* bump for an interesting thread.

Sweetpea

I go to school with an economic vegitarian. He intends on going into political economics, or something like that, and his reasoning for his vegitarianism is not because of morals or ethics, but because eating animals is not economically sound.

He suggests that it costs at least twice as much for beef for the same amount of soy. First, you need to feed the cow. You'll likely feed the cow soy. Lots and lots of soy. Perhaps, a cow's weight in soy? Then the cost of the land to grow this cows weight of soy on. Then the workers for the soy. Then the workers for the cow.

It makes sense to me, even if I can't (or haven't bothered, one or the other;)) verify the truths.

This is a sound argument; energy conversions result in energy loss so if we want to get the most efficient sunlight-to-food ratio we need to start with something that derives energy directly from sunlight, e.g. a plant. Of course I can quote directly from a Steak 'n Shake commercial that asks "When was the last time you said "Mmm, that tastes 'efficient'?"."

Additionally while plants might be energy efficient it might be a significant pain to have a balanced diet from nothing but plants; humans are omnivores so our bodies are designed to take nutrition from both meat and plants so cutting meat out completely requires a carefully controlled diet to replace their nutritional value. While it is possible for plants to replace meat it is probably more convenient to just eat a chunk of cow every so often rather than worry about your legume intake. It turns into a tradeoff between your time and the cow's time, which is most easily measured in money in our capitalist society. Which diet type is the cheapest?

I have been a vegetarian for 16 years. A real vegetarian too, fish and chicken aren't vegetables. ;) I turned because I have a problem, morally, eating animals when other, viable options are available. People continue to eat animals not because they have too, but rather because they like the taste. People ask me, what if you were stranded on a desert island and you HAD to eat meat to survive...well, I would still try living off of bark and sand before I had to eat Spot or Bessy or Mr. Ed. Even then, I dont know.

I am all about the zen of treating animals with the same respect as I treat humans. I don't kill roaches or spiders or ants. I don't think human life is inherently more valuable than animal life.

But, I work in scientific research. I do have a continuing dilemma with animals in research. My husband works on animals...but while I have that animal-side of the argument, I also have this logic going on that tells me that things like Tylenol and aspirin were tested on animals and if I were against such things, I'd have to eschew even the most common of medications based on principle.

Although I would prefer that all experimentation happens on humans, what about medications and treatments for other animals? It is such a tough call. As part of my MS degree, I was going to use bunnies to develop an antibody to a particular virus protein I was studying. When I learned that they kill the bunnies afterwards and that I couldn't adopt them, I refused to complete the research. I still got the degree, but my analysis lacks that antibody proof, etc.

I don't expect anybody to convert or buy into my beliefs, to each his/her own...which is why I get so upset when people attack MY choices for myself. It is like they have to justify why they do what THEY do by attacking my beliefs.

So I think people eat animals not because they HAVE to, but because they like to. I really think that that is a lazy point of view. Raising and killing another life because you wanna - rubs me the wrong way. But, like I said, that is a decision I have made for my life. I can sit at a table with my husband while he demolishes chicken wings or ribs or whatever else...I don't judge. Besides, more and more evidence suggests that the less meat in your diet, the better.

Well, legumes are also cheaper than meat most of the time. Really, it takes much more time to cook steak than beans? Also, you can get pretty much everything in soy now, even balogna and ground "beef."

He's also not against eating eggs and dairy. Chickens can lay eggs for quite a while, and cows can give milk for a while too. They can produce more of these things in a full lifetime than they can provide meat in exchange for a shorter period.

It's sorta like saying that recycling isn't worth the time and effort... maybe.

Cattleman's view
 

I think you got it quite right here. I grew up on a small farm, mainly raising cattle, pigs and chickens. It was a lifestyle for us, and we made our living from it. As such, the first two decades of my life I was fed meat two to tree times a day.

I really do enjoy eating many different varieties of meat, and do so regularily. I also know that too much meat in your diet is a problem. Having to push 32oz of steak through your digestive tract is not a fun thing. A portion of meat is 6-8oz and most standard food guides recommend 2-3 servings a day of meat or their substitutes.

Where I start to get infuriated is when others force their opinions upon me. I'm not going to convert, so don't even try. I don't go around preaching 'Thou shalt eat MEAT' so don't get on my case when I'm enjoying a chicken sandwich. When other people attempt to force their views and beliefs upon me, I get real defensive. Both sides of the fight have their own facts/half-truths for every aspect of this argument. When you bring this sort of thing up when someone is eating, you are only looking for a fight. Stop being an asshole and just let it go.

In a forum on the other hand, shoot from the hip and take no prisoners!
:D

My mom grew up like that, in Puerto Rico. Even though I don't eat meat, rarely eat eggs and never drink milk, I often wonder what it would have been like to have the freshest possible milk and eggs. :D

I wasn't talking about the cost of the components of the diet, but about the overall cost. Suppose a restaurant has two evenly priced meals, one with meat and the other without; while they might cost the same the overall nutrition is probably not the same. To give you an example from nature look at cows and tigers. The cow, being an herbivore, spends all day grazing on plants. The tiger on the other hand would make a kill every 8 or so days (6-5 with 2 cubs) and pretty much sleep or whatever the rest of the time.

Why is this? Overall, feeding a population can be done efficiently with plants but for the individual it is more convenient to eat meat sometimes.

astrahl
I hope I don't seem to be attacking your beliefs about animals; while I don't share your views, if you are not trying to press them on others then there is no reason to argue. Every person has the right to choose their own diet and do not really need to divulge their reasons for their choices.

I think that this thread assumes that animals have to suffer to be killed for consumption. I can gurantee that you feel no pain from a bullet to the head (or many other forms of euthanization). Certainly animals suffer during the slaughtering process, and I am all for ending thier suffering and killing them in a way that they feel no pain. So then I guess the question would be, "Is killing animals for our consumption humane?" Whether or not we can label it humane, it is how the world works. Before we came along this happened. It will undoubtebly happen after we are gone. Besides, even if we had the means to end the "suffering" of animals through our unnaturaly devilish consumption, I would have to wonder where our values lie as much of our own species is currently suffering.

check out your local farmer's market. they're likely to have farm fresh eggs.

and as for the economic / efficient arguement, here's my point of view. yes, it's more environmentally sustainable to eat only grains and beans and the like. or rather, there is less impact on the grain supply. it takes more energy to "grow" a cow. thus, beef is more expensive, and WORTH EVERY PENNY! i'm ok with paying up $15 / pound for top quality rib eye or porterhouse. because it freakin' tastes good. period.

should we stop making sauces and stocks as well? we're just evaporating away all that perfect good liquid! it's to concentrate the flavors. mmmmm, and for me, beef is the same idea - just flavor concentration. take the yumminess of grain, multiply it by 10, and viola! beef.

The problem is that humans don't seem to work this way. We can't just have one serving of meat a week, then be done with it, no matter how large the portion size is. Though it may be a bit more complicated to just eat protine infused foods throughout the day. (such as soy cereal with breakfast, eggs with lunch and tofu with dinner) I believe (though, I may be wrong here) that it also adds energy throughout the day instead of in one big lump.

I didn't say that did I? All I am pointing out is that meats are concentrated nutrients and can be much more convenient rather than trying to strategically plan your meals.

Not entirely true. Meat is mostly just protein and iron. Any vegetarian meal I eat on a daily basis has the nutrients I need. I don't plan my meals at all. I hate even thinking about planning food combinations.

I think that the very fact of BEING a vegetarian gives you so many more items to try that more than satisfy the RDAs for most people. When people eat meat, it is the main dish, the focus of the meal. Because veggie people don't have that focus, there can be more/different items on the plate that, in all likelihood, more than compliment eachother nutrition-wise.

Take last night's meal, for example. My husband and I went to a new Mediterranean restaurant (as part of our Wed night tradition of trying a new restaurant). He had a chicken swarma or something and his plate came with two piles of meat and a couple of sauces. I had a vegetarian plate and had, moussaka, a lentil and rice dish, hummus, falafel, dolmas and some greens. I had no doubt that my meal was more healthful and more nutrient rich than his.

On the whole, it is my firm belief that vegetarian meals are far more varied and healthy than meat based meals.

Hmmmm, yeah, I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Vegetarian meals are, by definition, a subset of what an omnivoir would eat. I too could have moussaka, a lentil and rice dish, hummus, falafel, dolmas and some greens, but with a big fat, loaded with iron steak right in the middle. You can't tell me you have more variety when you have less choices.

I agree that meat is generally the focus of the meal. No one orders garlic mashed potatoes with a side of roast. This is probably because the meat is worth the focus; it is loaded with most of the nutrients I need and tastes really good. I can see your point about a meal plate generally not having a lot of variety in what comes with it, but that is a problem with the cook/chef not with the fact that meat is on the plate.

Thanks Lumberg, ;)

My point is that at any given meal, a vegetarian platter is 99 times out of 100, more healthful than a carnivore's plate.

And out of the thousands of veggie choices, taking away cow, lamb, fish, seafood, pork, rabbit, deer...that's just 7 less choices...

I didn't become a vegetarian for the healthful side of the equation so I can't really argue it properly, I have found after so many years that a vegetarian lifestyle is easy and very tasty.

The problem with North American diets isn't meat, but how much meat and how it's prepared. We eat way too much meat around here. I bet most people will have a 1/3 of every dish they eat during the day consist of some sort of meat product. The human body simply doesn't need that much proteen and meat is very easy to "extend" by using other food that soaks up the flavour. Then there is the issue of how we preapare it, making our dishes terribly unhealthy. Vegetarian dishes are generally more healthy not because they comprise of vegitables but because more though has been put into their preperation.

From a moral perspective I have no issue with killing animals to eat them. Animals die all the time to get eaten. People who compare animals to humans are backing up the wrong tree. There is no natural law which says killing is wrong. There is an agreed upon social contract which says killing humans is wrong. Such an agreement is pretty damn beneficial to our society don't you think? When it comes to animals such as cats and dogs, which we take on as pets and thus grow emotionaly attached too; we have yet another social agreement. We accept these animals into our homes, as part of our lives and obviously that requires emotional attachment thus making it traumatic if we killed them and ate them. Sure you can take in a goat or a cow as a pet, and yes I bet you would grow attached enough to them or even their whole species to not be able to eat them, it's part of our emotional bond after all. I have no issue with people not eating meat though, if it floats your boat, take the ride.

Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!
 

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest. And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear. And terror possesed me then. And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?" And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them it is the holocaust." And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah? Thank you Jesus.

Life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on........

(taken from Disgustapeted by Tool off the Undertow album)

Sorry, but I had to toss it provided the topic.

For those who say that at our current point in technological innovation meat is no longer needed and other methods are better / more effective. What about Eskimos? They have basically no other way of getting nutrition besides meat and fish. To those of you who say "They can just move or import their food", How would you like to move to a new place and not be able to eat your native diet?

To those who suggested economic vegetarianism, it makes perfect sense if the cows are eating soy or other grains which could instead be fed to humans but what about plants that humans cannot eat and other animals can. Is it not effective to turn clover and grass into edible meat?

To those of you who argue that animals deserve better treatment. I fully agree that animals need to be treated more humanely but how about we focus on the horrors that humans are doing to other humans, humans have generally been far more brutal to other humans than to animals. Just consider which is more valuable a human life or an animal's life?

And finally to those who say that meat is bad for you, just consider that all meat comes from plants, plants that even if we could eat, it would require us to eat gigantic amounts to get the equivalent nutrition as that of meat compounded by the fact that we are not phisiologically capable of properly digesting the myriad of plants that other animals can eat.

There's too much I'd like to say so I'll keep is short and sweet. How much do you wanna bet that the same people who want tell me/meat eaters what we should eat are the same ones that bitch that the government is trying to control them too much? Yet it's OK for a veg-head to tell me what I can or can't eat. The hypocrisy is ridiculous. At least my government lets me shove any kind of food I want down my throat.

Well, your first point is a very biased question...it is hard to have an objective opinion about the choice since you ARE one of the two choices...a very species-centric question. Ask a human which is more important, another human or a blue whale. Ask a blue whale which is more important, another blue whale or a human. The point is, that ALL life is important and if you don't have to make that choice, you don't have to. I have chosen to eat in such a way as to avoid that choice and I feel the better for it.

Your second point about the food chain is almost right. Meat CAN be bad for you because the toxins in plants are concentrated in the flesh (think DDT). Meat also is contaminated with fats, hormones and some transmissible diseases. We are capable of digesting plants, why do people eat salad? Humans NEED plant food in order to maintain a healthy digestive tract. Just look at REAL carnivores...our relatives, the apes. They have the dentition that suggests a more meat based diet but a large part of their diet is plants.

You can go on and on about how we are physiologically structured and our lifestyles and what not, but humans, in this country especially, eat meat because they like the taste. The animals, the health of the food and the economics are NON-issues with them. At least OWN it.

This is basiclly wrong. The great apes eat less meat than we do (traditionaly and modern times) and some species are 100% vegitarian.

One theory why humans are intelligent is that switching to a meat based diet allowed us to support the larger brains. Vegitarianism is a very new concept for humans, and has only been supportable on a mass scale, in any sort of healthy manner in modern times.(past populations have been vegitarians by circumstance and they had health issues because of it).

Humans are, by nature, omnivores.

It is, generally speaking, healthier to eat a mixture of vegetables, fruit and meat. Modern man (ie, [i]Homo Sapiens[i]) has recently, in the past 20,000 years, dramatically increased the amount of meat in our diet. But it is not true to say it did not form a fundamental part of our nutrition since time immorial.

Meat is good for you.
But a meat only diet is not.


Mr Mephisto

I would say we have NOT dramaticly increased the amount of meat in our diet, and we have evolved for a higher meat diet than (until very recently) was 'suppose to' be healthy. Agriculture is a VERY new invention in evolutionary terms.

Being I am of European stock, these guys were my ansestors.

I found this link to diets pretty interesting, thought I'd share.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-2a.shtml

Maybe you could eat rocks and dirt?

I'm sorry I'd like to get into this thread but I'm late for a veal and baby back rib dinner at "Smokey Bones Bar and Grill." (Best baby back ribs in New England!) :lol:

What do you consider 'modern'? The Hindus have been prety Vegatarian for as long as they've been around as far as I know.

/me wonders how many will get this reference...

:D

This post has nothing to do with the quote, I just love it....

The efficiency argument that is used to support a plant based diet, I believe, is quite narrow minded. It is true that there is a lot more energy involved in rasing a cow/pig/succulent lamb than there is just bombarding a carrot with sun and water. But humans have not always lived in this modern age of SUVs, inflating oil prices and mass deforestation. Our ancestors, even as far back as a few centuries ago, did not think of energy efficiency on a global scale. It was much more efficient to snare a rabbit, pit trap a tiger, or frighten a buffalo off a cliff than it was to spend days collecting plant matter. There is no dispute that animals are a much higher source of energy than plants (Especially the juicy, fatty parts). We just decided that it would be better to front end load a few days of effort to have meat for a month, than to spend days and days collecting roots and things hanging from trees. Before we domesticated animals, they were responsible for collecting and storing energy for us by surviving in their environment, we just took advantage of their hard work. It's only since we've had to start paying for energy that people have taken up the argument of efficiency in the foods we eat.

The animal cruelty argument is flawed as well. I grew up on a ranch, and know that the farmers from who we collected grain killed thousands of mice, voles and richardson ground squirrels each year as they harvested their crops. As the grain was passed through a sift you would see body after body fall to the ground into a large pile. This grain was not only being used to feed our cattle, but sent off to be turned into flour and other refined grain products. Vegetarian food is not cruelty free, so stop using this argument.

I explain eating meat to my daughter this way.

We do not kill animals for fun. We don't even step on ants purposefully, pull wings off flies, etc. When we eat meat we have obtained it through a process. If I could eat only venison and chicken and obtained the meat myself I would. I eat as much venison as I can.

I do not want animals to suffer. When I hunt I do not shoot to wound and if I have not first killed the animal I will do so as quickly as possible when I find it. My intent is not for it to suffer. If I had a choice to buy a cosmetic product that was somewhat more expensive than a second product but I know that the second product was tested on animals I would buy the first product.

I believe that animals ARE intelligent but that they do not have a certain capacity for compassion and reason that humans do not. To argue that infants are not capable of that is not correct because they have the ability to think. They have not the ability to form it into words for one and they ability has yet to grow to the capacity that adults have. Infants have potential for higher thinking. Animals do not. (I might occaisionally wonder about the Primates but if you follow evolutionary thought you would put them closest to humans in mental ability anyway.)

As for the mentally retarded. The human design is such that these people would have been capable of such compassion and reasoning ability as other humans. The criteria isn't technically INTELLIGENCE but rather that step beyond blind reason and instinct to an empathy for others that animals do not have.

3. We evolved to eat meat. It is natural.
"It does not follow that because something is natural, it is good." No not everything that is natural is good but following the natural flow of things is easier. We are still struggling to "evolve" beyond racism. To ask humans to evolve beyond specisism, I believe, is somewhat beyond our abilities at this time physically and mentally I believe. If you study the design of animals you'll find that some have digestive systems created to process protein such as found in meat. They had teeth designed to eat meat. If they do not eat meat, as animals, they will die. Humans are only just more able to reason and study food to know how to obtain most of the nutrients that we need. The flaw here is that we still do NOT know all that humans need as far as nutrients. Humans cannot yet duplicate the antiseptic/immune benefits of human breast milk. If we cannot do that then who's to say we can create for ourselves the PERFECT meat free diet. I realize many people are vegetarians and manage quite well. I've also known some vegetarians who had numerous health problems even though they had a physician and nutritionist assisting them with their diet.

I must include that I hold to a spiritual aspect to the whole "eating meat" decision so my decision is not based on just the physical aspects.

It's not an "either/or" situation. Given that the economic argument is sound, consider how moving towards vegetarianism would help alleviate the problems of overpopulation. I believe that by reducing the ecological footprint required to support a meat-centric diet, we'd be helping our fellow human beings.

Excellent Raeanna - I thought you made clear some basic information that really ought to be part of the foundation for any such conversation as this :thumbsup:

That's a stretch. I can't see any link between overpopulation and the need for humans to eat meat. Technology has reached a point that we have removed ourselves from the evolutionary chain, no longer do defects (or even stupidity) eliminate unwanted traits from the gene pool. As a matter of fact, those that you don't want breeding are the ones that most often are.

How would not eating animals reduce our ecological footprint? We are natural predators (my eyes are on the front of my head anyway), and we are used to keep other populations in check. Granted the capitalistic desire for gall blatters, claws, talons, tusks, hides and horns have dwindled animal populations. There is a balance that is needed between those who eat and those who are eaten. Many herbivours reproduce at an alarming rate, and predators are needed to keep the populations down. Would we not be reducing the available footprint by allowing animal populations to climb and hense require more space.

If you want to stop overpopulation, use a condom.

Back on topic, eat meat....

Tool's Disguspitated? or did that song get it from somewhere else?

Think of the acreage to produce one pound of meat vs produce edible wheat. And if we NEEDED to eat meat...I'd be dead. I've been a vegetarian for 16 years and I have a vegetarian and vegan friends who have lived their whole lives without animal products.

Humans have not been part of the natural food web for thousands of years now. We don't curb population growth that way. [/QUOTE]

Don't pretend that you eat meat because you are concerned about herbivore populations.

I'm not saying that I eat meat because of the need to keep herbbie population down. I eat meat because I like it.

My problem is in the argument that we should stop eating meat because of the 'footprint' that an animal requires to be rasied. What should we do then? Erradicate all cows from the planet so that we can use their space and eat their food. Might as well get rid of the rabbits, chickens and fish while we are at it, because they take up room too, and so does the food they require. If overpopulation of the human race is a problem, deal with overpopulation as the problem, don't push it off to the fact that my food takes up more space than yours.

I think the footprint point is more along the lines of... farmers are grazing their cattle on public lands, which I hate, and destroying acres and acres of land. Foreign farmers destroy natural landscapes to make pasture land.

Commercial production of fish, rabbit and chickens put together wouldn't equal HALF of the land used for cattle (I would bet).

And I really didn't take the vegetarian argument into the overpopulation thing. I'd argue that meat production was more an issue about natural resources-not necessarily space.

I'm really enjoying talking to rational people about this issue instead of a bunch of ...why don't you just eat dirt and rocks if you're so concerned about life-people.

I'm not telling you to go and eat rocks, I'm asking you to try some steak :rolleyes:

This is a timeless debate, and both sides have their arguments, each of which has it's flaws. For instance the space argument can be widened out into animal cruelty. Fish would be the highest density living protein humans manufacture, because we believe them to be 'lesser animals' with primitive brains and don't mind stacking them into fish farms. Everyone has seen or heard of the horrors inside commercial feed lots for cattle and chickens where animals spend their entire lives touching others of the same species. Space is always a premium especially when you need it close to large urban centers to keep down shipping costs. The ranch that I lived on as a boy had only free range cattle and chickens, which I firmly believe to be the only way an animal should be raised.

I've yet to see any free range rancher 'destroying acres and acres of land'

Perhaps you should direct this to the forestry industry. Farmers (who grow grains and grasses) need to have cleared fields over which to run their tractors. Ranchers (who raise animals) are more than happy having their animals in forested areas. Almost all free range ranchers will put their animals out to pasture, which is often forested, mountainous or bogged land. If the farmer has payed the government the money to lease these lands, why does it bother you?

Astrahl posting as braisler
 

I just realized my husband was logged in. The following comments do not come from braisler.

Steak is gross. I remember my mom having to force me to eat "just one more bite" when I was little. Bleech!

I agree that free range is good - for the environment, for the animals and for the quality of foods. I still have a problem with use of public lands because My tax money is going to subsidize a practice I don't believe in. I know our tax money goes towards hundreds of thousands of things we don't believe in, but it is still okay for me to not like it.

There are also those farmer/ranchers etc who complain about the natural predators in the areas they are raising their "crop" on. Shooting wolves and foxes and other natural predators is so reprehensible.

I truly do not have a problem with the free range idea. I still don't like the idea of animals being used as food, but at least they aren't chained down in a pen or suffering (besides the death sequence - which is a conversation I will avoid).

I really think there are so many negatives when it comes to eating meat - especially now with the hormones they use and the nvCJD that, I believe, is possibly transmissible to humans. Too many cons and not enough pros.

You know, while writing this and thinking more about it...I don't really think I would have any problem with people eating meat if they were to do it in moderation. The problem, though, is that people eat meat with EVERY meal. Breakfast lunch and dinner...why not dessert? I think people, Americans especially, WAY overdo with their meat consumption. If meat were a special thing you treated yourself to once in a while, the overall effects would be better for all involved.

-astrahl

Okay I hate to break this to you but it is quite simple. Cosmically speaking we may be morally bankrupt for eating animals, however to tell the truth I dont give a rats ass. The reason I don't eat humans is because they arent available in the supermarket, and i dont wana do life to learn how they taste. Canabalism is an out dated taboo, but this isnt the issue at hand so lets get back to it. Animals are incapable of exacting retributon (and I dont have to kill them myself), especially not in the sense that I am hurting "feelings". When I get down to it it is a case of humans I have to live with and care about, animals just taste soooo damn good. MY big point being I dont care if its right to the animals, when they can complain I will stop, when i have an perticular animal I care about I will stop, if I was to have a serious relationship with one I would stop. Short of that nothing.

Now to nitpick you mention killing infants and the retarded and to make my point clear thats not the right picture, lets talk about eating healthy capable adult humans, somehting which I would attempt if it didnt cause problems with other humans (which can bring forth retribution, see my barbaric point here).

Now mind you this isn't a troll post I didnt call you stupid I just said I dont have any incentive to care, cause even the effective arguments against omnivorism (I hope thats a word) which includes yours, are neccesarily something which require me to take an incentive in caring, one which I dont plan on taking.

One persons perversion is anothers lifestyle.

Most major European nations eat just a tad less meat than Americans, so you can drop that part of the argument.

Americans eat about 218 pounds a year.
French eat about 203 pounds.
Germans eat about 198 pounds.
I couldn't find a number for the Brits but its listed at 24.2% of their diet.

Added is that Europe was hit harder by the BSE scare than the US and their numbers are still on the rise.

You seem to view eating meat as an aberation, I think its perfectly healthy.

I'm not sure what the practice is down in the US, but in Canada farmers have to lease the crown land from the government, and it definitely isn't cheap. Considering the money that the government is getting for an unused section of forested land is usually next to nothing, I think the farmers are helping to reduce your taxes. For the government to keep the land producing money they could alternatively lease it to an industry and get mineral or stumpage rights.

If you find eating meat to be gross, that's fine with me. If you don't like eating another animal, that's OK too. If you think vegetarianism is healthier, will help you lose weight, or make you sexier then go for it. What gets me riled up is when I'm out for dinner or eating in the company of aquaintences and someone gets on my case about eating animal. It's not good manners.

I couldn't agree more, which I why I NEVER EVER do that. Hell, I goto wings bars with my husband and watch - rather fascinated - as he devours 30-40 wings. I think part of my fascination is how he knows WHERE the meat is on the bone or in the shell. Watching him work on a crab is like watching surgery! LOL

What you put in your body is such a personal decision, nobody has the right to tell you what is best for you. :thumbsup:

Sometimes I like to come to forums like this an argue about why, though.

I tend to follow the arguement that the human body was made to eat meat. We simply can't survive without either meat or some sort of vitamin supplement. There are carnivores, herbivores and omnivores. Humans are omnivores. We aren't the only omnivorous animal in existance. Should the others stop eating meat because their prey suffers a bit? We're at the top of the food chain for a reason. If I had my way I wouldn't eat any meat that I didn't kill or catch myself. But growing up with a mom that hated guns and then moving to Japan where guns are illegal make that kind of difficult. So I take my nutrients where I can get them. And that includes meat.

we dont need to eat meat or animal products tosurvive..it is perfectly possible to be healthy wihout either..i think the way we treat animals is barbaric and i wont be part of it...
i dont know if we were 'meant' to eat meat, dont beleive that is an answerable question..but we certailnly dont need to.and i dotn beleive we should want to :confused:

No, that's the point. Since everything is living, you may as well eat all of it instead of being selective just because one thing is cuter than the other. Sometimes I fail in my reasoning (I don't think I'll be eating rabbit anytime soon), but that's the general idea.

Dennis Leary does a funny skit on this in his 'No Cure For Cancer' standup. He sums the animal rights movement as:

"Don't eat tuna, because they kill the dolphins that get stuck in the nets"

"Well, what about the tuna?"

"Fuck them, they taste good."

As a society we have branded animals as either good to eat or bad to eat based on a crazy set of rational. Tell someone you ate some Horse for dinner last night and they will most likely get upset, because horses are majestic, beautiful animals, whereas cattle are dumb, ugly breeders. Some 'vegetarians' just won't eat red meat, but will still consume chickens, soon to be chickens (eggs), and fish. North Koreans make meals out of dogs, which most people in North American find apaulling.

Where do we draw the line between an animal that is good to eat and one that isn't? Most people have their own half baked ideas, but if it came down to it, I'm not going to starve because I'm surrounded by 'pretty animal meat'

No matter what our choice I think at least Americans are a little on the naive side when it comes to meat. Those that live in big cities can go so long without even seeing an animal being raised for human consumption that they forget where meat comes from. Not in a logical sense, but they just don't think about it. They go to the store, pick up a nice big steak, go home and fry it up, and eat it. They never see the blood, gore, and flopping body after it's head has been chopped off or blown away.

This is one thing that I intend to educate my daughter in. I have not hidden from her the fact that her meat comes from living animals. She's seen deer alive, she's seen them dead, and she's seen them quartered and ready for cutting the meat off the bones. She's asked me where her meat comes from (i.e. chicken from chicken, pork from pigs... etc.) Every time we discuss it I emphasis the "gift" that the animal gave us. That we don't take more than we need and we don't waste what we get. That we don't treat the animal cruely just because it's intended for slaughter. It's a valuable creature and we kill it as quickly and painlessly as we can. At her age of 5 she doesn't understand all the things I'm discussing but I've said basically all of that to her. She will appreciate the animals and if she chooses not to eat meat I will respect that. I personally eat it because it's part of my body's design, to eat meat. I will not waste it or mistreat animals intended for slaughter just because they aren't intended for any other purpose. Appreciation of all living things and their "purposes" is important to me.

Just a little somethign to throw into the mix. Saw something the other day that made me think of this thread and one of the reasons I don't take most "meat is murder" types serious. Got to watch some some guy go off about how evil it is to kill an animal to eat it. While he was standing there in leather shoes and a leather belt. Yeah, it's no ok to eat them, but you can wear them. Fuck him. Some one bring me a steak.

As a society we have branded animals as either good to eat or bad to eat based on a crazy set of rational. Tell someone you ate some Horse for dinner last night and they will most likely get upset, because horses are majestic, beautiful animals, whereas cattle are dumb, ugly breeders. Some 'vegetarians' just won't eat red meat, but will still consume chickens, soon to be chickens (eggs), and fish. North Koreans make meals out of dogs, which most people in North American find apaulling.

Where do we draw the line between an animal that is good to eat and one that isn't? Most people have their own half baked ideas, but if it came down to it, I'm not going to starve because I'm surrounded by 'pretty animal meat'[/QUOTE]




ita with wht you say here-why is it wrong to eat some animals and not others?they are all living, breathing beings the same as one another. :rolleyes:

I love rabbit. My personal fav is hassenpfeffer (spelling?), and it's quite frankly the best meat I've ever had.

Back on point, I think the only rational way to do it is either based on taste or health. One's idea of "good" or "bad" animals to eat is silly. I can eat lamb because its tasty, but I may want to avoid it because its fatty.

Seer666: RE the guy wearing leather shoes and a belt preaching against red meat...

Sometime back in the mall I saw a twenty-something guy berating an elderly lady because she was wearing a coat with a fur trimmed collar. I asked him if he only picked on old ladies, or would he go after anyone wearing similar attire. If he was not just a bully, there was a biker bar about half a mile down the road where a high percentage of the clientele were dressed mostly in leather.

He shut up and went on his way. From the lack of mention in the news, I doubt he ever showed at the bar.

Reminds me of the Yosemite Sam/Bugs Bunny Hossenpheffer (sp?) sketch...one of my faves. :)

As for the thread - eat what you will...don't be personally offended if somebody looks over at your food and says, EEW! I happen to think that eating meat is wrong - for me.

Think of all the poor Acrylics and Nylons that had to be brutally murdered in order to make that coat!

Eat Meat, Drink Milk, Be Happy

“When we examine racism, we see that the justifications for it came from dividing the world into the 'in-group' and the 'out-group'. We are obligated to extend to those in the in-group (for example, white people) rights and ethical treatment. Those in the out-group are inferior and unimportant and as such, are not worthy of such rights. We are justified in treating them in whatever manner we so choose.”

This is not necessarily true. A race may dominate another because it is “desirable” to do so. For instance, the green people of island A have made slaves of the blue people of island B. The greens do nor believe the blue people to be inferior, they just like having slaves. Whether blues are “worthy” of rights is a question that does not even occur to greens.

To assume otherwise (or argue that this is unethical regardless) requires an assumption that morality is independent of and unaffected by either popular opinion or by the edicts of those in power, and that morality applies to people even if they do not personally subscribe to it.

How you could make any such a claim while at the same time denying any religious argument is a puzzle. By what authority would these ethical rules be imposed?

So regarding the question of eating meat: In a practical sense, eating meat as part of a balanced diet is nutritious and tasty, and so "good" for the individual who has easy, affordable access to it. However, devoting resources to raising meat is less efficient than raising directly-edible plants, so it’s possible to see meat as a luxury.
Now, lets see someone make a non-ethical argument that I (in a prosperous country that can afford meat) should care about those who would benefit from less grain fed to cattle and more sent to poor countries.

Cattle, chickens, et cetera, do not naturally exist in the numbers or densities that they currently do, nor over the vast areas they now inhabit. We have artificially inflated their numbers and range by protecting them when they breed, until we decide to slaughter them. If we all stopped eating domesticated meat, their numbers would drop drastically as they were predated upon, struck with disease, and so forth, and our use of vegetation as our sole source of nutrients would reduce each person's biological footprint substantially.

I was at lunch with a friend today and he ordered the vegetarian platter. Shocking in itself, as I thought he was a full on cowboy meat eater type- so I asked him why he went vegetarian.

He told me, "I went vegetarian not because I love animals, but because I hate plants."


This isn't really very deep, but I felt a need to share. :)

I think you meant to say if we stopped raising domesticated animals their numbers would drop back to equilibrium. If we just stopped eating them, their numbers would rise as we have erradicated a great deal of the natural predators that prey upon the animals we have domesticated. But, with that I think you missed the point of my argument.

Over population, and the reduction in usable space is a completely different issue as to the mistreatment of animals and the eating of animals for food. If you are worried about a biological footprint, STOP DRIVING. When you said that each person's footprint would be reduced substancially by having a vegitarian diet, I know you are misguided. The resources that are consumed in the name of manufacturing cars and supplying them with energy surpasess the energy and space required to feed a human population meat by orders of magnitude.

If you are going to continue with the biological footprint argument, what about factoring in the manufacturing costs of all the vitamins and food suppliments that many vegitarians eat in order to replace what they are not getting from a diet that contains meat. Or the shear energy requirement in shipping the food that we eat around the world, country or even the city you live in. The manufacturing costs of the clothes you are wearing while you read this are probably bigger than the energy required in raising the meat I'm going to eat all month.

It is true that it takes more space to raise an animal than it is to get an equivalent amount of energy from grains, vegitables and fruits. But there are a lot of things that one could give up that would decrease their footprint more than cutting animal from their diet.

And I LOVE the taste!!!!!

I didn't read the thread because it's four pages and you lot are really smart. You'll make my brain try to think and that's just not going to be good at the moment, it's too scrambled.

The only reason I'm here is because I thought I'd point out that I eat meat because I want my pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

:thumbsup:

Eating meat is good. (As long as its not a cock sausage) it is food. Experimenting. Well not so good. I guess it beats the hell out of experimenting on humans. Which is done.

I'm not sure I can agree with the angle at large of the OP. Devil's advocate taken to understanding, I would say we are justified simply because we are justified. How are we justified in anything that we, as human, do? Cultural divides will always do just that, divide us. Animals, shpanimal! The same can be said for so many things we do. It's silly how a 16 year old girl being pregnant in the US is a socially outcastable offense, when 100 years ago, 16 years old was a more than normal age to be popping the first one out. At any rate, I can't have this debate without going off on too many tangents.

My basic belief. We do what we do because we can... and THAT is human nature.

Plants are living beings too, just because they don't have a central nervous system to feel pain or get upset doesn't mean that you aren't maiming and killing a living being.
Plants are related to us, albeit distantly, so why should they bear the brunt of our dietary needs? As you said the lion has no choice but to eat animals, we have no choice but to eat plants or animals. If you choose animals over plants you are being speciesist, which I think was the whole point of this thread, yes?

Sorry if this repeats anyone elses argument but I couldnt be arsed reading 5 pages of posts.

P.S. I wasn't aware CSflim was a professional troll ;P

There is scientific evidence to the contrary. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0806090010.htm

Also, modern agriculture kills lots of animals during the harvesting process. "For the carrots, it IS the holocaust."

I suppose if you really want to eat "cruelty-free", you can, as long as you don't mind eating only gravel. Even going that route, you would still be destroying some critter's habitat.

If we were not supposed to eat animals, they wouldn't be made out of meat.

Quick question for CSflim:
If we discovered a species of cute fluffy animal that didn't have the necessary facilities to undergo suffering (senseless nerve endings, constant stream of endorphines to the brain, whatever), would it be wrong to eat them? Hypothetically speaking of course.

First off I apologize if anyone has already begun this line of thought, I was far too lazy to read all the posts.

Isn't this elaborately stated question just another way of asking "How are animals different than humans"? It's just an application of that premise, if I'm not mistaken. As far as I'm concerned the only difference between human beings and animals is the human being's ability to reason and rationalize, which stems from self consciousness in some form. One could potentially argue, I suppose, that some species of monkey or dolphins may have this ability as well, but I think the fundamental difference is that human beings can see themselves within the context of their own species. That is to say that, a dog sees itself as a dog, but not as, say, a Cocker Spaniel, whereas human beings not only see themselves as human, but they see themselves as a particular within that species.

This is rather tengential now that I've expanded it, but let us return to the point at hand; I would say that there is a fundamental difference between animals and human beings, highlighted above, and that a human's ability to rationalize would not necessarily make it wrong to eat animals, it would just allow someone to hold us responsible for eating animals, in the same way that we are morally responsible if we are racist. One cannot, I don't think, hold a lion responsible for eating some other animal in the strictest sense, since the lion acted on instinct without the ability to rationalize it's actions. Physical and causal responsibility, yes - moral responsibility, no.

I guess what I'm clumsily trying to say is that you can hold poeple morally responsible for eating animals but you can't necessarily say that, morally, eating animals is wrong, while I would argue that you can say that racism is morally wrong as a principle of humanity. Maybe I just like chicken... But really, it does seem counterintuitive to assert that eating chicken is comparable to hating black people, doesn't it?

Okay, i'm just going to throw my perspective in on this convo as another point of view. first off I'll tell you my occupation. I am a rancher/farmer. I own 400 cows and therefore raise 400 calves each year that will go to slaugther. I have a serious problem with people using the cruelity to animals arguement, and how they seem to make it out that nobody cares for these animals. I will tell you first hand that I care deeply about all 400 of my animals. why? because they are my lively hood.., they are my lifestyle, and if they do good, so do I. My cows get plenty of acres of grass during the summer, which mind you is alot more room than most humans get!! When the sun is shining and the weather nice, they are the most content things around. And when it comes time for me to sell my calves, I know that the next guy in the chain is going to take good care of them also, as he depends on them for a living. Now keep in mind I realize that some of you have this misconception that all the animals are being treated cruelty because of some video propaganda that PETA has replayed over and over. This is human error, just as it occurs in many other facets of our society. It is not the norm and should not be view as such. Yes it's unfortunate that it happens, and I hate to see my animals suffer, just as i hate to see other humans suffer, but it happens.. All we can do is try our best not to let it happen. This doesnt mean we should stop eating meat. Well thats the end of my rant. hope it shed some insight to this topic.