dead person, everything is a non-event. The only perspective that "counts" is that of a living person and for a living person death simply never occurs. That is why torture is in fact a much bigger deal than death.

I disagree that a life of torture is worse than death, but I was trying to look at being tortured and being killed as two isolated instances in which I think it's clear that one is incomparably worse than the other.

In my book, happiness > 0, death = 0, unhappiness < 0 and torture << 0. Roughly speaking, if the future is always below 0, death is obviously preferable to keeping on living. Maybe you are more optimistic than most and unconditionally believe that you have a future to live for, even in the face of torture. I hope you're right.

Now, as far as animals in meat farms are concerned, it's fairly obvious that they have nothing to live for. This makes death preferable to their condition.


In any case, this debate will probably be moot in a few decades when we won't even need to breed animals to grow meat.

 

[Iralie]

If killing all current stocks of factory farmed animals (aside - in the UK there is no RSPCA approved source of duck for supermarkets, they're kept in worse conditions than chickens, and without water (aside - that'll probably get me called out on for subjective over objective, but oh well)) is a needed sacrifice to ensure any animals we do farm for food are treated better then I'm for it.

On the death/torture area I think Brain just summed up my views on it.

On the tools/inherent capabilities part I fall somewhere in the middle; the ability to build tools and force the environment to conform to our wants is an inherent capability of humans given time - though over generations it will weaken them (possible parallels with this debate, since it is only happening since we now have a choice not to eat animals with an option no longer being starve); though now we can choose do we have the right to force animals to live as they do just for our food?

Would cultured meat from labs, grown not dissimilar to bacteria, be classes as meat since it had never been alive? Would it be fine for a vegetarian to eat it?

 

[Shiv]

I really don't understand why people on both sides of this issue have to be so passionate and keep trying to convert others to their side.

I'm a vegetarian but its just a personal decision for me. I don't mind anyone who eats meat with me and almost all my friends are heavy meat eaters. To be fair, I can't imagine anyone not in India to be vegetarian. The only reason I was able to stop eating meat was because in India you have a 100 alternatives. Almost every single indian dish made with meat also has a similar dish made for vegetarians which is awesome.

I stopped eating around 8-10 years back and once you stop, it isn't that much of a temptation anymore.

Why can't people just stop whining about various aspects of it and just let everyone make their own decision.

 

[Altmer]

Because even though you make a correct decision it doesn't mean your backup is valid.

 

[Nokocchi]

I noticed Ambitions ignores most of the really credible posts for pro-meat eating.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=883721&postcount=53

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=886442&postcount=60

http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=887264&postcount=63

The second one he only responded to a small part of it.

As a friend of mine put it: "For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three."

This post wins this thread.

 

[umbarsc]

Nobody loses a chess game until they are checkmated. You might be a much better chess (or pokemon) player than I am, but I can't lose games that I don't play. Sure, we could decide that all other animal forms die and go through with it, but until we actually do it, how the fuck can you declare us the winners? Your reasoning is akin to saying that because a mad scientist could release a virus hand-tailored to wipe out humanity before it can react, that the virus is the winner and we are the losers.

I'd actually rationalize it to a checkmate in a chess game. Sure, you haven't actually knocked out the king, but you are declared the winner.

Are you born with a gun? Do you carry a gun at all times? Didn't think so. The usefulness of tools is mitigated by the time it takes to develop and build them and the fact they are not always available. When you compare things, compare them properly: a built-in skill is always better than an equivalent tool. Put naked humans in the wilderness and they will start at a steep disadvantage which they will take ages to compensate for.

A built-in skill is something you take for granted. If you can artificially re-create that skill, you have the knowledge of it that can be applied elsewhere, so it's not always beneficial to innately have the skill. If all our machines were to shut down, if all our minds were wiped magically blank, then yes, we would be at a disadvantage. But our knowledge has accumulated, allowing us to expand our civilization, which other species cannot do, so I don't see how stripping away generations of accomplishments and calling us inferior is a proper analogy. It's similar to the problem "Would you rather earn 100$ a day, or earn a penny the first day and double the income each day?" Obviously, the second choice is the better option if you were at it for a month, unless you had to start back at one penny randomly which you seemed to suggest.

Furthermore, by saying that bears and bacteria are "too stupid to care" to live everywhere on the planet, you implicitly give an arbitrary criterion that you (and other humans in general) care about. But really, if a tiger is living a happy life, why should he give a shit that none of his kind could live in Antarctica? Why is it a criterion of "superiority"? If I told you all humans in the future will be living packed in small dirty cubicles working 20 hours a day doing uninteresting grunt work under the supervision of restless machines while pandas live like pashas in the few remaining wild areas, would you still be ranting about how we are superior to them because we have holo-tvs (usable 4 hours per day) and are putting colonies on Mars? You lack perspective on this.

So now we're saying ignorance is bliss? We could say that a boy that has taken pills to live in a dreamworld of his imagination, while doctors performed countless horrifying operations on him and turned him into a human lab rat, has a great life, with that logic.

In my book, happiness > 0, death = 0, unhappiness < 0 and torture << 0. Roughly speaking, if the future is always below 0, death is obviously preferable to keeping on living. Maybe you are more optimistic than most and unconditionally believe that you have a future to live for, even in the face of torture. I hope you're right.

Now, as far as animals in meat farms are concerned, it's fairly obvious that they have nothing to live for. This makes death preferable to their condition.

If we were to go purely by how nature works, death is the worse possible scenario. The will to live has given us instincts that resist death at all costs; if we lived on instinct alone, no one would ever commit suicide. You shouldn't give a shit about how bad you think your life is if you have to reproduce and keep your species going. I don't know much about how sentient cows and other farm animals are, but if they lived mostly on instinct, death would be the worst possible outcome.

 

[akuchi]

well yeah, since conciousness is the only way we experience this world the boy who's living in a sunshine world of his own imagination is having a pretty good life. it's the old brains in vats argument.

death evidently isn't the worst possible scenario in all natural cases - animal mothers will sacrifice themselved for their children, some animals die during mating, lions eat baby lions that aren't theirs, some mothers actually kill their own children (and we don't know why).
If death was the absolute worst in every natural situation none of the above would happen.

 

[Altmer]

To be quite honest I think death is pretty much a part of life, so to speak. I think the reason that people have a fear of death is because they don't know what happens next.