Hot News!
• TIF and The Banks: Tax Dollar Boondoggle?
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 May 17, 9:30am - 12:30pm The 2008 Day of Dialogue Series- Education and the Common Good: Six Dialogues on Six Critical Issues: Health Care, Economic Development, Education, Immigration, Campaign Finance Reform and Foriegn Policy. Join us at the First Unitiarin Church, 536 Linton Street. All Are Welcome at these free events, reservations requested. |
June 28, 9am - 5pm Nonviolent Peacemaking Workshop, Presented by the Michigan Peace Team, Peaslee Neighborhood Center, call 579-8547 to sign up |
|
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
There is no ethical defense of eating meat
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
With more awareness spreading about the potential for upcoming food riots, it’s time to emphasize, once again, that there exists no ethical justification for eating animals. Meat-eating may have served an evolutionary purpose in overall human development, but our civilization has advanced to a point where animal eating is now a choice and not a necessity. Given the overall destruction the business of food production has on Earth, it’s time for everyone to re-evaluate their meal-planning strategies.
Let’s dispense of the trite and silly appeals to ridicule that so many make when avoiding the real arguments about eating animals.
1. If we aren’t supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?
I have a stock response to this stock argument seeking to make a joke of those who dare to question animal-eating: your mother is made of meat, so why don’t you eat her? Enough said. This line of thinking is no argument.
2. The Bible says that God gave man dominion over the animals, and Jesus ate meat.
Fine. If we presume there is a God, and if we presume he gave “dominion” to humans, that does not mean that through our dominion we should take actions that ultimately seek to destroy the planet. And secondly, when Jesus was alive, the population of the whole Earth was smaller than America’s current population. Civilization, then, had not advanced to the same point as now. So the issue should not be what Jesus ate then, but what he would eat now. Would Jesus engage dietary habits that destroyed life on Earth? No. (Unless, maybe, you are one of those nut-jobs who thinks Jesus is about to return and leave the rest of us behind—if so please get on with it, get out of here, and leave me behind so I can continue without your interference. I would like nothing better than to be left behind by you.)
3. If we don’t eat meat, the animals will go wild and take over.
Firstly, cows and pigs are nothing like Hamilton County deer. And those who hunt and eat deer can hardly be held as analogous to corporate agribusiness.
If every American stopped eating beef, we would not be taken over by wild cows. The only reason we have so much beef is because we manufacture cows, with the aid of growth hormones that accelerate their development to a point that would be similar to imagining a six foot tall, 200 pound five year old human. It is disgustingly unnatural. We are producing these cows so quickly because we eat them faster than they are naturally capable of reproducing. We do not have a problem with wild cows getting ready to take over America if we don’t eat more 99 cent hamburgers. To think so is totally absurd.
The American beef industry feeds its cattle enough grain to feed Earth’s population. But we don’t do that. We feed cows, so we can then feed ourselves off a totally inefficient food production system that puts the planet at risk.
Now, are you ready to move things up a notch with your ability to reason about food production? Read this.
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!
16 Apr 2008 at 09:12 pm | #
Let’s see...as of a year ago you were still eating meat. Then you said, it was ok to eat meat that was raised and purchased locally.
Now that it appears you are a vegetarian, is it your opinion that everyone should be like you?
So when you stop smoking, will you be a huge anti smoking advocate??
16 Apr 2008 at 10:14 pm | #
But burgers taste good!
16 Apr 2008 at 10:46 pm | #
One summer during my hippy days I subsisted off weeds and berries picked from backyard, that winter I became a fruitatarian, then I matured, its steak and ribs for me. Didn’t claw my way to top of food chain to eat tofu, it’s backyard party time, anyone have any interest in “WHITE BOY STEVE’S BARBECUE SAUCE, RUB AND MOP”? let me know, It’s killer!
17 Apr 2008 at 12:12 am | #
Yes, it is a choice. And I choose to eat it. As do 99% of the population. Get over it. Stop lecturing us with your holier than thou harangue.
Lamb chops yesterday, cooked rare. chicken tonight. Think I’ll grill a big, juicy steak out tomorrow. I’ll be thinking of you while I eat it.
17 Apr 2008 at 05:32 am | #
Bearman, I stopped smoking over a year ago. What is your point? Eating organically raised and locally grown meat is better than buying chemically enhanced and corporate grown meat. Whether or not I am a vegetarian has no bearing on the argument.
Big Al, as noted in my argument, you are one of the kind who cannot address this issue squarely.
Stephen Dapper, As with Big Al, you, too, cannot address the issue—so you have resorted to jokes and statements with no logical consequence. Being at the top of the food chain does not mean you should make decisions that destroy Earth. By your same thinking, those on the top of the power chain can do whatever they wish to those who don’t properly clean lawn mowers out of their yard, just because they can.
Carnivore, Your sarcasm serves no purpose, and your anger shows that the issue has hit close to home. But like the rest, you cannot address this issue squarely. So, you resort to jokes and insults. But your diatribe is not an ethical justification for anything. And my “harangue” was anything but, and my language was not “holier than thou.” If my reasoning is incorrect, you should easily be able to refute me without appeals to ridicule, without insults and sarcasm. But you can’t, apparently.
17 Apr 2008 at 05:43 am | #
Dean:
I am curious as to why you chose to become a vegetarian?
Scott
17 Apr 2008 at 05:50 am | #
Whether or not I am a vegetarian has no bearing on the overall argument.
17 Apr 2008 at 06:23 am | #
How about this for an ethical defense. Animals are property. They do not have a conscience. Therefore their only ethical decision to act, is one of survival.
Humans can not be judged by this low standard.
What if the protein that humans receive from eating meat, allow the brain to develop in such a way that it allows for innovation that would not have occurred without meat?
What if the elimination of carbon based energy world can only be eliminated by eating meat?
We know that protein from meat aids in brain development. We can not yet draw the lines I have sketched in above, but what if.
17 Apr 2008 at 06:45 am | #
There is no ethical defense for humans to continue having sex
With more awareness spreading about the potential for the global AIDS pandemic and a host of other sexually transmitted diseases, it’s time to emphasize, once again, that there exists no ethical justification for having sex. Sexual intercourse once may have served an evolutionary purpose in overall human development, but our civilization has advanced to a point where sex is now a choice and not a necessity. Given the overall destruction the business of sex has on Earth, it’s time for everyone to re-evaluate their sex-planning strategies.
I personally don’t think man has evolved beyond the need for meat (or sex either).
Although we tend to think our modern sensibilities have evolved beyond caving in to simple biological need, I beg to differ. On the contrary, our world seems to have developed around making those basic biological needs easier to access and perpetuate. I think changing a millenia of biological behavior would entail serious unintended consequences, chiefly, more of a food crisis than we have now.
Animals would still have to eat and would still compete with humans for vegetation, only their numbers would go unchecked with us removed as their predators. Would we then have to needlessly slaughter animals we would then not eat, if only to ensure our food supply?
Even a sheerly agrarian, vegetarian society, the amount of vegetation we would need to produce would still cause untold loss of animal life, from rabbits and other ground nesting animals accidentally caught under the combine to deforestation. And if we can’t produce enough food or if everyone cannot afford to maintain a nutritional balance through vegetarianism, the loss of human life would be manifold as well.
It’s one thing to say, “Don’t kill animals, don’t eat meat.” It’s quite another to envision what this would mean for our world and examine if it would really change our world for the better.
17 Apr 2008 at 07:36 am | #
Which would have been a fine subject to explore. Instead you say “There is no ethical defense for eating meat”
Another good subject to explore. Would we really increase the world supply or would it be better to end subsidies to agribusiness, stop paying farmers not to farm land, and not paying subsidies to people who live on acreage that used to be farmland but they have no intention of farming? Or would none of those changes help?
17 Apr 2008 at 08:05 am | #
You’re right. There is no ethical justification for it.
But then, there’s also no need for an ethical justification to most people who eat meat, including myself. I’m not ashamed of it. Meat tastes good, and is far more interesting to eat than just vegetables, though a combination of the two is great.
Am I thrilled by the process in which most meat is created for market? No. Do I care? Not really. If we can find a better way that isn’t going to cost me more, great. If not, I’m not going to lose sleep over it.
BTW, while you’re correct that we produce enough grain to feed the world, we produce enough food to feed most of the world already, even while producing meat products. We as a nation simply choose not to do so. That would likely not change even if we all stopped eating meat—we’d find something else to do with that extra grain that would benefit ourselves.
17 Apr 2008 at 09:28 am | #
Dubious premise. Except for cannibals or others who break the law, based on what logic does anyone need to “defend” what they choose to eat?
17 Apr 2008 at 10:32 am | #
The Dean of Cincinnati says:
17 Apr 2008 at 05:50 am | # Whether or not I am a vegetarian has no bearing on the overall argument.
Ike Sabot says:
No, but it does have bearing on your credibility in doing so. I am a vegetarian, as much out of health reasons as anything else. I do have the occassional bit of tasty animal, mostly around the holidays or when good BBQ is on the menu.
I really don’t see the purpose in such rhetorical argument. Are you hoping we will convince you one way or the other? Are you simply trying to start a Thursday AM kvetch?
You can’t present something under your name and then disavow your connection to it.
Cowboy up!
17 Apr 2008 at 10:58 am | #
Dean,
You are absolutely correct in this. Between the use of corn to produce ethanol and for feeding livestock in a world that is rapidly consuming more meat than ever before it’s no surprise that there are food riots in the world.
There is no ethical reason for eating meat...but i do enjoy it. The fact that people in developing countries (read: China, India) are now becoming wealthy enough to eat meat is only going to increase this issue. Meat has always been associated with those people that are wealthiest.
That said, i eat meat. It is tasty, i don’t really think of it in from an ethical perspective but from a healthy, rounded diet perspective. We keep portions down to recommended levels (deck of cards) and eat vegetables and rice with most every meal.
Cows would probably be extinct by now if it weren’t for us growing them.
17 Apr 2008 at 12:01 pm | #
Shorter Jason; I eat meat, but you shouldn’t. Do as I say, not as I do. Again.
Does your hypocrisy know any bounds?
I eat meat and i love it. I will always eat meat, with every meal, every day, every year. Rare, bloody steaks. And veal, lots of veal; piccata, marsala, chops, roast, schnitzel ala holstein, osso bucco. MMMMMM!! I’m going to get a burger right now.
17 Apr 2008 at 03:36 pm | #
We have cut back on meat consumption, but have added fish to our diet 2-3 times per week. I guess you include fish in your tirade. Isn’t fish supposed to be good for us?
BTW - We get out for a good steak about tiwce per year at one of Ruby’s Restaurants. We know it isn’t good for us, but it sure is good.
17 Apr 2008 at 03:53 pm | #
No matter what way you look at it--Americans consume FAR too much meat. It is not healthy, it is not natural, it is wasteful, and it is doing its part to help destroy the earth.
We won’t even get into the treatment of the animals, or the workers for that matter, within the industry.
Even if it it does taste good--we certainly do not need to gorge ourselves with it. Not to mention, who really knows the long term effects of all the chemicals they shoot the animals up with on our bodies....
I don’t think the Dean was telling anyone not to eat meat--and believe me, I love a good steak just as much as the next person--but if you really HAVE to eat meat--atleast be responsible about it.
17 Apr 2008 at 04:29 pm | #
Scott Ryan wrote:
Whether animals have a conscience or not has nothing to do with whether it is ethical to eat them.
As for your other “what-if” statements—what if the opposite is true, and a vegetarian lifestyle would do those things? We cannot base arguments on such fluid ground.
Deborah said:
No. Without sex, we go extinct. So it is necessary for our continued survival. Artificial insemination cannot, at this point, maintain global population. Funny, but try again.
The sheer bulk of our culture’s meat eating habits means that we manufacture more cows than would exist naturally. And meat agribusiness is not analogous to Hamilton County deer hunting anyway.
Bearman said:
That’s because there isn’t one—and if there is no one here has articulated it yet. Just insults and jokes and sarcasm and proclamations about how meat tastes good.
Ike Sabot said:
No. The strength of an argument exists independent of whoever makes the claim.
NtotheC: Thanks for your comment. I don’t think cows would be extinct—but if you can admit that meat-eating is an issue that goes beyond personal taste, well, that was the point of my post. What is next? And if we are not ready to become vegetarians, does it mean we must change our eating habits at least in some way?
Carnivore said:
Shorter Carnivore; I cannot refute the argument so I will attack the person.
White Male: Thanks for your comment (except for the part about the “fish tirade"). Like with NtotheC, it seems we are all thinking about the issue. I think that’s important, and that more people need to really think more about such things!
librariangrrl: You have reminded me that the point of my post was really not that complicated!
17 Apr 2008 at 04:58 pm | #
Dean:
Thank you for taking a stand on this issue. However, I don’t think people will understand the ethical wrongs of eating meat before they understand the impact of eating meat on the animals, their health, the planet, world hunger, food safety, etc.
Scott Ryan:
“What if the protein that humans receive from eating meat, allow the brain to develop in such a way that it allows for innovation that would not have occurred without meat?”
So vegetarians like Pythagoras, Da Vinci, and Einstein were not innovative enough for you?
“What if the elimination of carbon based energy world can only be eliminated by eating meat?”
What the hell are you talking about?
“We know that protein from meat aids in brain development. We can not yet draw the lines I have sketched in above, but what if.”
Protein period aids in brain development. You don’t need to get it from meat.
Stephen Dapper:
“Didn’t claw my way to top of food chain to eat tofu,”
You didn’t claw your way to the top of the food chain, period.
ThatDeborahGirl:
“I personally don’t think man has evolved beyond the need for meat (or sex either).”
Many of us live perfectly healthy lives without meat.. Your analogy to the AIDS crisis is flawed. Our animal-based diet causes great suffering to animals (including humans!), regardless of who does the eating.
“Although we tend to think our modern sensibilities have evolved beyond caving in to simple biological need, I beg to differ.”
Simple biological needs? Why are we the only “omnivore” that needs to eat meat cooked? Where are our claws? Why are our stomach acids so weak? Which animals do we resemble most, primates or cats?
“Animals would still have to eat and would still compete with humans for vegetation, only their numbers would go unchecked with us removed as their predators. Would we then have to needlessly slaughter animals we would then not eat, if only to ensure our food supply?”
Are you kidding me? We are already breeding hundreds of billions of animals. The world is overpopulated with farm animals. At the same time, not everyone is going to go vegetarian at the same time.
If we just stopped breeding animals as more people ate less meat, then we would solve our overpopulation problems. There’s no reason for us to stop eating meat. We would also solve our food and water shortage problems. What people don’t understand is that a mostly vegetarian planet would have a lot LESS animals (although the oceans wouldn’t be dying off)
“Even a sheerly agrarian, vegetarian society, the amount of vegetation we would need to produce would still cause untold loss of animal life, from rabbits and other ground nesting animals accidentally caught under the combine to deforestation.”
The major cause of deforestation is animal agriculture. That includes rainforest deforestation. Most of the plant food grown in the US is eaten by farm animals, not people. Wouldn’t it be great if we never needed to cut down another forest for animal feed or burn another rainforest to make room for grazing cattle?
“And if we can’t produce enough food or if everyone cannot afford to maintain a nutritional balance through vegetarianism, the loss of human life would be manifold as well.”
You are joking here, right? Vegetarians live longer on average. The only reason that fruits and vegetables are less affordable than meat is that meat gets all of the subsidies. Take away the government subsidies, and your meat cost $30 a pound. And if all of our farmers were only growing veggies, plants would cost much less.
Al:
“BTW, while you’re correct that we produce enough grain to feed the world, we produce enough food to feed most of the world already, even while producing meat products. We as a nation simply choose not to do so. That would likely not change even if we all stopped eating meat—we’d find something else to do with that extra grain that would benefit ourselves.”
Third world countries with starving people are growing food for our farm animals. Who would you rather feed?
Ike Sabot:
“No, but it does have bearing on your credibility in doing so. I am a vegetarian, as much out of health reasons as anything else. I do have the occassional bit of tasty animal, mostly around the holidays or when good BBQ is on the menu.”
Sorry, but you are not a vegetarian. You get points for trying, though.
17 Apr 2008 at 05:00 pm | #
Deborah said:
Sexual intercourse once may have served an evolutionary purpose in overall human development, but our civilization has advanced to a point where sex is now a choice and not a necessity.
No. Without sex, we go extinct. So it is necessary for our continued survival. Artificial insemination cannot, at this point, maintain global population. Funny, but try again.
I don’t see why it could not? And I’m not necessarily referring to artificial insemination. It is possible to have conception without a man and a woman having intercourse or anything being inserted into a woman at all. American scientists have admitted, in the recent issue over stem cell research that only the law keeps them from determining whether a woman is actually needed to “grow” a fetus at all. As women are born with their eggs it is only necessary to keep the ovaries viable and childbirth and consequently, sexual intercourse would no longer be necessary.
And as far as sustaining population numbers, it actually might be a solution to the world hunger problem. Or at least as much of a solution as everyone switching to vegetarianism.
With today’s technology, not to mention future technology, there is no doubt that sexual intercourse is no longer strictly necessary for the continuation of the human race.
Yet, you reject that notion as surely, swiftly and derisively as many here reject the notion of not eating meat.
I think it’s a fair comparison as both seem to have biological basis for our continued survival and evolution.
17 Apr 2008 at 05:49 pm | #
Wow, I must say that this topic generated more comments than I had anticipated.
Dean you write:
As for your other “what-if” statements—what if the opposite is true, and a vegetarian lifestyle would do those things?
Has there been any study that says a, no animal fat, no animal protein diet in fact may stimulate brain cells?
I know not much has been studied regarding this topic, but I do know that every study recently done on infant brain development indicates that animal fat is a key ingredient for brain development.
According to your argument, neither a vegetarian by choice or an omnivore by choice is unethical. Until further scientific discovery, I am afraid that eating meat is not unethical. Therefore, by definition, it must be ethical.
You further state:
Whether animals have a conscience or not has nothing to do with whether it is ethical to eat them.
Why is it now unethical to be a cannibal? I know I am opening up a can of worms, but let’s just assume that it is unethical. The very core of the answer to this question lies within the fact that humans feel guilt (have a conscience). We make no judgment about other animals being cannibals.
I must say that for the most part everyone has added very productive imput to this argument.
Scott
17 Apr 2008 at 07:09 pm | #
Deborah:
Please tell me how monogamous recreational sex destroys Earth. It is already known that our animal eating habits are not sustainable.
17 Apr 2008 at 07:12 pm | #
Scott, are you thinking of the protein for early childhood brain development that can be found in human breast milk?
17 Apr 2008 at 08:28 pm | #
Dean, when you make something resembling a rational argument, I’ll refute it.
Scott Ryan, Dean doesn’t have to do any stinking research or present any cogent facts. He’s a ‘media activist’, not a journalist.
Shorter Deborah: I’m not getting any.
Good Stuff Here!
17 Apr 2008 at 08:28 pm | #
Dean,
I refer you to your piece on abortion and grilling:
I’m most certain that you cannot figure out my position on abortion from reading about my idea. But if they can show those signs in public, I think I should be able to grill steak in public, right next to them.
You sir are unethical, and are a hypocrite!
18 Apr 2008 at 05:35 am | #
Who Cares?, Thinking it would be amusing to see people grilling steak next to those abortion activists, as a singular and rare event, is vastly different than everyone’s daily eating habits. But you are right, if it is unethical to eat meat, that protest is unethical. What is your point? You are simply trying to change the subject and make this about me, when the argument is about ethical eating practices. You cannot stay focused, I would guess, because you love to eat lots of meat yourself, and you do not know how to defend your position.
Carnivore, I have made points. You cannot refute them, so you rely on appeals to ridicule.
18 Apr 2008 at 05:42 am | #
Dean:
That is one excellent source, but whom is to say that a nice big pork chop for a two year old would make him/her smarter in the long run compared to if he or she did not have one.
Veg’n:
You make some excellent points. Your point about past productive citizens that were vegetarians is enticing, but anecdotal. If they were in fact vegetarians, maybe the meat they had as children was beneficial. Maybe they could have done more if only they were omnivores.
We must all strive to make rational ethical decisions in life. But until an action is proven to be irrational and unethical, to each his own. For example, back in the 1960s pregnant women were given a drug (thalidomide) to help prevent morning sickness. As it turned out, further research proved that there was a link from this drug to tremendous deformities in the born infants. Before this was discovered, was it unethical for the doctor to prescribe it and was it unethical for the pregnant women to ingest this drug? Of course not, but once it has been proven to be bad, then of course it would be unethical for the doctor to prescribe and the woman to ingest.
Veg’n, you have based a lot of your argument on the fact that if everyone were vegetarian then the earth would be much healthier. What if the earth was filled with vegetarians that loved to raise and slaughter livestock, just for the heck of it? Are these types of vegetarians more or less ethical than meat eaters that only kill to eat? Is it the fact that we eat meat or that we have to kill an animal to eat meat the unethical action in your arguments?
18 Apr 2008 at 05:45 am | #
I assume the reference to sexual intercourse refers to consenual intercourse. Animals don’t consent to being tortured, slaughtered and then consumed. Whether it’s a natural instinct to screw or a choice, it has to be consensual to be legal. Where’s the comparison. I think there was a recent murder case with exactly those circumstances. The guy got life. He had sex, tortured, slaughtered and then consumed his human victim.
Eating meat is reprehensible. My primary objection is the treatment of the animals. The torture and hell that animals are subjected to is unbelievable. Some friends were successful in lobbying a couple of years ago to stop the practice of the lifetime caging of pigs, I believe in Indiana. There’s a specific term for this that I can’t remember. That is the females are routinely kept in small tight cages throughout their lives, during their pregancies, prisons too small to even turn over, not enough room to stand up, stacked up one upon the other and just hosed down. Never exercised. Never protected from heat or cold. Year after year, riddled with sores and infection and misery, dead if not for antibiotics. That’s what you eat.
I occasionally dabble in meat but lean mostly toward vegetarianism and have gone many years, for periods, using no animal products. I have no problem with a non-vegetarian bringing up this issue. It’s awareness and similar to smoking. You can be a smoker and still know it’s wrong. Once, you’re aware of that, usually the next step is quitting. This is a reminder and wake up call for me to get back to what’s right. Thanks Dean.
18 Apr 2008 at 05:57 am | #
You are absolutely correct Dean. I love meat because it is so delicious. I could use your three assumptions on vegetation just as easily though and declare it just as unethical to eat plants. My point is the three criteria you use to state that eating meat is unethical do not prove that eating meat is unethical. Your argument while funny and certainly discussion-provoking needs to fleshed (pun intended) out more to be comprehensive of the arguments against eat meat.
So my position is this: Ethics and meat-eating have nothing to do with one another. As much as we live in a global society, we truly do not. America is not responsible for feeding the world as much as television shows like Idol Gives Back and celebrities like Bono might want us to believe that.
I think today in honor of this discussion and to keep up with “unethical” behavior I’m going to eat a nice big juicy yummy steak.
18 Apr 2008 at 06:23 am | #
No, you can’t. That’s why you did not.
But we do not have the right to destroy the world because we want 99 cent hamburgers. Think rainforest cattle ranching, as just one easy example. Don’t forget the manner by which our current agribusiness relies on foreign oil for making fertilizer. We have to grow more plants to feed our cows so we can eat them, than if we just cut out the middleman and ate vegetation-based meals ourselves.
Continously, people like you rely on fallible appeals to ridicule because you cannot make a logical point.
18 Apr 2008 at 06:24 am | #
Scott, once again, you just pose arguments based on the word “maybe.” Well, maybe not.
18 Apr 2008 at 06:37 am | #
Dean:
That is precisely my point. If all we have is “maybe”, how could it be an unethical action?
Cincysuz, great points and I agree, everyone needs to be made aware of the unethical treatment of animals, but that is not the question. What if the only meat you eat is the meat that you personally hunt in the wild. Does this make it ethical to eat meat?
18 Apr 2008 at 06:45 am | #
It seems to me that most of the arguments here are stating that the current sytem of domestication and slaughter is the action that is unethical, but that really does not address the question at hand. Eating meat, in and of itself, is not unethical. What if the only meat I ate was road kill that I picked up on the side of the road? Is that unethical?
The treatment of animals is the real ethical delima. Maybe that should have been the question.
18 Apr 2008 at 07:31 am | #
Tell you what: when you all take my proposal to give up sex seriously, I’ll take Dean’s proposal to give up meat seriously.
Until then, no dice convincing me.
Oh and Dean, what world are you living in where all sex is monogamous? In an ideal world sure. But even married people have affairs. STD’s are spread. For the person who asked me how sexual intercourse destroys the planet, uh, have you heard of the AIDS pandemic or does destruction of the planet include the planet, the animals and everything but HUMAN life? Especially if that life is brown and beyond your vision?
And if you want to get down to it, traditional conception and childbirth contains great risk for genetic errors than actually screening embryos conceived in a dish. In that light, considering modern technology, it’s almost irresponsible to conceive and give birth to a child. We could also do a much better job of population control and then there wouldn’t be such a problem feeding everyone which solves the earth destruction and food problem in one swoop.
FYI - I have no idea why I’m arguing so strenuously against giving up meat. It’s almost like a reflex I can’t stop. I guess I want meat damnit! : ) <-humor, craziness, arguing for a cause I couldn’t care less about - god I love the internet
18 Apr 2008 at 08:14 am | #
But we do not have the right to destroy the world because we want 99 cent hamburgers.
Oh look. One of those mysterious “rights” that just came out of nowhere, invented by a secular materialist who takes it upon himself (of course) to assign it or revoke it according to imaginary rules!
Follow it back far enough in the secular materialist’s reasoning and you will find out that these “rights” just kind of magically popped into existence conveniently to support stern, moralizing arguments about how other people should behave - exactly what fundamentalists do, of course. But this clever system of fictitious rights avoids the non-rational baggage of (shudder) religion.
These fabricated rights, and the equally bogus system for their allocations, are really quite convenient. Start waving these around or snatching them away and you can support any argument!
I think we should grind up old people and eat them because we are destroying the fragile eco-balance of our home star system by existing. What right do you have to say we shouldn’t? Hmm?
None. So I proved my point.
18 Apr 2008 at 08:32 am | #
Dean,
I view this argument in much the same way as i do buying things locally. It’s something that should be done...but it can be a very difficult thing to do. I believe in supporting small business, but sometimes it’s just too damn expensive and that sucks. Eating meat is something that everyone should cut back on, but at the same time we Americans love our excess.
This is a topic i’ve been struggling with for quite some time. I have friends who are vegetarians because of the issues you raise here and i admire them to no end.
One issue i have is that it’s difficult to know what is ethically grown and where you can find it. If anyone here has any suggestions on where to find this information, i’d appreciate it.
18 Apr 2008 at 02:42 pm | #
Scott Ryan wrote:
Uh… You introduced the “maybe” arguments. You are talking in circles now.
Insofar as animals have to eat vegetation to create the meat of their bodies, which we then eat, it is an ineffecient means. And promoting inefficient means, in the wake of global food shortages, is unethical.
As for road kill—that could not become a system-wide means of providing food. I will not comment on your idiosyncratic perversions.
Deborah said:
Where did I say all sex was monagamous? I said you cannot create an argument which states that monagamous sex between consenting partners who are not spreading disease is unethical. And you have not. I have, however, presented arguments about why you should not eat mean—and you have not refuted a single one of them.
xxxyyxxx: Uh… Your comment strikes me as, well, mostly incoherent. Are you saying we have the “right” to destroy other people’s ability to live?
Are you talking about locally grown meat? Greenacre farms in Indian Hill is one place that I can recall from the top of my head. They use no hormones, and the cattle are free to roam expansive grounds.
18 Apr 2008 at 02:48 pm | #
From the article............
The American beef industry feeds its cattle enough grain to feed Earth’s population. But we don’t do that. We feed cows, so we can then feed ourselves off a totally inefficient food production system that puts the planet at risk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came accross this recently and thought it was keen:
then no odd currencies, please. Congo, Zambia, copper please. OPEC, how many barrels per bushel are we bid? India, Range Rovers, Jaguars, and our jobs back, thank you very much. China, Japan, one bond one bushel. Russia, we’ve got some leases for you to sign.
18 Apr 2008 at 02:56 pm | #
Dean:
Maybe I overestimated you. If you want to stimulate a good thread, you must feed the beast. That last one left me hungry. I can not respond to that, for it means we must take a giant step backwards, which one can not do in this forum. Interesting thread though. Or at least it was.
Scott
18 Apr 2008 at 04:12 pm | #
White Male:
Huh?
Scott:
Huh? My original argument poses no maybe statements. Just go back to there, and respond without making things up from your imagination. (I did say maybe in regards to “nut-jobs,” but if you are one of those, I already asked you to leave the rest of us behind
18 Apr 2008 at 04:37 pm | #
I don’t think that growing your own animals or hunting down and killing them makes eating meat any more ethical. And keeping animals fated for the slaughter in humane conditions--and really no such conditions exist--doesn’t change the fact that they’ll be knocked in the head, electrocuted, have their heads sliced off, or killed in some other way to end up on somebody’s table. Not to mention the filthy maggot-overrun putrid conditions that the meat goes through before ending up on your table. The sagas of the cows that occasionally break free of the slaughter houses, run for their lives, and then find the most remote hiding places, able to dodge hunting parties in order to try and escape their fate, says that they know what’s going to happen to them. Animals are not different. They think, hurt, love, mate, take care of their young, etc. People that don’t understand this are just wedded to the biblical claim that we have souls and animals don’t--that’s what makes us different. Bullshit.
And hunters are nuts. They’re simply serial, thrill killers that get a pass because they target non-human victims. They are worse, not better, than people that just go to the store and pick up a pack of prepared meat. How many of us would continue to eat animals that we had to kill personally, skin, cut up?
18 Apr 2008 at 04:55 pm | #
cincysuz,
I agree. But, at the same time, there are degrees by which things can be judged. If one will eat meat, it is better that it be organic, and free range. Just like, if one will use fossil fuel, it is better to carpool than not to carpool. Naturally, no fossil fuel car would be best, but carpooling is still an improvement.
18 Apr 2008 at 06:44 pm | #
Well it depends on how you’re looking at it. For me, the primary concern is cruelty to animals, second, the impact on the environment and third the health risks to those who make a choice to eat dead animals. So yes, I have no argument that organic and free range is better but it doesn’t help the animals.
18 Apr 2008 at 07:44 pm | #
Dean,
Admit you are unethical just like me because I have personally watched you eat mean before.
18 Apr 2008 at 08:23 pm | #
Simply put....
It is none of your fucking business what I choose to eat, drink, inhale, teach my children with regards to religion or political beliefs, teach my children with regards to morals, or what I choose to read.
Try to step in my way and your veggies will need to be pureed in order for you to consume them.
BTW.... Asparagus on the grill is outstanding !!
19 Apr 2008 at 06:22 am | #
Who Cares? wrote
How do you know whether my eating habits have changed since last year?
Chico wrote:
Wow, Chico— you threw in a whole bunch of things that I never pretended to take as my business. Inhale what you like, as long as it does not threaten my existence on Earth. Have whatever religion or politics, too—as long as it does not threaten my existence on Earth. Same for your morals, or reading material. But as soon as any “freedom” takes liberty with the freedom of other people to live, that is a line that must not be crossed. Rather like one should not be free to drive on the wrong side of the road, for the benefit of all the other drivers out there.
If any of our lifestyle choices causes great risk, then those choices have become the business of everyone affected.
19 Apr 2008 at 07:43 am | #
Who Cares, it’s similar to the smoking issue. Smokers are dead wrong on all fronts. They know they’re wrong. They know the damage they do to themselves and others and the environment. It’s irrefutable. But they can’t quit cold and some not at all, ever. So they make flimsy excuses. Same with meat eaters. They’re also addicted. But look how far we’ve come in 50 years. Look how our attitudes about smoking have changed. As well, animal abuse is no longer considered a personal right or choice. Even the rich and famous like Michael Vick aren’t allowed to torture animals for their own amusement. Next it will be animal consumption. It can and should eventually be eliminated. It’s just a matter of time.
And Chico we have to assume that you’re not communicating to us not from some remote island that you own, but the soil that we all share and have agreed upon certain rules by which we all live. It’s absolutely my business what you eat, drink, and inhale. There are, in fact too many laws to cite that address this. You know the examples. And if your religion includes human sacrifice or you teach your children to murder and steal or you abuse them it’s again, not only my business but my moral obligation to try and rectify the wrongs. Don’t be an idiot.
19 Apr 2008 at 09:02 am | #
Dean, I wasn’t joking, I did live off weeds and berries picked from backyard, I don’t recall all the names, I can still recognize most. First wife and I were vegans for four years, I recommend these cookbooks
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-2805134-5854048?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=sundays+at+moosewood&x=16&y=20
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=the+vegetarian+epicure&x=8&y=19
And don’t doubt for a minute those on top of the power chain do “do whatever they wish to those who don’t properly clean lawn mowers out of their yard, just because they can” now. Today marks the fifteenth anniversary of Waco, which surely proves the point.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory157.html
19 Apr 2008 at 04:12 pm | #
Cincysuz,
Somking and eating meat are very two different things. Eating meat is not unhealthy. Eating meat does not cause cancer. I cannot recieve the same chance at disease from watching someone eat meat as I can from being near someone smoking. Torturing animals for gambling purposes and raising them to be used as a source of nutrition is completely different. Besides there are too many middle Americans who appreciate and enjoy eating meat that I think will prevent anything like what you suggest. I cannot forecast what will happen fifty years from now, of course, but I seriously doubt we will be entertaining public votes on whether meat eating should be permitted.
19 Apr 2008 at 04:21 pm | #
For your own benefit Dean, since you said I didn’t do this because I can:
1. If we aren’t supposed to eat plants, why are they made of vegetation?
I have a stock response to this stock argument seeking to make a joke of those who dare to question plant-eating: Beautiful plants don’t look nearly as beautiful with their fruit picked. Enough said. This line of thinking is no argument.
2. The Bible says that God gave man dominion over the Earth, and Jesus ate plants.
Fine. If we presume there is a God, and if we presume he gave “dominion” to humans, that does not mean that through our dominion we should take actions that ultimately seek to destroy the planet. And secondly, when Jesus was alive, the population of the whole Earth was smaller than America’s current population. Civilization, then, had not advanced to the same point as now. So the issue should not be what Jesus ate then, but what he would eat now. Would Jesus engage dietary habits that destroyed life on Earth? No. (Unless, maybe, you are one of those nut-jobs who thinks Jesus is about to return and leave the rest of us behind—if so please get on with it, get out of here, and leave me behind so I can continue without your interference. I would like nothing better than to be left behind by you.)
3. If we don’t eat plants, the vegetation will go wild and take over.
Firstly, apple trees and watermelon vines are nothing like wild-backyard berries. And those who pick and eat apples can hardly be held as analogous to corporate agribusiness.
If every American stopped eating fruits and vegetables, we would not be taken over by wild plants. The only reason we have so much vegetation is because we manufacture it, with the aid of growth hormones that accelerate their development to a point that would be similar to imagining a six foot tall, 200 pound five year old human. It is disgustingly unnatural. We are producing these plants so quickly because we eat them faster than they are naturally capable of reproducing. We do not have a problem with wild plants getting ready to take over America if we don’t eat more 99 cents a pound bananas. To think so is totally absurd.
Now, I could post this on my own blog (if I made one) and use your same arguments that eating plants is unethical for the three reasons you chose. Just because I did so does not make my arugment cogent or right. Just because you personally feel the way you do about meat-eating being unethical does not make your argument above right nor does it mean the rest of the world, including some mythical present day Jesus, would agree with you. I will agree with you that there are more humane ways to treat the animals we raise for our food supply. No problems there, but eating meat does not make me an unethical person.
19 Apr 2008 at 04:33 pm | #
Who Cares?
I said you could not, and I stand by that. All you have done here is provide a fallible appeal to ridicule.
But I will refute your sarcastic points anyway—a thing which you have still failed to do.
1. No one has made the argument that eating plants tortures them (they do not have central nervous systems). One cannot say that eating animals is more efficient than eating plants, as plants do not themselves consume animals to create their bulk. (And no, we are not going to talk about venus fly traps.) So, your mock point is not really a point, as it does not address anything real.
2. Eating plants is not creating a global food crisis, so one who believes in Christ would never question plant-eating on the basis of what Christ would eat. As with #1 above, this mock argument does not make sense.
3. No one has, to my knowledge, ever said that we would be taken over by wild corn if we stopped eating corn. So this mock point makes no sense, either.
Once again, you fail to defend yourself logically—and that is because you cannot, since there is no logical defense for your illogical position. All you can do is engage sarcasm and jokes, and though you have had ample opportunity to get serious, you refuse.
I do not “feel” a certain way about animal-eating. I have, in the main article and in the comments, provided arguments which lead to a certain outcome. I am still waiting for someone to refute a single point without being logically fallible.
Now step up, Who Cares?, or get out of the comments. I’m starting to think you can’t handle this.
19 Apr 2008 at 04:34 pm | #
And one last thing (for now): you have not provided explanation about why your decisions should not be judged for the long-term effects they have on their environment.
19 Apr 2008 at 05:35 pm | #
Dean,
I’m assuming you know who I am. I would like to believe that you think if I took the time to put together a cogent argument on the subject I could do so. My sacrasm and constant joking on the matter should show how little I take this discussion seriously because I find the proposition of meat-eating be unethical laughable at best. We can agree to disagree on that.
In my estimation every human has a carbon footprint. Just because someone’s carbon footprint may be bigger than another’s does not make that person bad. Judging someone on such standards is highly pompous in my opinion.
My original statements (sarcasm aside)still stand. Just because you believe your three-pronged argument substantiates meat-eating as unethical does not make it so. My original defense is that I could just as easily create a flawed argument and purport that eating vegetation is unethical. I could believe that to be true just the same as you believe eating meat is unethical.
The irony of this whole subject matter is that I recall the first time you brought up this arugment to me was when we were eating lunch together. If I recall correctly, you were eating meat that day which we both had a good laugh over.
19 Apr 2008 at 05:56 pm | #
Who Cares?
There is not a “three-pronged approach.” Read the second paragraph of the original article:
See, those three “arguments” are the most common counterpoints I’ve heard when you take a position against animal-eating. My original argument, which was actually quite short, is in paragraph one:
You wrote:
Please pose some non-pompous standards for judgement.
I have never heard a cogent argument supporting animal eating, and I know many smart people. But I’ve never heard a cogent argument that does what you purport your argument can do. If you have such prowess, please enlighten us.
If you had lunch with me in the past, that says nothing about my lunches in the present. Still, the argument has nothing to do with me.
20 Apr 2008 at 11:08 am | #
Time to respect both sides of this topic.
This is a choice. And don’t force your values on us- come on if we all think alike, eat alike, and dress alike- Hello Taliban or the FMLDS.
Forcing values upon people is what has gotten us into this terrible war. That society has existed since pre-biblical time in war.
Just because someone choses to eat meat- or choses not to, get off the soap box.
If you want to really have a good fight- how about the dogs and cats that are suffering because of foreclosures. Most are left to starve and die of dehydration. And we are talking about animals already rescued to be dumped again to expensive pure breeds. Great exhibit at the Pet Expo last week!
This is a fight that something positive can start. Not trying to justify eating meat or eating tofu. Pick battles that can be won!
20 Apr 2008 at 01:18 pm | #
Reel it IN -
It’s not about forcing values. Nobody is “forced” to eat meat or not eat meat. You can listen to the reasons on both sides of the argument.
If everyone went vegetarian we would have much less pollution, less global warming, almost no hunger, infectious disease, chronic illness, birth defects.
We would have a lot more available water and land, along with more energy security, since animal agriculture is incredibly inefficient. We wouldn’t pay very much in taxes since everyone would be much healthier. To top it all off, billions of animals wouldn’t be tortured on a daily basis.
Our country already uses half of its water for animal agriculture, as unbelievable as it may seem. We feed around 75% of our plant food to farm animals. Meanwhile, the rainforests and the oceans are being killed because of animal-based diets.
By mentioning all of these arguments, I am not forcing my values on anyone. It’s just that the planet is dying, there is daily animal abuse foisted on billions of animals, and my taxes are subsidizing the meat industry, something I don’t support at all, “free-range” or otherwise - considering the effects.
When the dietary choices of others affect my life and my family’s future, you better believe I’m going to speak out about it.
Ultimately, I think that if everyone understood what a disaster animal-based agriculture is for the planet and all of its inhabitants, we would all stop eating meat.
20 Apr 2008 at 02:28 pm | #
I’m with ya. I’ve been vegetarian for half my life and I’m proud. I have heard all the b.s. that everyone has posted for 13 years now, over and over again. Somehow people always think no one has said it before and they’re the cleverest people to ever wax poetic on the topic. Kudos to you for speaking up when the rest of the world wants to tramp you down.
20 Apr 2008 at 04:08 pm | #
ThatDeborahGirl :
Here is the difference between the impact of sex and the impact of a meat diet:
Sex: Humanity depends on it for survival
Meat: Humanity absolutely doesn’t need it
Sex: Rarely harmful
Meat: Always destructive
Sex: When harmful, only harmful to human health
Meat Diet: Harmful to health, the environment, the animals. Breeding grounds for bird flu and other potentially pandemic viruses.
Result of the planet giving up sex: Humans die off
Result of the planet giving up meat: Humans thrive. No more hunger. Ecosystems restored. No more obesity, and therefore, more sex.
20 Apr 2008 at 05:07 pm | #
Forget Vegan...Go FREEGAN!!!!
More here.
20 Apr 2008 at 08:31 pm | #
Reading all the snide comments and attempts at humor by so many is strange to read. The animal’s suffering is funny. The impact on the planet is funny. Tasteless, insensitive and tacky. Even entertaining the notion that cutting back could be beneficial to us all incites guffaws. Does it go hand in hand that people who eat meat not only have no empathy for, but actually revel in the abuse and suffering of the animals they consume?
21 Apr 2008 at 09:50 am | #
One volcanic eruption (not man’s fault) does more “harm” to good ‘ole Mother Earth than my cookout will do. The planet has survived much worse before man was around, it will survive this as well.
Even more simply stated.... I don’t care what you eat, why do you care what I eat?
..... and before you go there, your response about man killing the earth by eating meat is refuted by the above volcanic eruption example. Your response is based on theory, mine is based on undisputed fact.
21 Apr 2008 at 02:44 pm | #
There is a big difference between being a conscientious omnivore and a carnivore with little knowledge of the horror of the meat industry. I eat grass-fed beef. The cows I eat had a life, they were not raised in a pen, eating grain and who knows what else in their feed, they were not shot up with antibiotics as a “preventive measure.” Yes, it is expensive but it has reduced my red meat intake and it tastes a thousand times better. If you want to eat meat fine but do your research and make the choice that is best for your health and the environment. And to the vegetarians - don’t pretend that there aren’t plenty of meat eaters out there that do care about animals, there is nothing more obnoxious than a holier-than-thou vegetarian.
21 Apr 2008 at 07:28 pm | #
If you only see Veganism as a boycott, then a Freegan would just be a different take on Veganism. When I think about these vegetarian “alternatives”, I think “what would the world be like if everybody did it?”.
If everyone was freegan, would we still eat dairy products? Or would there be no food available because the dumpsters are all empty? I think of freeganism as a fringe movement.. some might do it, and more power to them - but it doesn’t have the potential to become anything more than a fringe movement.
Same would go for anyone paying lip service to “grass-fed beef” and “free-range chicken”.
“Grass-fed beef” - There just isn’t enough grazing land available for all of our country’s beef to go “grass-fed”. We would completely overgraze and ruin our land in no time were everyone to start converting to grass-fed beef.
“Free-range” - There is no regulatory or legal meaning to “free range”. Free-range chickens can be debeaked, put in crowded conditions, and have their throats slit while still conscious. What would change if everyone ate “free-range” chicken? Not much.
What I often notice when I hear anyone paying lip-service to “family farms” and “free range” is that they can’t stick with it, especially when eating at restaurants.
I have yet to meet anyone who strictly purchased only truly free-range poultry or grass-fed beef. I’ve met over a hundred vegans and I’ve never met a “freegan”.
22 Apr 2008 at 07:54 am | #
Well Veg*n, my name is Jess and it is nice to meet you.
22 Apr 2008 at 09:02 am | #
Veg*n
So...you would suggest that we give up milk, cheese, and all meat/poultry...as well as all products made from animals?
If trying to eat more ethically raised meat isn’t really doing anything...i’ll just go to Meijer instead.
Thanks for the suggestion.
22 Apr 2008 at 08:37 pm | #
Nice to meet you.. The only cow you eat is a grass-fed cow. Interesting.. I still haven’t met an actual freegan.
Yes, I would suggest that and recommend it. Try doing it for a month, and see how it goes. If it’s not for you, at least you tried. Everyone who says that “I could never do that” most likely hasn’t gone a day without eating animal products since he/she was in diapers.
“Ethically-raised” isn’t that great, but it could be better than factory farmed (which is absolutely horrible), if it is legitimately better and not just an advertising scheme. The animals aren’t treated any better in transport and the slaughterhouse. They probably aren’t treated as bad on the farm, but it depends on which farm they came from.
In my opinion, you can raise the animals in a 4 star hotel, but that’s no excuse to hang them upside down and slit their throats. But if you absolutely must.. please choose the “lesser evil”. By the way, Meijer has veggie burgers! Trader Joe’s has the best fake chicken, called chicken-less strips. It tastes like the real thing, or at least how I remember it.
23 Apr 2008 at 08:15 am | #
Freeganism is an absolute joke...just a way of avoiding paying for things.
Veganism i can sort of understand...but at the same time, it’s incredibly difficult to remove animal products from every day life completely. Reading a little about veganism (and having just a passing knowledge) suggests that it is mostly to avoid animal cruelty as the main concern...because to remove all animal products would be cost prohibitive and take too much time. and i’ll never understand how bees are treated cruely enough that you have to avoid honey.
Vegetarianism is more reasonable...and there are decent alternatives to meat out there (although the idea of a Tofurkey burger is absolutely insane...and yes, i’ve had them...and no, they didn’t taste all that bad). i’ve dabbled in vegetarianism...and would like to move much more in that direction...although i will not jump entirely in that boat.