Offtopic even for this forum (animal rights speech)

[nevermindspy]

A very enlightening lecture :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es6U00LMmC4

[Banedon]

One hour and ten minutes

Someone give me a summary ... ?

[Ethric]

Meat is murder?

Going to change the title of the thread to something more informative.

[hatsforclowns]

1 h 10 minutes? How much of that is just: "Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? ..."

[Banedon]

Meat is murder?

Going to change the title of the thread to something more informative.

Problem is, I've personally considered all the reasons to be vegetarian and come to the conclusion that there are only two reasons that hold, which are:

1. The financial reason - if someone has no money to eat meat, you can't fault him for being vegetarian.
2. The ecological reason - this is belief in vegetarianism because eating meat is less sustainable.

The financial reason for vegetarianism is, I don't doubt, uncontroversial. The ecological reason is considerably more controversial. Although there's no arguing that a plot of land can feed more people if it's used only for vegetables, it's arguable whether or not we can feed everyone in the world and still consume meat. One can say that distribution of food is more important than producing more food.

The ethical reason for vegetarianism (aka. meat is murder) I dismiss entirely, as I do the natural reason for vegetarianism (aka. humans are naturally vegetarian). The health reason for vegetarianism I am deeply sceptical about to the point of disbelief.

If "meat is murder" is the summary, then chances are I already know what this guy is talking about and why I am rejecting his arguments. I don't feel like listening for an hour for what could possibly be just five minutes of new material, so ... if someone who cares can write a summary of his main arguments, well and good. Otherwise, it's hard for me to convince myself that this is worth listening to.

PS: This feels suspiciously like it's going to go up the Observatory path here

[GreatEmerald]

I agree with Banedon. Eating vegetables is murder for the vegetables. The whole nature is created in such a way that everything murders everything else and eats them. And no, humans are definitely not naturally vegetarians. We can eat both meat and vegetables as opposed to vegetarian chimps because we evolved that way, and it was an incredible advantage to humanity - suddenly we were able to survive in places that were not accessible due to low amounts of edible vegetables, hence we were able to spread everywhere. Whether or not it improves health is also up for debate, because meat is the only source of certain aminoacids that we require, since we have lost the ability to synthesise enough of them ourselves.

[hatsforclowns]

Research has shown that plants communicate through a complex system of airborne signal substances; e.g. when a plant is being "killed" it releases these particles to warn nearby plants, or when it detects changes is the soil, air, or sun, it also communicates with nearby plants, even announces the arrival of bees and such.

Aren't plants living? So we are murdering plants.

So naturally we all need to become "breatharians"...but wait, won't we then be murdering photons?

I am a vegetarian, I prefer plantfood: it tastes better, smells better, looks better, healthier, and doesn't mess with my stomach; although I do enjoy seafood. I wouldn't be able to kill a rabbit, pig, cow, or any other land or air animal commonly used for food, I would be able to kill a fish, but would still see its death as sad; I don't have anything against people who eat meat, but I hate the meat industry and the way we treat animals, and also those who support this industry and the cruel treatment of animals, people who see themselves above other animals.

However, the logical and moral argument is flawed, and murdering animals for food is no different from murdering plants for food, or even physicists "murdering" atoms in order to find subatomic particles. Face it, whether you like it or not, the universe is based on "eat" and "be eaten."

From quantum physics and particles to plants and animals to stars and galaxies — a grand cycle of "eating" and "being eaten."

[Panda Tar]

... but I hate the meat industry and the way we treat animals, and also those who support this industry and the cruel treatment of animals, people who see themselves above other animals.

This is, I think, the main reason people stop eating meat. Although I ask myself if they would keep eating if they learn animals are being treated ok - of course they'd be killed in the end. Have anyone watched a movie regarding that autist woman that created a system for making cows feel ok even when walking the path of death? Eating meat doesn't mean really being mean to animals. The problem is with the treatment, not with the eating. Same applies for eating plants. Humans must eat, and unless people start living only by blinking, they cannot, by any means of argument, deny their own nature to feed themselves.

I like meat, even if I don't approve the treatment to animals. Ain't that a b1tch?

[hatsforclowns]

... but I hate the meat industry and the way we treat animals, and also those who support this industry and the cruel treatment of animals, people who see themselves above other animals.

This is, I think, the main reason people stop eating meat. Although I ask myself if they would keep eating if they learn animals are being treated ok - of course they'd be killed in the end. Have anyone watched a movie regarding that autist woman that created a system for making cows feel ok even when walking the path of death? Eating meat doesn't mean really being mean to animals. The problem is with the treatment, not with the eating. Same applies for eating plants. Humans must eat, and unless people start living only by blinking, they cannot, by any means of argument, deny their own nature to feed themselves.

I like meat, even if I don't approve the treatment to animals. Ain't that a b1tch?

Good documentary!

BBC - The Woman Who Thinks Like A Cow

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

[Ethric]

If "meat is murder" is the summary, then chances are I already know what this guy is talking about and why I am rejecting his arguments.

I was just guessing No way am I watching that, I've taken my stand against vegetarism a long time ago.

[jeff]

Eating vegetables is murder for the vegetables.

Research has shown that plants communicate through a complex system of airborne signal substances;

Really, you are going with plant murder and molecular level murder. They aren’t even worth commenting on. The basis of most vegetarian/meat eater arguments is usually based on the consciousness of the food source, and the humane treatment of the animals. If a plant consciousness exists, which I doubt it is far below that of any animal. The releasing of pheromones when a plant is injured or killed is not proof of consciousness. This point is debated a lot; the on I feel is most logical is that through evolution the release improved the plants survivability in some way nothing more. Cells within an organism communicate in a similar way, but that does not prove intelligence or conscicousness. When my salad, since it’s raw and for the most part still alive, starts screaming at me I remove the parts that scream. Now I am a meat eater, but realize that meat consumption, particularly at the level here in the US, cannot be sustained. There is physically not enough available land on the planet for everyone to eat that much meat. It would require the amount of land of four earth sized planets. So cost and availability will force a lower level of consumption. The animals should be treated humanely and with as much respect as possible.

[GreatEmerald]

Really, you are going with plant murder and molecular level murder. They aren’t even worth commenting on. The basis of most vegetarian/meat eater arguments is usually based on the consciousness of the food source, and the humane treatment of the animals. If a plant consciousness exists, which I doubt it is far below that of any animal.

And human consciousness is far above that of any animal. The latter are hardly conscious, either. They are driven by instincts. Those instincts also are there just to improve their chances to survive and reproduce. Plus, plants are even more sophisticated than any animals, both on the cellular level and things like reproduction cycles and metabolism. The fact that plants are unable to express the fact that they prefer being alive doesn't matter, with the exception that it is easier for humans to ignore that fact.

[Pitsu]

Without specifying what kind of vegetarianism are we talking about it is hard to speak about it. All gelatin or egg containing foods are directly related to animal death and everything from raw milk to cheese and honey require animal herding. It is not that you stop eating red meat and you instantly are on the level of vegans.

We can eat both meat and vegetables as opposed to vegetarian chimps because we evolved that way, and it was an incredible advantage to humanity - suddenly we were able to survive in places that were not accessible due to low amounts of edible vegetables, hence we were able to spread everywhere.

Um, chimps not only eat larvae, insects and smaller animals, but also members of other chimp tribes if having a chance. From evolutionary point it may have been that humans were more successful in hunting, not that they had a different menu.

[Banedon]

More detailed reasons on why I reject most vegetarianism arguments:

The ethical argument - plants are living beings too, and by eating it you have to kill it. If you cook the plant you are essentially killing it by boiling, which is about as humane as executing a human by throwing him into boiling water. If you eat it raw, you still attack it chemically with stomach acid, which is again about as humane as splashing acid on someone else. Think also of all the time it takes from a plant getting harvested to it arriving on your plate. That's sounds suspiciously like death by starvation, which is again not humane. To keep things "humane" we'd have to eat only carrion, which is something I highly doubt is sustainable.

An extension of the ethical argument is the consciousness argument, which I also don't believe in. Where do we draw the line? A cell responds to external stimuli. Does that not make it intelligent, or not conscious? What about computers - the IBM computer Watson was smart enough to outperform the best human players at the game show, Jeopardy. Is it intelligent, and should we object to ever turning Watson off (i.e. kill it)? Cells respond to stimuli; they're obviously alive. I can see no reason why killing plant cells is somehow different from killing animals.

I should point out though that it is possible to photosynthesize, i.e. get nutrition without killing, but humans don't have this ability.

The animal cruelty argument - this is an argument for animal rights, not vegetarianism.

The natural argument - humans are omnivores, not herbivores. This shouldn't be controversial. I have no idea how such a simple counterargument didn't demolish this reason.

The health argument - I'm not aware of any conclusive proof that going vegetarian is healthier than eating both meat and vegetables. I know there've been indications, but they just aren't conclusive. After all, vegetarians tend to be more health conscious, which would explain lots of observations.

The ecological argument - this one I'm less sure about, but I'll link this article. 50% of US food goes to waste; that's not sustainable either. Why can't we redistribute food better so that everyone gets enough to eat? Is there anything that proves we have to give up on meat consumption for that to work? Is there anything that proves we have to give up on meat consumption completely? What about one meat dish a day?

One funky thing about this argument too is that if someone serves an environmental vegetarian a meat dish that will get thrown away if unconsumed, the vegetarian is logically forced to eat it. Although I know several environmental vegetarians, when faced with this conundrum none of them are willing to eat the meat dish (even though it leads to waste and extra methane in the atmosphere).

... And so I'm not vegetarian. I believe however that it's a personal choice what one decides though, so if someone chooses to be vegetarian it's not my business to intervene in his decision.

[GreatEmerald]

Um, chimps not only eat larvae, insects and smaller animals, but also members of other chimp tribes if having a chance. From evolutionary point it may have been that humans were more successful in hunting, not that they had a different menu.

Right, I meant apes. It's hard for me with the terminology, since I have been learning national biology, where we didn't learn the English terms for everything.

[BoardGuest808888]

The animal cruelty argument - this is an argument for animal rights, not vegetarianism.

Yeah, animal rights got no relations with being vegetarian. There be a whole lot of animals disappear because of what people do even when they're not eaten.

Actually it seems from people tendency to just eliminate other animals as possible competitors, it is far better for some animals to be eaten.

Tigers, rhinos, jaguars, wild buffaloes, they got far worse treatment than cows and pigs and chickens.

[ThunderTitan]

Only if you consider death worse then torture...

[BoardGuest808888]

They got even more tortured and death as well.

[ThunderTitan]

Chopping them up after death doesn't count as torture (talking about the tigers, rhinos, jaguars, wild buffaloes)...

[BoardGuest808888]

Yeah, but habitat loss, food loss, introduction to new kinds of freaky diseases, pests, predators, competitors and poaching do.

Not to mention barbed wires, chemically induced poisoning, pollution, smogs (can get pretty severe in case of forest fire) and other man-made disasters, some specifically designed to destroy them.