|
Note: After writing all that, I've realized that I'm not talking very much about "rights" at all. Sorry to the folks who came expecting some rant on ethics. PM me if you want one.
So I've seen two "Earthling" blogs in the past week (possibly there were more that I haven't seen). Both linking to videos (possibly the same one). Both saying "this is what we're doing, we should stop."
And I'm here to do the same! Without the video. But hopefully more coherently.
Terminology note: "Vegan" can either be a noun, referring to a person who does not consume animal products, or an adjective, referring to anything that does not consume (or include in its material or manufacture... or development) any animal products.
Let's list some starting points, and grab more on the way as we need them. But I hope everyone will agree with these starting points.
#Humans consume (and create) products, including food, clothing, and cosmetics, which in their manufacture require the use of animals.
#Said use of animals is usually painful to said animal, and mostly results in its death.
Given just these two, it's hard to come to some sort of conclusion. We also have to answer such questions as:
How important are these products?
How important is the treatment of these animals?
Now, these PETA crazies will have you believe that the answer to the first is "not very," and the answer to the second is "more than Starcraft." Depending on your own value system, your own answers might vary wildly.
There are many ways to answer these questions, and as I have way too much time, I'll offer a few options. Keep in mind that this is not meant to be comprehensive, so don't complain that I left something out.
How important are animal products?
From a consumer's standpoint, animal products are not inherently different from vegan products, other than perhaps an emotional value attached to "the real thing" or "cruelty-free," depending on what one prefers. Other than that, the taste, texture, quality, price, whatever has, does, and will vary with the state of the market and current technology.
Historically speaking, the "real" stuff, the animal products, have generally been better. Real meat tastes better, real leather lasts longer, whatever. However, it's not so clear these days. Plastic leather and soy steaks and rice ice cream aren't quite indistinguishable from the real thing, but they're getting close and there's no reason to believe they won't get there.
There's no clear-cut answer. Animal products aren't necessarily better, but they're not necessarily worse.
On a health perspective, which is actually a subset of the above, there are some memes floating around that animal products are essential to human health. They're simply wrong. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in animal products that you can't find in vegan products in reasonable amounts. I'll concede that they're possibly not as convenient to obtain or tasty to eat. But I'm talking about the health memes here, like "you'll run out of Vitamin E and die in 4 years if you truly turn vegan." Or "you'll get osteoperosis if you don't drink milk."
On an economic perspective, going vegan will hurt the industries that produce animal products, because your money won't go to them any more. Just a drop in the ocean, of course, but what would happen to all the ranchers and butchers and burger flippers and hot dog stands if we all suddenly went vegan? This is seriously a non-issue, but is sometimes brought up as an argument against veganism. The answer? See what happened to the candlemakers and lampmakers when the electric light bulb came about.
On another economic perspective (which might have a bigger impact considering today's world economy), meat-growing is very inefficient. Most of the food eaten by animals turns into energy keeping the animal alive (in the end, heat). Something like 6% of the calories eaten by animals turns into edible food. Considering the rise of grain prices and food riots and all, meat seems at least slightly less attractive.
How important is the treatment of animals?
I believe this depends heavily on the individual's ethical code, which I won't argue with here (pm me if you want a discussion on that). It can range from "complete deal-breaker" to "hey, it's our right to do as we want with them." And we can't prove it one way or another unless we first agree on an ethical system we'll both adhere to, which I doubt will happen.
 
|
what do you have to say about the slaying of animal heroes in dota, mr. bdares?
|
In the context of dota, the importance of the slaying is quite high (the obvious 200+ gold and experience, as well as maybe a minute or two of lost time for my enemy), and the importance of treating the Scourge scum (or Sentinel scum if I happen to be scourge) well is.. well, negative.
|
yeah I figured as soon as you made that veal comment (which was incredibly stupid btw, and could have seriously derailed that thread), this blog would follow
|
As long as vegan products are inferior and/or more expensive to buy than animal products I, and most of humanity, will continue to shun them. We've made a collective decision that humankind's standard of living is more important than the harm to the animals. Rock on with trying to convince people otherwise, but I honestly believe that the effort would be better placed in trying to improve the products you're trying to get people to switch to and narrowing the gap between them so that billions will change their minds instead of a handful who will probably go back to meat after a few years anyway.
|
what do you mean 'inferior'? some of the most nutritional and healthy food is available to vegans (spinach, mushrooms, broccoli etc) If you mean that it tastes inferior, well im sure there are people that will disagree with you there (me)
|
It's true superiority in the case of food is subjective. If you believe the food is better tasting and more nutritional and better for animals there's a clear choice for you. Most people don't come to the same conclusion with regards to vegan food. The opposite conclusion, in fact.
EDIT: Also people who do eat meat are capable of eating vegetables, I'm not sure if you're aware of that fact.
|
Actually, it was someone's comment on the "earthling" blog (regarding the perceived extremist stance of that OP) that prompted this.
I contest Nova's statement that vegan products are inferior or more expensive than animal products. As I stated in the OP, they're currently comparable, and some vegan products (notably silk and leather alternatives) are arguably superior, in both cost and quality.
I'm not a materials scientist or a nutritionist, so I'm not qualified to "improve the products." I can, however, point out that they exist.
I don't think it's low to compare animal suffering to human suffering. As far as I know, the pain you'd feel at being cut open is the same as the pain a cow or dog feels. Is it really underhanded? Or is it the fact that I was using an emotional attack?
A more general thing, but I find it unfortunate that the irresponsible statements made by a few crazies are the ones that get most publicized, and sometimes paint over a whole group. Hopefully we can avoid that here.
|
I don't think it's low at all, and I'm not sure where you got the idea I think it is. Obviously I don't share the opinion that both animal and human suffering is equivalent, but I don't think it's at all underhanded to argue that it is.
|
i dont understand the relevance of your last point, you said vegan products are inferior to animal products. if you mean that food such as vegetables and fruit is inferior to meat and milk, i think thats wrong, in terms of nutrition. if im not understanding your point plz tell me, im a little confused here
edit: directed at nova's first post
|
Previous post was responding to fusionsdf, which was referring to a post I made regarding human murder.
|
On July 21 2008 16:54 JohnColtrane wrote:
i dont understand the relevance of your last point, you said vegan products are inferior to animal products. if you mean that food such as vegetables and fruit is inferior to meat and milk, i think thats wrong, in terms of nutrition. if im not understanding your point plz tell me, im a little confused here
edit: directed at nova's first post
I'm talking specifically about vegan food designed to replace traditional meat food the most glaringly obvious poor substitute being a "veggie burger". I have no problem with eating vegetables or buying products that are animal-friendly when they serve my purpose best at the lowest cost.
|
oh i understand now, sorry about the confusion before, you are referring to vegan specific food, not vegetables. my fault, apologies.
ill have to admit the reason i steer clear of alot of animal products is not because i care for the quality of life of animals but moreso because alot of animal products, particularly meat, is high in saturated fats and cholesterol. however, id rather not see animals suffer if it is unnecessary, but also i think its unlikely that this will change in the future because most people love the taste of animal products
|
I think the point Nova is making is thus:
Animal products are sometimes superior to vegan products. Then he buys animal products. Sometimes, vegan products are superior. Then he buys vegan products.
Fair enough. Then I'll presume that Nova has no moral objection to effect that the consumption of animal products has on animals. Or that this objection is weaker than the difference between the desirability of the animal product and the vegan product.
|
in my previous posts i was only talking about the food applications of an animal product, i wasnt factoring in anything like materials for furniture
are there any animal products you can name that are significantly superior to their respective synthetic or whatever counterpart?
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 21 2008 16:49 BottleAbuser wrote:
I don't think it's low to compare animal suffering to human suffering. As far as I know, the pain you'd feel at being cut open is the same as the pain a cow or dog feels. Is it really underhanded? Or is it the fact that I was using an emotional attack?
Again with the pain argument.
Meet my friend.
So eating cow seems ok.
The more questionable issue is regarding medical testing, and I assure you vegan medicine is largely useless compared to the real thing. In that case, what's more valuable- a human life or an animal life?
|
is that an oxygen tank hes carrying
|
I think although perhaps it is cruel to abuse animals, and if they are to be slaughtered for the meat industry, it should be humanely, it is our RIGHT to abuse them if we wish.
Natural order permits that the species at the top of the food chain (Human Beings) basically rule the other animals. No-one ever gives a Tiger shit for cruelly mauling its prey. Because it's "natural". However, mankind exists as a natural species, and follows natural laws although we try to surpress them. We mate obsessively, we fight for power, and we use the lesser species to do whatever we wish. We enslave them as companions, or kill them for food.
|
Helvetica, there is nothing that happens in this universe that is not natural. Using the term to justify something is silly. Since, as you say, man is a natural species, and I am a member of this natural species, I must be natural. Therefore, anything I do must also be natural. If I went around killing people, that's natural. That doesn't make it OK.
Well, most people agree with me on that point at least. Which is why people try to turn out some sort of an ethical system in which it's not OK to do things, even though you can. (What exactly do you mean by the words "right" and "should?") Which things, though, seems to be up to individual preference. For me, causing pain is one of the no-nos.
Jibba raises a good point. Animal testing is an integral part of medical development. So far, I haven't come across any good, solid arguments against such testing. I could downplay the role that animal testing has, though. Drug testing, which I think you'll agree comprises the majority of animal testing, is often performed to see the effects of overdose. Massive overdose. We're talking killing thousands of animals to confirm that yes, 5000 milligrams of cyanide actually will kill a rabbit. And probably a human, too.
The point is that the fact that some animal testing is very useful for medicinal research does not justify all animal testing. I think I'll leave it at that and tackle it again when meat consumption no longer is the dominant animal product.
|
Not really interested in the whole discussion, but:
a) Nobody would say a tiger has bad morals when it eats people either. Doesn't mean people get to eat other people. People are expected to behave, even if it isn't exactly natural and tigers don't.
b) Pain and suffering is not limited to the act of physically killing the animal (which is typically not all that bad). Something about not having room to move any part of our body, ever, does kind of sound unpleasant though. Eating wild animals is something I have very little problem with (aside from the fact that they are an extremely limited resource).
|
See, there's a bit of a contradiction with that argument, Zherak. There's the assumption that we're different fundamentally, that we have some sort of entitlement. Because we're better. Or God told us so. Or something. But that's not enough, it's also OK because tigers do it too, and we're like them.
I think the fact that humans are different, that we have the capacity to reason about such things, is a very good reason for us to act differently.
|
On July 22 2008 01:41 BottleAbuser wrote:
See, there's a bit of a contradiction with that argument, Zherak. There's the assumption that we're different fundamentally, that we have some sort of entitlement. Because we're better. Or God told us so. Or something. But that's not enough, it's also OK because tigers do it too, and we're like them.
I think the fact that humans are different, that we have the capacity to reason about such things, is a very good reason for us to act differently.
We do act differently. We explain the world with mathematics, and have conscious emotion. However, all species follow certain natural law. We are omnivores, and we will naturally kill lesser species for food.
|
Gah. Again the natural argument. Please justify it or drop it already. Point out one thing that ain't natural, and tell me why it isn't natural. That'll be a good start. Otherwise, I'm asserting that *everything* that is, is natural. So there can't ever be anything that's "wrong."
|
On July 22 2008 01:49 BottleAbuser wrote:
Gah. Again the natural argument. Please justify it or drop it already. Point out one thing that ain't natural, and tell me why it isn't natural. That'll be a good start. Otherwise, I'm asserting that *everything* that is, is natural. So there can't ever be anything that's "wrong."
There isn't anything that "ain't natural". That's my point. It is natural for humans to do this, and our behavior can't be changed. Some individuals can force themselves to break away from the habit of "meat eating", and that is technically a natural decision. But to argue that other people should also do this, is ridiculous.
|
what about the plants
plants have feelings too
thats why i routinely kill animals, to protect plants from getting eaten.
eating the animals is just a welcome bonus
|
Without animal testing, medicine would be lightyears behind. Testing to see if medicines work, performing mock surgeries on pigs and what not, we wouldnβt be evenclose to where we are now.
And yeah, most of these livestock slaughterhouses suck. Animals are shoehorned into areas that aren't even close to decent living conditions. I agree that should be changed. But the simple fact is that a cow is going to feed a hell of a lot more people than a few stalks of corn will, and it will fetch a hell of a lot more money.
|
Hawk and Caller, you forget to consider the fact that livestock requires food to grow and maintain, too. As I mentioned before, the amount of food (mostly grain - fit for human consumption) that is required vastly outweighs the yield in terms of edible meat. I forget the exact numbers, but if global meat consumption was cut by 20% and the feed grain was magically transported to the needed areas, global hunger would not exist... until you factor in the population boom that would result, but that still gives you an idea of how much food is consumed by the meat industry.
|
On July 22 2008 12:22 BottleAbuser wrote:
Hawk and Caller, you forget to consider the fact that livestock requires food to grow and maintain, too. As I mentioned before, the amount of food (mostly grain - fit for human consumption) that is required vastly outweighs the yield in terms of edible meat. I forget the exact numbers, but if global meat consumption was cut by 20% and the feed grain was magically transported to the needed areas, global hunger would not exist... until you factor in the population boom that would result, but that still gives you an idea of how much food is consumed by the meat industry.
1. The meat industry still profits the areas it is successful in.
2. You could also solve world hunger with other types of food. Fruits/vegetables/ and more than likely meats. (poultry, red meats, and sea food).
So where is the argument? It's a fact, but it doesn't really support anything.
|
United States22883 Posts
Today's chickens are naturally stupid and disgusting, but I wonder if they're that way as a result of upbringing and breeding. It makes me feel a bit worse to think that's true, but chickens are just so fucking annoying.
The world hunger argument is silly. First, world hunger exists for a lot of different reasons. Crops are difficult to grow in many parts of the world and say you do ship the food to starving countries, you've essentially just killed their agriculture base who will go out of business because the price of food has dropped dramatically. Then once the free food stops coming, everyone is fucked because there's no one left to sell food. Countries need to be able to grow their own food to support themselves and their people, or else they simply won't develop. That brings us to the next issue.
The flip side of the "all natural" and most vegan campaigns is that they don't want genetically engineered produce either. Well, you definitely aren't going to feed the entire world without genetically modified food because there wouldn't be enough of it.
The point of that Anton/cattle gun picture was that if things go according to plan, the animal won't feel pain when it dies or ends up on those gross PETA videos. If you're basing your ethics on pain and feelings, then obliterating an animal's brain is one way to bypass that.
|
I see some misconceptions.
I brought up the "world hunger argument" not as a proposed solution to world hunger, but to illustrate how inefficient meat is as a source of calories. Meat is part of the problem, not the solution.
Profitability of the meat industry was not the point I was arguing. But when one considers the feed grain subsidies granted to cattle ranchers (in the US, on the order of $20 billion/year as of 2006), it's not so clear-cut.
I'm not pushing the PETA agenda here. PETA has its share of retards and I don't agree with everything (or even most) of what they say.
GM foods do not raise any ethical concerns, only practical ones such as unwanted proliferation of limited lifecycle crops, or genetic homogeneity resulting in increased susceptibility to parasites or disease.
On the issue of "natural so don't argue with it," it's natural for me to argue with it, and just as natural for you to tell me not to argue with it, and just as natural for me to complain that the word doesn't justify anything. So stop arguing with me because that would be natural if you did. Or keep arguing because it would be natural too. Or go fuck yourself, because that would be natural. Or complain that I just said that, because it would be natural. The word loses meaning and usefulness unless you have something to compare it to.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 22 2008 13:12 BottleAbuser wrote:
I brought up the "world hunger argument" not as a proposed solution to world hunger, but to illustrate how inefficient meat is as a source of calories. Meat is part of the problem, not the solution.
Profitability of the meat industry was not the point I was arguing. But when one considers the feed grain subsidies granted to cattle ranchers (in the US, on the order of $20 billion/year as of 2006), it's not so clear-cut.
Well, that's kin to saying Starcraft is an inefficient source for brain development. It takes far too long to learn and only at the top level do you see benefits. Reading is a much better source.
When you don't have food, then it can be about caloric intake (and even there I would debate meat has other benefits.) When you do have food, then it's about taste and enjoyment. It simply makes no sense to apply one aspect of living in sub-Saharan Africa if you're not going to apply all of them.
Do you seriously want your food to be judged based on efficiency rather than taste? Furthermore, if we're looking to be "fair" I'd argue poorer countries need meat even more than we do. Protein obviously has a huge, huge influence on body development and with synthetic or even soy (which is also resource intensive) sources being too expensive and not as well rounded, it's difficult for them to build a strong labor force without stronger bodies that meat would enable. Animals also act as a heat source in many countries and their fertilizer is important across the world, plus fabric material and all that great stuff.
BTW I think it's somewhat telling that you can't find a single research site for this kind of stuff without getting 85 million bullshit propaganda blogs.
|
On July 22 2008 00:51 DoctorHelvetica wrote:
I think although perhaps it is cruel to abuse animals, and if they are to be slaughtered for the meat industry, it should be humanely, it is our RIGHT to abuse them if we wish.
Natural order permits that the species at the top of the food chain (Human Beings) basically rule the other animals. No-one ever gives a Tiger shit for cruelly mauling its prey. Because it's "natural". However, mankind exists as a natural species, and follows natural laws although we try to surpress them. We mate obsessively, we fight for power, and we use the lesser species to do whatever we wish. We enslave them as companions, or kill them for food.
This is called the fallacy of the appeal to nature. link
|
Thanks to BottleAbuser for starting this thread.
I'd like to say a few things:
A vegan will use 1/18th the land of a meat eater for all food purposes. If you accept, as I do, that the world is already over-populated, then it makes sense, if you value equality and life, that we should make moves towards the vegan lifestyle. I'm not actually arguing for this - it's a personal choice.
Soy is a poor food choice, and not enough people realize this. Soy blocks the absorption of minerals and vitamins, and has estrogen mimicking qualities. Many animal product food substitutes are heavily soy based, and are therefore not wise food choices.
People complain (even in this thread) that a vegan diet is unaffordable. This makes no logical sense, considering that in real terms, it is easier and more efficient to grow vegetables, seeds, fruits, etc, than meat. What DOES cost more are brand name animal product substitutes, ie those fancy vegeburgers or soy milk. I have a friend who is an all raw-food vegan who eats on less than 2 dollars a day, and he is about like a human garbage disposal (very big appetite, and also, I should add, in peak physical condition at age 62 - better shape than I, at age 24). I don't know many people on ANY diet that can come close to this.
The taste complaint: I'm not a believer, in most cases, that one food inherently tastes better than another. Taste is socialized, and also the product of habit. I know people who hate switching from soda to water. I used to prefer soda to water also. Now the thought of soda is repulsive, and I love water. I also had to acquire a taste for beer (and olives). Blah blah blah - my point is that one can learn to love foods that they don't love right now. It is a question of willingness to experiment.
To BottleAbuser: Massive kudos to you for your strong stand that everything is natural (or conversely nothing is natural). You take this to be common sense and readily accepted, but most people do not accept this position at all. I'm glad you have made this claim in this discussion.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. Based on my value system and my beliefs about what is going on in the world, I've made the move to vegetarianism, and am gradually moving towards veganism. It is my personal view that animals are not lesser beings than humans; I believe animals are aware, thinking, feeling creatures. I also believe roughly the same about plants. To live is to kill. We have to make decisions we can live with. I think it is less important that we all share the exact same values, and more important that we examine our own values and the values of others rather than adopting a way of life uncritically.
If anyone is interested in issues of sustainability or simple living, they can look at some of my blog postings from months back.
Nick/Inky - A vegetarian post-humanist.
|
|
|
United States22883 Posts
Inky, where does your friend get his protein from? There's just not that many sources and legunes contain much less per quantity than meat.
|
Jibba: I'm no expert on protein, but my understanding is that the typical American takes in an overabundance of protein, and that adequate protein can be had from vegan sources just by eating a mixed diet of whole grains, nuts, seeds, greens, veges, and fruit. This is what my friend Don does. If you are TRULY interested, I can ask Don the specifics, because he has had his regular food concoction (a raw vegan "soup" or "smoothie") tested for its total nutrition stats. He could tell you exactly how much fat and protein is in each smoothie, and he eats about 10 of these smoothies a day. In addition, he also eats a LOT of fruit.
To the best of my recollection, his raw "soup" contains the following:
Soaked unhulled sunflower seeds
Soaked whole wheat kernels
Lambsquarter or spinach (he tends to grow his own lambsquarter)
Flax seed
Dried apricots
Apricot kernels (bitter almonds)
Filtered water
Don has been eating this diet for around 10 years, exceedingly faithfully (zero cooked food, zero non-vegan food).
Don is 62. He walks everywhere he goes and has not used a car in around 8 years (not even riding in one as a passenger!).
His daily exercise routine includes 45 minutes jumping on a trampoline. 40 pullups. 400 situps of various kinds. Hundreds of pushups. And various isotonic and isometric exercises. He's a tough bastard. He is not bulky - he is very, very lean, and utterly ripped.
|
I have no interest in defending a cause I know I can't morally justify, that is eating meat, so I won't jump into the debate here but I just wanted to point out a flaw with something Jibba wrote. And yes I did just admit my moral hypocrisy and no I'm not doing anything about it why because cows are delicious.
The world hunger argument is silly. First, world hunger exists for a lot of different reasons. Crops are difficult to grow in many parts of the world and say you do ship the food to starving countries, you've essentially just killed their agriculture base who will go out of business because the price of food has dropped dramatically. Then once the free food stops coming, everyone is fucked because there's no one left to sell food. Countries need to be able to grow their own food to support themselves and their people, or else they simply won't develop. That brings us to the next issue.
The primary reason hunger exists is because food is too expensive for some countries to afford. What will happen if we stop breeding cows is that demand for agriculture will drop sharply while supply will climb like holy shit, although some of it will be offset by the lack of meat. Now these starved countries can import food at prices they can afford. What little agriculture they have won't get exported to other countries with bigger markets. Even if all that excess supply gets "donated" to these starving countries, most of the agricultural output of the world is from developed nations. It may kill their agricultural industry in the short run, but at least they're not starving now, and they can get on with developing industry.
So what I'm saying is, world veganism -> less hunger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.cinemastrikesback.com/news/new%20dailies/noCountryForOldMen-1024.jpg)
