Big Rob, it was not uncommon for shipwrecked sailors marooned in a small boat at sea, and out of food, to eat one of their number. On at least one occasion it was the cabin boy. Now they would argue the circumstances were extreme, but the decision about who to eat, which life to take, has complex moral and philosophical problems. However a decision was made. Eating meat has resonances with such decisions. For a start to say that mankind as a species don't kill their own is manifestly wrong. We kill more of our own species than any other creature on earth I reckon...is it such a 'jesus wept' notion to leap to reasons why, once killed, people can't be utilised for food, as their organs are utilised for transplants? Eating meat is often justified by notions of superior species intellect, to apply that argument within a species is admittedly pretty extreme, but consistent with the 'superior intellect' carnivore justifications. More absurdly is the segregation carnivores use to decide what meat to eat. Koreans are ridiculed because they eat dogs, we go crazy because we might have eaten horse, but Italians have feasted on horse and donkey for ages. There are loads of inconsidered creatures around, if everybody had a penchant for rats we might solve a hunger and vermin problem in one go! Wouldn't it simplyfy things for carnivores to simply say they eat meat because they have the might, and inclination to do so? They eat meat because they can, because they're brought up that way, because they want and choose to do so. End of. There is scant moral justification to eat meat, but possibly there is a practical justification. I have my doubts about the practical justifications too by the way.
Big Rob, it was not uncommon for shipwrecked sailors marooned in a small boat at sea, and out of food, to eat one of their number. On at least one occasion it was the cabin boy. Now they would argue the circumstances were extreme, but the decision about who to eat, which life to take, has complex moral and philosophical problems.
There'd be no dilemma if you were in that situation, you'd only be able to eat him if he was a swede.
Big Rob, it was not uncommon for shipwrecked sailors marooned in a small boat at sea, and out of food, to eat one of their number. On at least one occasion it was the cabin boy. Now they would argue the circumstances were extreme, but the decision about who to eat, which life to take, has complex moral and philosophical problems. However a decision was made. Eating meat has resonances with such decisions. For a start to say that mankind as a species don't kill their own is manifestly wrong. We kill more of our own species than any other creature on earth I reckon...is it such a 'jesus wept' notion to leap to reasons why, once killed, people can't be utilised for food, as their organs are utilised for transplants? Eating meat is often justified by notions of superior species intellect, to apply that argument within a species is admittedly pretty extreme, but consistent with the 'superior intellect' carnivore justifications. More absurdly is the segregation carnivores use to decide what meat to eat. Koreans are ridiculed because they eat dogs, we go crazy because we might have eaten horse, but Italians have feasted on horse and donkey for ages. There are loads of inconsidered creatures around, if everybody had a penchant for rats we might solve a hunger and vermin problem in one go! Wouldn't it simplyfy things for carnivores to simply say they eat meat because they have the might, and inclination to do so? They eat meat because they can, because they're brought up that way, because they want and choose to do so. End of.There is scant moral justification to eat meat, but possibly there is a practical justification. I have my doubts about the practical justifications too by the way.
When you say carnivores, do you mean lions, tigers, shark, crocs, aligators, wolves, foxes, birds of brey and polar bears (to name a few) as well as us horrid humans?
Its good news there is a ban on testing for cosmetics, however animal testing is a critical part of medical research and we must support scientists both in academia and in industry to carry out well thought out animal research.
Personally I cannot understand why people and organisations such as PETA are against using animals in medical research.
Absolutely agree, 100%. Using animals for research into cosmetics is absolutely fucking hideous, and this ban should have come into effect decades ago. Also agree 100% that the us of animals in medical research is essential. Can't see how anyone could possible disagree with this. Interesting that PETA's vice president is a diabetic, who sees no hypocrisy in using insulin (tested on animals); and that PETA's president has used painkilling drugs (tested on animals).
My mate Roy's folks had a dog that they took to the vet because they were concerned that it refused to eat meat and lived on a diet of fruit. They told this to the vet who replied, "Well,feed it fruit then."
On of the fundamental reasons we exploit animals for our own purposes is simply because we can. As I said above, we have the might, so we think we therefore have the right. All the demarcations, as in medical research verses cosmetic, or eating a cow rather than a horse, are red herrings and splitting hairs. We exploit animals because we want to, and we love it, and who's gonna stop us? It is really that simple. Mind you, if you applied that logic elsewhere, as in 'I'm gonna rape someone because I have the might, because I want to, and because I love it', the answer is...'well that wrong'...which indeed it is, which is one of the reasons I am a vegetarian. Yes you just read that, I am equating rape, with animal exploitation in terms of logic and philosophy. I am certain there are loads of intelligent readers of this who will find an obvious flaw in my reasoning, and I wonder if you can help me, and tell me what the flaw is.
Dippenhall....well yes of course. We may choose to do anything unless there are constraints. It is the nature of what those constraint are that drive the debate. I have made a decision that a carrot is different in my eyes to an animal.
I guess the issue is that the community does not benefit from a rape, whereas it benefits massively from animal testing (animals also benefit from this too)
There are no drugs on the market that have bypassed animal testing and to my knowledge (as a scientist) most new surgical techniques are learnt and perfected on animal models
The point I am making is that we can all establish differences between one thing and another. It can't be the justification for any action you take against another being. That is what justifies racism for a racist.
Brian Cox says we are all descended from the same piece of bacteria so eating a carrot is like eating a long lost relative. A cow is just a slightly nearer relative. Where do we draw the line on what relative we can eat - second cousins?
If a cow is bred and exists simply to provide food, it is part of the cycle of redistributing energy between one organism that dies in order for another organism to survive. That's the cycle of life like it or not. We just found a more efficient way of getting protein than firing bows and arrows at wild animals.
A carrot serves the same function as a cow. If the cow suffers no pain and has no perception of death we satisfy our humanistic concerns for the animal's welfare with good care so that while it existed it had a descent quality of life. If we didn't eat cows it wouldn't have had a life at all.
My carrot was happy with just some dirt and some water. Neither carrot nor cow knew what their end would look like and neither suffered discomfort, so why is it OK to eat one and not the other.
Yes, one organism dies that another may live. I suppose I differentiate in terms of those with a brain. I don't think a carrot knows what their end will be because they haven't a brain to think about it, but a cow does.
Which cows do you talk to Seth to get your inside information. If they know they are going to be turned into burgers some loud mouth has been spilling the beans otherwise how would they know.
I'm sure Seth isn't implying that cows are aware from birth that one day they'll be grinded into mince, mutilated into steak or their flesh moulded into burgers. He probably means as they're being off loaded at the slaughterhouse. As someone who, to my regretable shame, once worked in the meat industry I have witnessed the pure fear of pigs as they prodded off lorries to start their walk to death. I'm sorry but no one can tell me that they did not have some sense of what was coming. They fxxking knew it!
Slaughterhouses are modern day concentration camps.
My carrot was happy with just some dirt and some water. Neither carrot nor cow knew what their end would look like and neither suffered discomfort, so why is it OK to eat one and not the other.
By that logic though, surely if you won't eat cow then you shouldn't eat carrot? Or anything at all.
Eating meat is natural, the way in which we do it isn't. I'm as guilty as anyone, and live in ignorant bliss regarding most of my food. I have thought about going veggie but am far too fussy already, or at least that's how I try and justify it to myself.
I'm sure Seth isn't implying that cows are aware from birth that one day they'll be grinded into mince, mutilated into steak or their flesh moulded into burgers. He probably means as they're being off loaded at the slaughterhouse. As someone who, to my regretable shame, once worked in the meat industry I have witnessed the pure fear of pigs as they prodded off lorries to start their walk to death. I'm sorry but no one can tell me that they did not have some sense of what was coming. They fxxking knew it!
Slaughterhouses are modern day concentration camps.
My recent posts on this thread have been an attempt to grapple with something Leroy said above, which seemed to be part of the justification for eating animals. Part of what Leroy said was:
'there are certainly arguments that, mammals especially, the animals we eat are 'sentient', but at a lower functional level than us.'
And I suppose my posts have been about the way we humans draw the line. I also suggested that the honest answer when you come down to it, is that it is about power. We can overpower animals, and yes indeed the vegetables too (but in my world view the presence of a brain is a distinguishing featue there) and do just what we jolly well like with them. For the most part thats what we do. The economic, health, enviromental, political debate exists also, but what caught my interest here is the notion that what we do is about being some way intellectually superior. More powerful yes, 'higher'?..hmmmn.
I had friend who kept on his farm pigs, sheep, cows, chickens and he always said that the pigs knew something was up when they were taken to slaughter. Didn't stop him topping them and eating them though, he just viewed all his livestock as a tasty cash crops like carrots.
I wouldn't say it's about power or intellectual superiority. I guess it can be seen that way and some people do indeed regard animals as commodities, but that's not why a tiger will hunt, or a snow leopards eat red pandas, the bastards. End of the day, humans are made to have meat as part of their diets.
Like I said though, despite the fact I get (very) upset seeing wild animal markets or primates paraded as tourist props, I live in ignorance regarding my food. That's partly because I value certain animals over others, for example a slow loris over a sheep. In a way I guess that is an off shoot of what you said about superiority and our power to choose, rightly or wrongly, knowingly or not.
My carrot was happy with just some dirt and some water. Neither carrot nor cow knew what their end would look like and neither suffered discomfort, so why is it OK to eat one and not the other.
By that logic though, surely if you won't eat cow then you shouldn't eat carrot? Or anything at all.
Eating meat is natural, the way in which we do it isn't. I'm as guilty as anyone, and live in ignorant bliss regarding most of my food. I have thought about going veggie but am far too fussy already, or at least that's how I try and justify it to myself.
Glad you got the point. How can a veggie value all life and be able to justify eating a carrot or anything at all, apart from saying some life is so low quality relative to human existence that it's OK to kill it.
That's not how nature works. Nature makes sure life gets shared around as efficiently as possible and if you start interfering by making subjective decisions on what is right to eat, the end result will be unpredictable.
A fish lays tens of thousands of eggs to produce a handful of mature fish, the rest are food to allow other lifeforms to exist. Rather than worry about what life form humans should or shouldn't be consuming, apart from conservation, we should be worried that nothing is now roaming the earth to control our surplus human offspring.
If veggies ruled the World and we didn't eat meat, the habitat retained to allow wild and domesticated animals to exist would be replaced by sterile areas dedicated to edible crops. So the result of interfering with nature could be less diversity of habitat, fewer animals and less animal diversity. Would the veggies let the remaining animals eat their crops or would they control them by killing them or letting them starve to death. The correct action for veggies would be to let their children starve instead.
Don't have a problem with someone being veggie, my wife and two daughters are veggies, but the hypocritical garbage and moralistic posturing about why no one else should eat meat doesn't go down well with me. Just admit you are disconnected from the reality of how nature is wired, the connection between life and death and don't like the idea of eating meat or have a preference for rabbit food over roast beef. Stop trying to rationalise vegetarianism as some profound higher level of existence, it's all in your mind.
OK. We leave things to nature, and nature 'makes sure life gets shared around as efficiently as possible...' and subjective (!) decisions about what to eat leads to unpredictability. Well mankind is natural, mankind is a product of nature, and that particular force of nature is apparantly going to empty the oceans of fish in 40 years at the rate we're fishing the seas. Of course thats OK because a natural organism ..mankind..is the dominant force on this here planet, and the actions of mankind on the other creatures we share the Earth with does not lead to unpredictability, but certainty (?)...yeah right. Maybe what is driving you is that you want to counteract what you describe as 'hypocritical garbage', and 'moralistic posturing'. If I am one spouting 'garbage' and being hypocritical because I am a veggie, well you haven't signed off the debate fully to make those claims. As for 'posturing', well veggies are far from posturing, because taking action by refusing meat and fish is putting your money where your mouth is. The true posturing is surely the carnivores who will empty the seas and then shrug about it saying 'it's all about the balance of nature innit guv'. They will spout about the percieved hypocrisy of vegetarians whilst using up the animals at an irreplaceable rate.
My carrot was happy with just some dirt and some water. Neither carrot nor cow knew what their end would look like and neither suffered discomfort, so why is it OK to eat one and not the other.
By that logic though, surely if you won't eat cow then you shouldn't eat carrot? Or anything at all.
Eating meat is natural, the way in which we do it isn't. I'm as guilty as anyone, and live in ignorant bliss regarding most of my food. I have thought about going veggie but am far too fussy already, or at least that's how I try and justify it to myself.
Glad you got the point. How can a veggie value all life and be able to justify eating a carrot or anything at all, apart from saying some life is so low quality relative to human existence that it's OK to kill it.
That's not how nature works. Nature makes sure life gets shared around as efficiently as possible and if you start interfering by making subjective decisions on what is right to eat, the end result will be unpredictable.
A fish lays tens of thousands of eggs to produce a handful of mature fish, the rest are food to allow other lifeforms to exist. Rather than worry about what life form humans should or shouldn't be consuming, apart from conservation, we should be worried that nothing is now roaming the earth to control our surplus human offspring.
If veggies ruled the World and we didn't eat meat, the habitat retained to allow wild and domesticated animals to exist would be replaced by sterile areas dedicated to edible crops. So the result of interfering with nature could be less diversity of habitat, fewer animals and less animal diversity. Would the veggies let the remaining animals eat their crops or would they control them by killing them or letting them starve to death. The correct action for veggies would be to let their children starve instead.
Don't have a problem with someone being veggie, my wife and two daughters are veggies, but the hypocritical garbage and moralistic posturing about why no one else should eat meat doesn't go down well with me. Just admit you are disconnected from the reality of how nature is wired, the connection between life and death and don't like the idea of eating meat or have a preference for rabbit food over roast beef. Stop trying to rationalise vegetarianism as some profound higher level of existence, it's all in your mind.
Where's Stig with that 'post of the week' picture?
Comments
However a decision was made.
Eating meat has resonances with such decisions. For a start to say that mankind as a species don't kill their own is manifestly wrong. We kill more of our own species than any other creature on earth I reckon...is it such a 'jesus wept' notion to leap to reasons why, once killed, people can't be utilised for food, as their organs are utilised for transplants?
Eating meat is often justified by notions of superior species intellect, to apply that argument within a species is admittedly pretty extreme, but consistent with the 'superior intellect' carnivore justifications.
More absurdly is the segregation carnivores use to decide what meat to eat. Koreans are ridiculed because they eat dogs, we go crazy because we might have eaten horse, but Italians have feasted on horse and donkey for ages. There are loads of inconsidered creatures around, if everybody had a penchant for rats we might solve a hunger and vermin problem in one go!
Wouldn't it simplyfy things for carnivores to simply say they eat meat because they have the might, and inclination to do so? They eat meat because they can, because they're brought up that way, because they want and choose to do so. End of.
There is scant moral justification to eat meat, but possibly there is a practical justification.
I have my doubts about the practical justifications too by the way.
http://www.buav.org/?dm_i=LN3,1C6TE,5YGUI1,4J8ZS,1
Personally I cannot understand why people and organisations such as PETA are against using animals in medical research.
"Well,feed it fruit then."
Perfectly content dog.
All the demarcations, as in medical research verses cosmetic, or eating a cow rather than a horse, are red herrings and splitting hairs.
We exploit animals because we want to, and we love it, and who's gonna stop us? It is really that simple.
Mind you, if you applied that logic elsewhere, as in 'I'm gonna rape someone because I have the might, because I want to, and because I love it', the answer is...'well that wrong'...which indeed it is, which is one of the reasons I am a vegetarian.
Yes you just read that, I am equating rape, with animal exploitation in terms of logic and philosophy.
I am certain there are loads of intelligent readers of this who will find an obvious flaw in my reasoning, and I wonder if you can help me, and tell me what the flaw is.
I have made a decision that a carrot is different in my eyes to an animal.
Have you come to a decision though as to whether a carrot is different to an animal?
There are no drugs on the market that have bypassed animal testing and to my knowledge (as a scientist) most new surgical techniques are learnt and perfected on animal models
Brian Cox says we are all descended from the same piece of bacteria so eating a carrot is like eating a long lost relative. A cow is just a slightly nearer relative. Where do we draw the line on what relative we can eat - second cousins?
If a cow is bred and exists simply to provide food, it is part of the cycle of redistributing energy between one organism that dies in order for another organism to survive. That's the cycle of life like it or not. We just found a more efficient way of getting protein than firing bows and arrows at wild animals.
A carrot serves the same function as a cow. If the cow suffers no pain and has no perception of death we satisfy our humanistic concerns for the animal's welfare with good care so that while it existed it had a descent quality of life. If we didn't eat cows it wouldn't have had a life at all.
My carrot was happy with just some dirt and some water. Neither carrot nor cow knew what their end would look like and neither suffered discomfort, so why is it OK to eat one and not the other.
As someone who, to my regretable shame, once worked in the meat industry I have witnessed the pure fear of pigs as they prodded off lorries to start their walk to death. I'm sorry but no one can tell me that they did not have some sense of what was coming. They fxxking knew it!
Slaughterhouses are modern day concentration camps.
Eating meat is natural, the way in which we do it isn't. I'm as guilty as anyone, and live in ignorant bliss regarding most of my food. I have thought about going veggie but am far too fussy already, or at least that's how I try and justify it to myself.
Part of what Leroy said was:
'there are certainly arguments that, mammals especially, the animals we eat are 'sentient', but at a lower functional level than us.'
And I suppose my posts have been about the way we humans draw the line. I also suggested that the honest answer when you come down to it, is that it is about power. We can overpower animals, and yes indeed the vegetables too (but in my world view the presence of a brain is a distinguishing featue there) and do just what we jolly well like with them.
For the most part thats what we do. The economic, health, enviromental, political debate exists also, but what caught my interest here is the notion that what we do is about being some way intellectually superior.
More powerful yes, 'higher'?..hmmmn.
Like I said though, despite the fact I get (very) upset seeing wild animal markets or primates paraded as tourist props, I live in ignorance regarding my food. That's partly because I value certain animals over others, for example a slow loris over a sheep. In a way I guess that is an off shoot of what you said about superiority and our power to choose, rightly or wrongly, knowingly or not.
That's not how nature works. Nature makes sure life gets shared around as efficiently as possible and if you start interfering by making subjective decisions on what is right to eat, the end result will be unpredictable.
A fish lays tens of thousands of eggs to produce a handful of mature fish, the rest are food to allow other lifeforms to exist. Rather than worry about what life form humans should or shouldn't be consuming, apart from conservation, we should be worried that nothing is now roaming the earth to control our surplus human offspring.
If veggies ruled the World and we didn't eat meat, the habitat retained to allow wild and domesticated animals to exist would be replaced by sterile areas dedicated to edible crops. So the result of interfering with nature could be less diversity of habitat, fewer animals and less animal diversity. Would the veggies let the remaining animals eat their crops or would they control them by killing them or letting them starve to death. The correct action for veggies would be to let their children starve instead.
Don't have a problem with someone being veggie, my wife and two daughters are veggies, but the hypocritical garbage and moralistic posturing about why no one else should eat meat doesn't go down well with me. Just admit you are disconnected from the reality of how nature is wired, the connection between life and death and don't like the idea of eating meat or have a preference for rabbit food over roast beef. Stop trying to rationalise vegetarianism as some profound higher level of existence, it's all in your mind.
Well mankind is natural, mankind is a product of nature, and that particular force of nature is apparantly going to empty the oceans of fish in 40 years at the rate we're fishing the seas.
Of course thats OK because a natural organism ..mankind..is the dominant force on this here planet, and the actions of mankind on the other creatures we share the Earth with does not lead to unpredictability, but certainty (?)...yeah right.
Maybe what is driving you is that you want to counteract what you describe as 'hypocritical garbage', and 'moralistic posturing'. If I am one spouting 'garbage' and being hypocritical because I am a veggie, well you haven't signed off the debate fully to make those claims. As for 'posturing', well veggies are far from posturing, because taking action by refusing meat and fish is putting your money where your mouth is.
The true posturing is surely the carnivores who will empty the seas and then shrug about it saying 'it's all about the balance of nature innit guv'. They will spout about the percieved hypocrisy of vegetarians whilst using up the animals at an irreplaceable rate.