Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
ive posted a very long reply to your reasoned approach, I would like to hear your thoughts on it. I think its one page back.
i would like to point out the possibility that there are no better positions just different positions which can be equally reasonable. this problem is still being debated and where it used to be in favor of those who believe in objective moral facts etc the balance seems to be swinging more in favor of subjectivism lately (and perhaps even relativism)
Veganism is rather non-sensical from the standpoint of health, as you can get much healthier diet while being vegetarian without having to painstakingly try to have a healthy diet. Vegetarian diet and ones close to it are natural in the sense that it is not hard to make them give you everything you need without actually spending a lot of time thinking about what you eat. That is as far as healthiness argument goes. As for moral issues, the solution is not to cease eating animal products, but to treat the animals humanely. If even painless killing of animals is a problem, then I would like to point out, no cows (and ...) will be alive once we stop eating them, they are completely dependent on humans to exist in nature.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
The problem is that most people are severely under eating vegetables, then jump onto a vegetarian/vegan diet and feel much better and then think it's some miracle. My friends almost all eat a starch and fat based diet while I eat a diet consisting of vegetables and protein and fruits. There is no problem in eating meat in moderation.
Veganism is a first world luxury. Getting omega 3 from flaxseed oil and whatever, getting protein from beans and glued together processed plant protein. If you think not eating animal products makes you a better person then so be it. The fact is that meat is under priced and I am going to eat meat because I like the taste and don't want to hunt online for plant protein. I may not be doing the environment a favour but whatever, it's not like every time you have sex you're trying to make a baby.
People saying eating meat is bad for your health? I don't buy it for one second. We've been hunting and eating meat for far too long. If it was that bad we would have died out already. The only reason we have considerably developed brains is because of a diet rich in cholesterol, protein and fat. We certainly did not live in caves and get our daily caloric needs from eating leaves and roots. However I do not approve of the burger, fries and hot dog diet most people are living on. Eat your leafy greens like spinach and cabbage, eat broccoli, cauliflower, lots of good starches like sweet potato, eat lots of different colours. Eat some mixed nuts, some seaweed as well. Eat fruits and berries. Eat lean meats and fatty fish. It's really not that hard.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
Sophistry at its best. Do you feel actual empathy for plants, as in the feeling of empathy not some artificially constructed thought ? If so, you are one of the few and that's about it. And no it is not science that placed empathy and fairness in center of our moral code. Long before science and philosophies and different moral codes came to be created by us people were already using empathy and fairness as their basis for moral decisions. It is the way humans are made. Other moral codes are just trying to capture the reality.
As for the rest of your post it is completely wrong argument. We also do not punish mentally ill people for some actions they do and yet we find killing them morally reprehensible. Your whole argument falls apart after that. And that even assumes I consider right-based approach to morality worthwhile. I never said a word about giving animals rights as I did not frame the question in terms of rights. Rights are just approximations of moral rules and for discussing this topic are completely inadequate. It is quite possible for things to be morally wrong without any rights being involved anywhere.
Im glad my human ancestors started to eat meat and evolve are brain because of meats high nutrient density.
so am i. yet this is quite irrelevant to the discussion unless you are implying somehow that because we were nutrient deficient for much of our history that we are somehow nutrient deficient today. we also used the profits from slave labor to advance our society, this does not mean that we must continue slavery today. things have changed my friend, science and society have advanced in recent years. and no, i do not think it is logical to assume that all vegans would be opposed to our ancestors eating meat, just as many are not opposed to eating meat today if it were to be necessary for their survival. much of the veg movement is a boycott to the industrial farm system, which promotes terribly cruel practices in the name of money. another major pillar would be the health benefits. while i have yet to find significant medical findings to support this form of diet over many other alternatives, there is a general consensus that educating yourself and making a sustainable change in your eating and activity patterns can vastly improve your health. honestly, i have read just as many vegans make an empty dogmatic post in this thread as i have of those opposed to them. i entirely reject the idea that vegans/vegetarians are necessarily aloof or pretentious, though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change.
though i do feel they hold a moral high ground over those who don't want the way things are to change
Implication: I feel like we are morally superior to you meat eaters.
It is exactly this attitude that completely turns me off to pretty much anything. The feeling of being superior because of your opinion on morals.
haha, i edited my post but you were too quick xD anyways, i really think you should give my post a re-read, and then perhaps look back a page or 2 at least. this topic has been covered, though i'll try to condense it for you.
essentially, you're assuming that just because i feel my morals are superior to theirs, that somehow i'm committing some gross offense. i would say there are a ton of people out there who, from one time to another, feel they are better than those around them. they do not have to act on this feeling, and they (and I) certainly do not have to convey this "attitude" to others around them in an offensive manner. yes, humility certainly is an admirable quality, but that does not mean that one should spend all one's time immediately doing exactly what the person next to them is doing, without considering the merits of either. a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs.
(for example, if i were to meet a person seriously convinced that every black person should be a slave because they are in some way lesser due to their skin colour, i would easily feel superior to them. no, it may not be sensible to get into a shouting match with them, but that does not mean that their position has merit. we should be judged by our actions and not who we are)
also, you say that it is wrong to express the value of your morals compered to another's. i disagree with this idea, as it i feel it is important for the advancement of society that we continue to debate and understand what it is that we value and why exactly we value it. in doing so we open ourselves to the expansion of our values and the spread of those values that are best. understanding what is right and what is wrong is critical to our society and it therefore all discussion of it should not be shunned as you suggest.
okay, so finally you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral. this is an extremely nuanced debate, but i would first like to note that many vegans themselves are simply boycotting in an attempt to end current industry practices. i still hold to this belief though, but i realize this post is really long already and i have to head to bed, so i'll try to summarize. essentially i feel that my ultimate goal is love. total love. love, being defined as the expansion of the self to include the other. i love my family, i love my friends, i love my dog. by extension, i would like to love every other person and every other animal. i would like to love every rock and every plant. in loving everything, i would do unto them as i would have them do unto me, and do whatever is possible to bring happiness to them. it would make me happy to bring those i love happiness, regardless of their reciprocation (though reciprocation would be another beneficial effect). i would see the extension of the duration of one's happiness as a goal as well (and in line with love in general). also, i would see the creation of a being who can feel happiness as another goal. thus, it follows that the soonest possible infinite extension of time of infinite amounts of happiness to an infinite number of beings is my ultimate theoretical goal. if i am to reach this goal, i must do whatever is in my power to advance our society in it's ability to reach this goal, and i must shift it's goals to be in line with mine.
i never said that every human must become a vegan today, and honestly i feel there are better ways change our society. this is why i am pursuing a career that will put me in what i believe to be place where i can be the most effective in having the most influence over the most people in the best position to make changes for the betterment of our society. I also am constantly pursuing the betterment of my goals and the betterment of my knowledge and ability to reach those goals. my final wish would be to do this unhindered until my ultimate goal is met.
because of all this, i feel "having the right to kill as many cows as i want for food because i like meat" seems to be counter to my goal, and this cannot agree with it as a basic right. obviously it is not practical for everyone to become a vegan, but i do agree with their moral core of the right to life of animals.
you also assert that i am wrong to say that killing animals is immoral
Not quite. Saying "I think killing animals is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on killing animals hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on killing animals" sound completely different.
Similarly, I could say "I think abortion is immoral" and "I think my beliefs on abortion hold a moral high ground over your beliefs on abortion".
They might present a similar message, but the latter definitely makes you sound more condescending.
I like how you completely ignored the rest of my post in which I directly opposed that I stood for what you are saying now. I'll make it very clear, not eating animals is right and eating them is wrong. I stated in my post that "a reasoned approach is quite obviously necessary, regardless of your beliefs." You seemed to ignore this completely. I obviously would not begin a conversation by yelling to everyone at a restaurant that my morals are superior to theirs, but that does not mean that I cannot hold this view. I would not go to a police station and yell "I HAVE WEED IN MY POCKET AND YOU SHOULD TOO", even if this was true. I'm not sure that you are, but if you are implying that my moral values are not actually correct, I honestly invite you to state your own opinion and back it up. I'm not being sarcastic, I would absolutely want someone to show me an even better position to take. (also I tried to state this in my post, though perhaps not as directly.)
I have already made a few pages worth of points, I suppose I will repeat myself. Almost everything you do in life indirectly or directly came from an animal dying. If you are eating non-animal products, chances are animals still died so you could eat that food (giant machines chopping wheat fields slaughtering critters for example), so don't tell me I'm wrong for eating meat. For those who say it is healthier, there is 0 scientific evidence to show it is healthier to not eat meat. Being gluttonous is wrong in my opinion, but not eating meat. I'm not suggesting that I am morally superior to you in this regard, I am only stating that I think we are equal, because I see nothing wrong with eating meat and I see nothing wrong with not eating meat.
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
edit: as for the empathy discussion, the thing about moral rights is that we use them in general, they apply to all, not just to the individual. animals might be empathic (and recent study with capucin monkeys shows that atleast they have the ability to be empathic) but this doesnt mean they also understand that it should apply to all in the same situation. they will object if one monkey is given more than them because they feel they are being "unfairly" dealt with. but it doesnt become a sense of justice and thus morality untill they also realize that any monkey in their position would have been unfairly dealt with. i doubt a monkey in the position of getting an extra would feel guilty like clearly people do and are capable of.
And we do not find suffering morally reprehensible in animals because we do not hold animals accountable for their actions. we do not punish the lion for killing a gazelle, or the wolf pack for killing a deer. With rights also comes duty, atleast the duty to also uphold this right for others around you, we do not require this of animal (obviously because we believe they cant) and thus i do not see any reason to give them rights, not only because they cant but because they will never be capable of it or would have been capable of it.
Nonetheless, the ability to suffer and the drive to avoid suffering is for me enough reason to try to not inflict unneccesary suffering on these creatures. but following that same reasoning the ability to live and the drive to survive should be enough reason to try and avoid unneccesary killing of living beings.
instead of treating animals humanely i would treat animals animally. meaning that we should observe how they live naturally and if we were to use them for our own needs we would atleast try to come as close to that as possible, which is kinda what the biological industry is advertising that they are doing (even though it might not be entirely true or that far advanced). all animals arent humans, even though all humans are animals, we should treat a cow as a cow, a human as a human, a lion as a lion, etc etc.
Sophistry at its best. Do you feel actual empathy for plants, as in the feeling of empathy not some artificially constructed thought ? If so, you are one of the few and that's about it. And no it is not science that placed empathy and fairness in center of our moral code. Long before science and philosophies and different moral codes came to be created by us people were already using empathy and fairness as their basis for moral decisions. It is the way humans are made. Other moral codes are just trying to capture the reality.
As for the rest of your post it is completely wrong argument. We also do not punish mentally ill people for some actions they do and yet we find killing them morally reprehensible. Your whole argument falls apart after that. And that even assumes I consider right-based approach to morality worthwhile. I never said a word about giving animals rights as I did not frame the question in terms of rights. Rights are just approximations of moral rules and for discussing this topic are completely inadequate. It is quite possible for things to be morally wrong without any rights being involved anywhere.
Good post.
I didnt say that science was the only one to do that, just that it did but that there are other possibilities too, for example the foundation of God, or the foundation of Reason. I do not deny that empathy plays a role in any of them tho.
I do not feel empathy for plants, but I do not feel it for animals either. However if i would see a video of animals getting tortured I would have strong emotions about that. But I would have similar emotions if it was a video about huge parts of forests getting cut down or a piece of art getting defiled. It seems quite senseless to me, but I cannot relate to that piece of art, nor the tree or the animal as I can to a human being. i do not believe they deserve moral consideration, but that doesnt mean i believe they do not deserve consideration at all.
I think you are aware of the difference between type (human beings) and token (you, me, obama, person x). We think all humans are entitled to certain priviliges, they are called Universal Human Rights. Some people argue that animals are entitled to the same or similar based on their capability to suffer. I do not agree with this. Ive explained why in a post on page 35. What you say about handicapped people comes down to me to the difference between type and token, I think the entire type of humans is entitled to rights which also comes with responsibility atleast to uphold this right for others, allthough we sometimes make an exception for certain tokens which lack the cognitive or physical ability to take their responsibility because we believe that if they had not had these limitations they would have acted as we would expect a healthy person should have and therefor we do not punish them for their shortcomings. I deny that this is the same for animals, and that people who do believe so are antromorphising too much. Thus it is possible for us to do not hold babies, or handicapped people responsible for their actions and still attribute them moral rights while we do not hold animals accountable for their actions but also not attribute them moral rights.
But thats that, if you do not consider such an approach worthwhile, may I ask what you would consider to be so?
The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
the studies are aimed at the massive bio industry, but do not say anything about not eating meat you have hunted or fished for example. the points that many vegans raise are ethical and not enviromental, while these imo makes much more sense and indeed has some good support (but meaning also that if we find a way to solve these problems we do not have to go vegan). but in that sense we should kind of go back to a stone age or quickly invent or change to cleaner but durable powersources that can be implemented also in small enough ways to make transportation with that source possible.
the health issue is something else, i do agree that its important that people are properly informed but in the end their health is their own responsibility and if they do not find it important, and instead prefer to live a "good/fun.hedonistic" life they should be able to. they should be able to smoke as long as they do it where it doesnt affect others, they should be able to drink alcohol etc (a very big chance that most of the people here who have raised the health argument drink alcohol while that is so destructive for your body). what the 2nd study seems to say is more or less "be moderate", which doesnt have anything to do with being brainwashed.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
I've heard fundamentalist Christians that argue the exact same way as you: "Unbelievable! You atheists are so arrogant!" A video is worth a million words so get back to me after you've seen this:
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Unbelievable. Could you be more condescending? Are you telling me that you honestly, even in your quiet moments, don't even feel a little bit like a total prick for suggesting that people who disagree with you only do so because they have been "brainwashed"? Not even a little bit?
Not to mention the studies that you "cite" don't even support your argument. Their conclusions are commonplaces. I'm willing to bet that very few people in this thread would disagree with the gist of them. Of course Western consumption is out of control and needs to be reined in. Who isn't aware that rampant consumerism is a global issue? Of course eating large amounts of processed red meat contributes to premature death. Not exactly breaking news!
What I'm missing is the jump from "Wow, it's problematic that our nation overeats a lot of shit food" to "veganism is the one and only intellectuo-morally acceptable lifestyle out there and all critics of it are obviously brainwashed." But then again I guess I just don't possess the sort of keen intellect that you have or else I would have been able to overcome the mental handicap of my meat-eater upbringing.
I've heard fundamentalist Christians that argue the exact same way as you: "Unbelievable! You atheists are so arrogant!" A video is worth a million words so get back to me after you've seen this:
On September 24 2012 00:36 TSORG wrote: yes, I understood clearly that you draw the line at suffering. And you then proceeded to explain that plants dont suffer and thus dont deserve moral status. But you havent explained why the ability to suffer is paramount for atributing anything moral rights. Your only argument for that is that it is obvious and if someone cant see that he is beyond (your) help. Thus it is still arbitrary.
I can understand that every organism that can suffer tries to avoid suffering (with the possible exception of emo's) and thus we should not inflict (unneccesary) suffering on something that can suffer and is trying to avoid it. But in that sense there is also a good reason for not eating a living organism, namely that every organism has a "will" to live, and killing it is the very undoing of this. Since we find it very morally wrong to kill a human being in itself, not just because a human can suffer (since we can easily imagine deaths that do not include suffering perhaps), thus if we attribute moral status to beings outside our species I dont see why it is not wrong to kill a plant just because it cannot suffer.
Also the whole suffering argument does not explain the part where most people who support this argument still believe that killing an animal without suffering or with neccesary suffering (for example in self defense against a wild animal) is still wrong. But the living "argument" does.
Also I dont see why it is wrong to make a moral distinction between animals and humans based on the fact that they are biologically different while it is not wrong to make a moral distinction between plants and animals based on the fact that they are biologically different (even though I conceed that the difference between animals and plants is bigger than humans and animals but in my opinion not more radically different).
It is not arbitrary, morality is in big part based on empathy and suffering is something we empathize with, thus we categorize suffering as morally reprehensible even in animals. That does not of course mean we grant animals the same moral status as humans. Plants cannot suffer and there is nothing to empathize with and the other moral rules (fairness,...) also do not apply so the distinction between animals capable of suffering and plants with regard to morality is quite clear. That line is extremely clear, especially compared to the line drawn between conscious and the rest which is vague and unclear.
this really depends on what foundation you base your moral code. science has taken the route of empathy because they cannot have a metaphysical foundation, but many other moral codes do not neccesarily ground their moral code on empathy. the way you explain it, it would indeed not make his point arbitrary, but he never gave this argument. However where you say that we can have empathy with animals based on the common ground that we suffer, I say that we can have empathy with plants on the common ground that we both share a struggle and will to live. the reason I say so is because one of the gravest moral crimes you can commit in almost if not any culture that exists or has existed is murder. and i also claim that we find this one of the greatest moral crimes not because it causes suffering but because it ends life, and (developed) life in itself we often find sacred (not getting into the abortion debate here).
Thats not true i gave this argument a few times.
You can't just use the same "killing life in general is bad" argument over and over again. You have to differentiate forms of life. A plant is nothing more than a well organized union of living cells (Not exactly a plant but algae are a good example of that although more primitive). Thats all there is. The will to survive is nothing but evolution which defines itself through random incidents and changes. Not often but sometimes such a change is beneficial which leads to an increased chance to reproduce for the individual (mutations in genetic code, etc). The point is there is no will so survive, there is no character behind it. Life is just organized material (higher evolved life forms included i.e. humans, the difference is the nervous system which i stated a few post before). Yes i speak from a very scientific point of view but thats common believe in science which i personally find very reasonable and understandable.
Who cares if you kill a bunch of cells as long as it doesn't affect an ecosystem? Really the only problem with killing plants is if you wipe out a whole plant species which means you'd have wiped out something that was a product of millions of years of evolution. If you're sick and take antibiotics you kill thousands of bacteria... I can reduce that to the most primitive forms of life and it doesn't change anything.
I don't understand that argument that killing life in general is bad. Realistically it's best to draw the line there where empathy plays a role because we can identify with that. Everything else in my opinion is arbitrary because these are plain believes without any reason just like religion is.
I'm happy that there are some people who grant animals rights (not the same rights humans have of course). Animal rights just means that animals are taken care of, nothing more.
You are right animals don't really have a sense of justice for the most part but this doesn't have to affect human behavior does it? We love our pets even though they are the most selfish beings you could imagine. It's as you stated the drive to live thats right. Evolutionary it's a very successful strategy for the specie to establish itself ^^' I feel a bit weird because i'm really nitpicking but you have to talk about details sometimes right? ^^
Your standpoint is similar to mine i guess when i talk about suffering. So i dont understand your argument that you wouldn't grand animals moral rights. Moral consideration vs consideration. What exactly is the difference for you there?
Also you are talking a lot about perspective of things and why one side can say that they act the right way an the other side is not. Well that's just believes but some are more reasonable based on good facts that supports them.
Edit: One last thing. The capability to feel empathy is ALSO just a product of evolution even though a pretty good one. Humans are working together and thats the most powerful tool we have. Without the capability to feel empathy mankind certainly would not be as far as we are now
Your standpoint is similar to mine i guess when i talk about suffering. So i dont understand your argument that you wouldn't grand animals moral rights. Moral consideration vs consideration. What exactly is the difference for you there?
moral consideration for me has to do with things being good or bad in itself. consideration has to do with something being better or worse or (un)neccessary to achieve a certain goal. We give buildings consideration, we consider if its ok to build somewhere, if its ok to take it down, how it must look etc. We do not consider them morally however. If someone blows up a building no person will feel sorry for that building (perhaps in they will feel sorry for memories or beauty lost, but you get my meaning i hope). I'd consider animals similarly, we need to change the way bio industry works because in the long run this will just be impossible to maintain, that we decrease animal suffering is a bonus for me, not the main goal.
perhaps as you say, the line is drawn where we are empathic, i am just not empathic with animals thus i do not draw the line at animals but at humans. i might reply more in depth tomorrow, its late now, but your post deserves a better answer.
Allright,
first of all, if we have to differentiate forms of life, I dont see why we do not make a difference between humans and other animals. Or between (higher developed) mammals and other animals. If my argument that we can be empathic with plants is sophistry at best I fail to see how the same argument for animals isnt. I doubt there are many people that truly feel empathic with all animals in the "animal kingdom". Surely they feel related to some, but how many feel related to reptiles (because truly, how much do we actually have in common...) or bugs? Spiders?
We should not make the mistake that science can tell us how we should live our lives, science is amoral. It can tell us how something works, or why it is that something works how it works. But it cannot tell us if something is good or bad in the moral sense. It can tell us that many people believe for example killing animals is morally bad. But does that mean that we find it bad because we are empathic with them (and thus allowing us to have moral feelings for them according to you) or are we empathic with them because we find it bad? (hmm that is not a very clear distinction, i lost that in translation.) At the same time we should not mistake the tools for the reasons. Empathy is the tool that enables us to be moral, but it is not therefor the reason why we are moral, or the reason for our morals. Our eyes enable us to perceive something as beautiful, but they are not the reason why we find something beautiful to look at, only how we it is possible that we find something beautiful to look at. From a scientific point of view it makes sense that we are empathic with certain animals because we domesticated them to do certain things for us, or to use them for certain needs. But this requires that we take care of them to a certain extent and if we have zero capacity to even feel a caring thought for them we would neglect them and thus we could not use them. But this goes only for a small group of animals. I guess now, that we have the luxury to no longer have to care about other things as much, that this empathy has gone into extremes to both sides where on side percieves them as a commodity, a wheel in the machine in which even humans just play a part, or the other side, where the argumant but humans are just animals as well is used only to compare animals to humans and not the other way around, thus pretty much humanizing all animals.
You can't just use the same "killing life in general is bad" argument over and over again. You have to differentiate forms of life. A plant is nothing more than a well organized union of living cells (Not exactly a plant but algae are a good example of that although more primitive). Thats all there is. The will to survive is nothing but evolution which defines itself through random incidents and changes. Not often but sometimes such a change is beneficial which leads to an increased chance to reproduce for the individual (mutations in genetic code, etc). The point is there is no will so survive, there is no character behind it. Life is just organized material (higher evolved life forms included i.e. humans, the difference is the nervous system which i stated a few post before). Yes i speak from a very scientific point of view but thats common believe in science which i personally find very reasonable and understandable.
When you talk about plants scientifically you seize to talk about them morally, but when you talk about animals and humans scientifically you connect it to morals still, while they are two different domains and while we may perceive connections, correlations and perhaps even causation this is false. Ethics is still the domain of metaphysics imo, atleast how we discuss it, with rights and everything, and therefor beyond physics by definition. When you say it is bad to kill a plant when you harm the ecosystem, you say it is not bad to kill a plant in itself, just if it harms the ecosystem of which we are part and thus we harm ourself, and we find ourselves to be sufficient reason not to do something. We do not say it is bad to kill a human because we hurt the enviroment. Perhaps we disagree on this but I think its still a valid point, we find (developed) human life sacred in itself, from a scientific point of view this makes little sense beyond the point that we struggle to survive. But that would mean we should only find our own lives sacred. Ofcourse there comes the role of empathy, because we can relate to another human being who we perceive to be similar to us and in a similar struggle we can perceive their life to be sacred as well. But since it is life which is sacred here I do not see why animals (and I do not believe we are empathic with all animals) should be considered but plants not at all, or only as far as they impact us. I do agree we need to draw a line, we need to make a difference. which leads me back to my initial question, why is making a difference at human any better or worse than making it at animal, or at plant. And I want this question answered ethically since thats what we are discussing.
Who cares if you kill a bunch of cells as long as it doesn't affect an ecosystem? Really the only problem with killing plants is if you wipe out a whole plant species which means you'd have wiped out something that was a product of millions of years of evolution. If you're sick and take antibiotics you kill thousands of bacteria... I can reduce that to the most primitive forms of life and it doesn't change anything.
i dont see how killing a human changes anything as well in the scope of things, or why killing a cow to eat it changes anything either.
I don't understand that argument that killing life in general is bad. Realistically it's best to draw the line there where empathy plays a role because we can identify with that. Everything else in my opinion is arbitrary because these are plain believes without any reason just like religion is.
from a scientific point of view perhaps, but from a scientific point of view it is pointless to have a discussion about morals. not how we perceive them to manifest in the world but whether or not something is actually good or bad. like you said even for higher animals it is just random mutations then why bother... the latter part of your post makes no sense at all. even if you do not agree with the reasons given doesnt mean there are not any reasons. ive given plenty i believe.
Also you are talking a lot about perspective of things and why one side can say that they act the right way an the other side is not. Well that's just believes but some are more reasonable based on good facts that supports them.
that is true but we have gone into it so deep that i feel we have reached a point where it is hard to say wether we feel a certain way because the facts support it or that we cling to facts that support the way we feel. besides that we are talking in a domain where the existance of such moral facts are quite debatable and ambiguous.
and about the last thing you say, i do not deny that empathy is useful, but to be useful doesnt mean that it is good in a moral sense. internet is useful, its not good or bad. cars are useful, they arent good or bad, even though we can say that cars are good or bad related to a certain problem, such as the problem we have with the enviroment which is deteriorating.
k, it has be become an outright mess this post, good luck XD
Wow, 37 pages and still going strong. I guess its time for me to put my 5 cents in this discussion.
First of all: I am not going to say anything about moral/health/ethic concerning veganism/vegetarianism. There was enough things said about it during last 37 pages, i will only repeat what have been said before.
What i want to talk about, is why vegetarianism became so popular in first world countries. There is only one explanation - profit.
For that, let us go a little back and say something about human needs. Every human have needs: need to eat, need to sleep, need to entertain himself... You know the list. Now, if we will summarize all humans needs (in money equivalent), you will get the maximum size of the market(basically, how much money people will spend on their needs). The maximum amount of money that can be involved into production, giving some sort of profit.
So it is all cool and stuff, but at some point, the maximum value will be reached. The markets will be (they actually are) full. Having a full market, means that if more money will be invested in it - there will be no profit. People simply don't need that much.
But here is the problem: You still need to invest your money somewhere, if anything, simply because of inflation (+ more income is always a nice thing). But what to do, all human needs are satisfied, there is nothing to produce more. Wait... We can make human need more!
This is what is happening in most first-world countries. Markets became so full, that it is cheaper to develop a new market and take leading positions there, than try to claw your way on one of already existing markets. Think about it: why vegetarianism is most popular in first-world countries?
There is a war going on. It happens in your head. It happens for your head. And, sadly, it happens above your head. Because of the race for better profits, company started to develop completely new markets (I'm not talking only about vegetarianism here, it's more common). People are forced to have more needs, or to transfer their needs from one product to another. One might ask: "Well being vegetarian isn't about buying some expensive food, its about not eating meat!" Well, it kinda is. Since vegetarianism got popular, a whole new branch of food companies got developed, who produce for this need. Moreover, person who decided to stop eating meat, will consume more plant-based food (he have to eat something), thus making that market grow more, and making "meat" market shrink. Heck, even the development of new ways to kill animals (more humane ways) demanded for a whole bunch of money to be spent.
Now why am i telling all this? Its not like we can do something about it, I hardly believe there is someone who controlled who this process. I also want to mention that i am not against vegetarianism, i consider it be each person choice - what to eat. However, it pains me, that some people might be oblivious to the fact, that they are forced to need more. Ask yourself - how much of moderns "needs" that you have was forced to you? It's not right when human is a slave of his needs, human need to excel, not succumb.
Anyway, just wanted to give another point of view to the whole problem, not sure if did good enough job though. Hope that gives someone things to think about.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
A lot of people in this thread has plenty of statistics to support meat eating for a diet that doesn't consist of downing pills and protein powder. Whilst the first study you cited is relevant, the second one is a joke in the context of this discussion.
The religiously brainwashed statement goes both ways, I've seen some vegans (and a few in this thread) that argue with the same ferocity and dogma that the fundamentalists exhibit.
EDIT: I also frequent bodybuilding.com forums and the amount of hoops that vegans have to jump through to maintain a high muscular body in comparison to a vegetarian diet is quite insane.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
Took the words out of my mouth, I love when people start their argument off with "alot" or "many" or "a majority" or "a good number" of people in X group are "brainwashed" or "insert X condescending generalization here". It really makes you feel like agreeing with them doesn't it?
At a global scale, it has been estimated that livestock contribute, directly and indirectly, to about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane emissions (which is far worse than carbon dioxide environmentally) and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions (per the book Livestock's Lone Shadow)
All other points aside, I just would like to make a quick comment: You should be careful when stating that Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Usually the "heat trapping efficiency per molecule" used for this argument depends on the concentration of the greenhouse gas. Basically, since there's much less Methane in the atmosphere than CO2, you get a bigger number. Second, Methane doesn't absorb at the spectral maximum of infrared emission from earth, like CO2. Third, and most important, Methane is resorbed from the atmosphere on a short timescale (9-12y). For CO2, we're talking centuries. It's much trickier to ged rid of CO2.
Most other points have already been discussed. I agree that industrial processing of animals has reached a level that is repulsive at times and completely non-sustainable. I consider Veganism mainly as some kind of protest against this, and as such I applaud the people that are consequent and vocal enough. From a health point of view, it forces people to think about their food, which usually leads to a better lifestyle (no matter how you construct your diet).
However, I think you have to take everything with a grain of salt. I feel the problem is more industrialization and globalisation of food production than just consuming animal products. Going back to a more small-scale, local agriculture might be more sustainable than being strictly vegan. If we switch from meat to soy, we can also proceed to burn off the rain forest in order to plant more soy. Of course this would still be more efficient than cows, but that doesn't prevent people from being stupid.
On September 25 2012 08:19 Gangnam Style wrote: The reality is that a lot of anti-vegan people are very much like the religiously brainwashed. They've been raised in meat eating families, been practicing it all their lives, and find it very hard to be open-minded about the matter - instead choosing to refuse to accept change and finding as much information as possible to support their claims, even though the scientific consensus is generally against what they believe, picking out holes like Christians trying to pick holes in evolution theory. Take this UN report for example:
Couldnt the same thing be said about anti-meat people? That they are very much like the religiously brainwashed?
On another note, b12 vitamin is found in meat,fish,eggs,dairy. If someone is brainwashed into eating a diet that will lead to a b12 deficiency its the vegans.
I know that these days there are b12-fortified vegan food but i find it hilarious that vegans eat food that has ADDED b12 to them - which isnt natural
What is "natural" and "unnatural" is very much not important in todays society and what moral choices we make. I'm a vegan and a quite militant one at that, but as soon as someone says "Veganism is so totally natural!" I rage. Just like I rage when someone says "Eating meat is so totally natural!" Both add nothing to the discussion and are completely empty statements. Fuck that.
I also can't fathom how anyone can say that veganism is bad for you "because you have to take pills to take in B12". People have to take pills for a lot of different reasons, if I have to take a pill to stay healthy while not slaughtering innocent animals then I fucking eat that pill. It's not the biggest investment ever and people eat a lot more "unnatural" things systematically than B12-pills.
EPT
