Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too

[Absinthe]

Here's an interesting article about plants and vegetarian diets :thumb001:


...But before we cede the entire moral penthouse to “committed vegetarians” and “strong ethical vegans,” we might consider that plants no more aspire to being stir-fried in a wok than a hog aspires to being peppercorn-studded in my Christmas clay pot. This is not meant as a trite argument or a chuckled aside. Plants are lively and seek to keep it that way. The more that scientists learn about the complexity of plants — their keen sensitivity to the environment, the speed with which they react to changes in the environment, and the extraordinary number of tricks that plants will rally to fight off attackers and solicit help from afar — the more impressed researchers become, and the less easily we can dismiss plants as so much fiberfill backdrop, passive sunlight collectors on which deer, antelope and vegans can conveniently graze. It’s time for a green revolution, a reseeding of our stubborn animal minds...

Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/science/22angi.html?_r=1&em)

[Majar]

There's nothing truly ethical one can eat, so you might as well pay attention to nutritional value of your food rather than the supposed "rights" of other creatures. A purely vegan diet is not healthy, nor are humans evolved for such a diet. Yes, vegans tend to be slim but they have higher frequency of deficiencies in B12, Vitamin D, iron, protein, iodine, and Omega-3 fatty acids. Vegan mothers give birth to lower weight babies. Humans are omnivores, and eating meat was an important part of moving our evolution forward. Veganism is a religion people use to feel good about themselves.

[Absinthe]

There's nothing truly ethical one can eat

I've come to the point of believing that the most "ethical" thing one can eat is whatever is most abundant in the area one is residing, be it animal or plant, so that the food consummed will disturb the equilibrium as little as possible.

It is also the closest option to the natural human condition, i.e. eating what is available in the area (fish near the sea, animals in the steppes, plants where there is fertile soil, etc.)

The other adjustment I would propose would be to eat accordingly to what you wish to achieve at any given time: meat for physical strength and vigor, plants for calming down the mind and concentrating, spices for fortifying the senses and sexual desires, etc. :)

[Cail]

In theory, it could be ultimately "ethical" (in the ahimsa sense) to eat, for example, certain fruits. For example, an apple tree grows hundreds of apples in one season, of which maybe just several would grow into actual new apple trees in the wild. Thus, the rest of the fruit can be eaten without harming the tree in any way. Same can be applied to many cases, for example hens living without a rooster, will still produce eggs, that are infertile and won't develop into a chicken. Such eggs can be eaten.

But in reality this is moronic. If people would think that eating other organisms is immoral, why does it apply only to humans? Then the only possible moral choice for them would be cleanse the Earth of any developed life, except for some of the species that depend solely on star energy consumption (certain green algae et cetera).

This is the way of life, transfering the anti-entropy generated by stars up the food chains, thus allowing the progress. Without it developed life is impossible.

[Absinthe]

Ditto, Cail... and I must clarify that by "ethical" I mean logical/reasonable, hence the quotation marks. I don't believe in good and evil anyway ;)

[Klärchen]

In 1973, a woman named Dorothy Retallack published a small book called The Sound of Music and Plants. Her book detailed experiments that she had been conducting at the Colorado Woman’s College in Denver using the school’s three Biotronic Control Chambers. Mrs. Retallack placed plants in each chamber and speakers through which she played sounds and particular styles of music. She watched the plants and recorded their progress daily. She was astounded at what she discovered.

About Positive Music – The Plant Experiments (http://www.dovesong.com/Positive_music/plant_experiments.asp)

[Chris]

I'm vegan, and I'm sure I'll be very alone in this thread :(

Like most mainstream media, this article was meant to make us feel helpless, so we don't change our behaviour. Plants don’t have a nervous system and didn’t evolve to feel pain. You can't possibly equate a veal calf crying for it's mother before being dragged off to live in total darkness with a plant releasing chemicals to defend itself.

If the authur of this rubbish had felt that eating plants was bad they'd also inform the reader that raising cattle requires 7 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. 66% of grain grown in the US ends up being fed to cattle. So if you eat meat you cause even more suffering to plants!

Humans are so overpopulated we can no longer be considered part of the natural order. Predators should never outnumber their prey. That's why we have the nightmare that is factory farming to begin with.

[nisse]

I'm vegan, and I'm sure I'll be very alone in this thread :(
:cry...here we go...you couldn't have stopped at the coma, could you...


You can't possibly equate a veal calf crying for it's mother before being dragged off to live in total darkness with a plant releasing chemicals to defend itself.
And why not? The calf crying for its mother comes down to the synthesis and release of some chemicals that induce muscle activity and result in sound emission...Just because that is more similar to what is seen in humans doesn't make it any more meaningful, just easier to relate to...


If the authur of this rubbish had felt that eating plants was bad they'd also inform the reader that raising cattle requires 7 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. 66% of grain grown in the US ends up being fed to cattle. So if you eat meat you cause even more suffering to plants!
That's a much better argument than that crying calf rubbish...and of course the argument made in the article was not meant to be serious - we even use grain to make ethanol to be used as a fuel additive (to be nice to the planet, ironically) - clearly corn in nowhere near the top of the "let's be nice to" list...but corn wasn't even being used in the example, and it's an annual crop - it would die even if we didn't eat it.


Humans are so overpopulated we can no longer be considered part of the natural order. Predators should never outnumber their prey. That's why we have the nightmare that is factory farming to begin with.
Yeah, humans left the "natural order" long before this - when we started domesticating and deriving breeds of cattle....so that boat sailed quite a while ago.

No offence, but the fact that you talk about how harmful we are to the planet *over the internet* instead of living in a naturalist commune makes you a hypocrite (unless your computer is biodegradable and powered by you on a bike...even then...ours aren't). Eating meat is a drop in an ocean (or a big lake, at least). If you make that choice, all the better for you, but to claim that it makes some measurable difference in the grand scheme of things is just Mother Theresa complex.

I know you don't care for my advice, but here it is: accept that you are human and humans aren't daisies, and you'll have much fewer nightmares.

[Chris]

“If you make that choice, all the better for you, but to claim that it makes some measurable difference in the grand scheme of things is just Mother Theresa complex.”

You begin that paragraph with, “no offense,” but mocked and dismissed me quite a bit. Hehe.

It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. That’s a measurable difference. A vegan diet requires 300 gallons of water a day, conversely a meat eating diet takes more than 4,000 gallons of water.

“Eating meat is a drop in an ocean.”

It's more.

[nisse]

You begin that paragraph with, “no offense,” but mocked and dismissed me quite a bit. Hehe.
I was being realistic....and I do give credit (only) where it's due - your argument about animal feed was a good one, and I doubt anyone would deny that, but the stereotypical "we're all guilty, but I've opened my eyes and am saving the world and cute little animals"-bit is very tiring. As I said, I did not want to offend you, but do recognize that the truth may not always sound nice.


It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. That’s a measurable difference. A vegan diet requires 300 gallons of water a day, conversely a meat eating diet takes more than 4,000 gallons of water.
Here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970812003512.htm)'s a site full of such great statistics. Somewhat outdated but uses the metric system (easier for me, and prob. some others) and has tonnes of info. The water argument is an excellent one, as agriculture is a major water user.

However, a lot of water is also purely *wasted* on watering lawns, maintaining water features, taking excessively long showers, A/C (electricity produciton also involves water) - and this is usage that can not be justified *at all*, in my opinion, but is demed perfectly acceptable by this society. I'm not going to pretend I'm something I'm not - I'm a selfish b!tch - and simply can not find it in me to deny myself strong bones and health while those around me indulge in such frivolities AND eat all the meat/dairy they want! Like I said, if you are *that* selfless - good for you (well, I'd call it bad...what do I know)...But you are fooling yourself if you think you are making any measurable difference considering the background against which you live your life. The only real difference you're making is in your head.


“Eating meat is a drop in an ocean.” It's more.
You are a drop in an ocean ;)...of course your eating habits are too...And the West is by no means ready to adopt your selfless ways...in fact, the East is starting to be able to afford to abadon them (lol, not that it was ever about selflessness ;))

[Lahtari]

It is also the closest option to the natural human condition, i.e. eating what is available in the area (fish near the sea, animals in the steppes, plants where there is fertile soil, etc.)

Does this mean I can eat freshly hunted deer meat and muikku's (whatever those are called, the small fish you can troll (:D) from the lakelands of eastern Finland..)? And blini/pelmeni (because that's just around the border)? I'll be one damn happy hippie. :hungry:


It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. That’s a measurable difference. A vegan diet requires....


http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa157/DrunkulaTX/Miscellaneous/homer_simpson.jpg
Mmm... One pound of meat...

[Lahtari]

A/C (electricity produciton also involves water)

Hey, hands off my daily AC/DC! :cussing




*Hiiiiiiiiiigghway to Hell!!!* :rockon:

[Chris]

“I'm a selfish b!tch - and simply can not find it in me to deny myself strong bones and health while those around me indulge in such frivolities AND eat all the meat/dairy they want!”

Countries that consume less dairy have less osteoporosis.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/11.14.96/osteoporosis.html

“But you are fooling yourself if you think you are making any measurable difference considering the background against which you live your life. The only real difference you're making is in your head.”

You’re just nay saying at me :) That’s just the collective apathy articles, though humorous, like the one linked above are striving for. Even if you were correct that I am a drop in the bucket, at least it‘s a drop.

I’m selfish too btw. I like material goods and shiny things.

[Fortis in Arduis]

I am a lacto-vegetarian who tries not to eat onion, garlic etc. (allium family), mushrooms, and the nightshade family.

There is nothing in the religious books that tell me that I should not eat animals and those particular foods because it is wasteful or cruel, the arguments state that avoiding those foods will help me maintain a clear mind for yoga.

I take clarified butter (ghee) to help with my digestion and I take yoghurt and milk, and freshly made cheese in moderation, and with restrictions.

For example, I would not mix milk and salt, and there are many other rules besides. I would boil milk with spices to make it more digestible.

The health of the body and mind comes first, and I do not like these moral arguments against eating meat.

However, I must say that eating arthropods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthropod) does gives me the ooglies.

I take allium family and mushrooms sometimes and chocolate and coffee too, and egg sometimes, but I never stoop as low as fish and meat.

There is an 'eww' factor involved, rather than a moral factor for me, but I notice the difference in clarity of mind.

If I go out to restaurants eating willy-nilly everything goes to pot!

Vegan cuisine loaded with onion, garlic and mushrooms, coffee, tea and chocolate, and chilli, potato and tomato is of no interest to me whatsoever.

EDIT: I recognise that plants have consciousness, but that they also have a lesser consciousness than most animals.

[nisse]

Countries that consume less dairy have less osteoporosis.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/chronicle/96/11.14.96/osteoporosis.html
Could be true...or not (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968914?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4)...these things change faster than the seasons...

One thing doesn't - tradition. I'll stick to the wisdom of my ancestors who ate everything in good measure, which works fine as far as I've seen first-hand.


You’re just nay saying at me :) That’s just the collective apathy articles, though humorous, like the one linked above are striving for. Even if you were correct that I am a drop in the bucket, at least it‘s a drop.

I’m selfish too btw. I like material goods and shiny things.
...and that's precisely why I dislike "vocal" vegans. Either be dedicated to it and do *everything* you can to "save the planet" (i.e. cnaturalist commune), or shut it like the rest of us.

I for one, am not materialistic, try to buy as little as I can, recycle, all that jazz - I'm still a drop in the bucket though, and I don't go preaching to people to save/how I'm saving the earth because I fully understand and appreciate that despite all my efforts I am doing a lot more harm than good, simply by being part of this society.

[Chris]

“...these things change faster than the seasons…”

As Asians adapt our diet they'll acquire more chronic and degenerative diseases, and even more animals will suffer.

“...and that's precisely why I dislike "vocal" vegans. Either be dedicated to it and do *everything* you can to "save the planet" (i.e. naturalist commune), or shut it like the rest of us.”

I haven‘t preached at anyone. You’re so derogatory to me mainly because I cited some stats and mentioned babies calves suffering. Sorry if I sounded that way---I'm a "cold writer." Sound harsh when I'm not trying to.

You tell me to “shut up” if I don’t go live on a commune or use a computer, yet I’m sure you don’t Teetotal everything you do, but you express your opinion on those matters. I bet you’re quite “vocal” about it too. :)

[nisse]

As Asians adapt our diet they'll acquire more chronic and degenerative diseases, and even more animals will suffer.
Quite possibly so, since Western diet is not always more nutritious, despite having every opportunity to be so.
...as for suffering animals - most were bred to suffer and die to keep us happy and fed.


I haven‘t preached at anyone. You’re so derogatory to me mainly because I cited some stats and mentioned babies calves suffering. Sorry if I sounded that way---I'm a "cold writer." Sound harsh when I'm not trying to.
Oh no? So the images of evil media trying to make you feel helpless, crying calves, humanity being some unnatural uber-predator with nightmareish farming methods, and your own sadness at being the only vegan in the thread are all stone cold arguments? Clearly we have very different ideas of what that means.

If you had stuck to citing stats about water usage, etc. (i.e. were actually a logical, "cold" writer) instead of making some emotional appeal, my attitude towards your posts would have been very different.


You tell me to “shut up” if I don’t go live on a commune or use a computer, yet I’m sure you don’t Teetotal everything you do, but you express your opinion on those matters. I bet you’re quite “vocal” about it too. :)
Sure I don't teetotal everything I do, but I don't talk about it often, and when I do, I qualify all my statements as appropriate and don't use "we" when I mean "me". That's what I was refering to. If you want to talk about *your* personal choice and why *you* think it's right - sure, but don't presume that your diet gives you the moral authority to be telling *me* what is and isn't the same as a crying calf and what the media is trying to do....especially when you don't make an argument for either statement but just present them as some absolute truths (very preachy).

[Klärchen]

I don't believe in good and evil anyway ;)
In my opinion, suffering is the cause for "evil". No one will do any harm to anybody else if he feels peaceful and loving in himself; our desires cause pain to ourselves and to others as well.

This world is a world of contrasts and duality – we cannot imagine any "good" without comparing it to something "evil". There is no day without the night and no high without the low. But unlike the animals, human beings are able to discern and to realize that they are doing harm to others when they hurt or kill them. There is consciousness in every form of life – even the stones have some sort of life in them – but the consciousness is much lower in plants than it is in animals, esp. in the higher developed ones. And unfortunately, we have to nourish on something, so if there is some feeling and empathy in us, we should not discriminate between animals that one can eat and animals that one should not eat (like our pet dogs or cats), but we should spare all of them. Buying meat in some shop is easy, but who of you would be capable of killing himself the animal that he wants to eat?

[Chris]

“…humanity being some unnatural uber-predator…”

You’re projecting. I never said that. I said we outnumber our prey.

“…your diet gives you the moral authority to be telling *me* what is and isn't the same as a crying calf…”

Before I was a vegan, I could see how alike a baby cow crying for it’s mom, and a human infant crying for it’s mom are. It’s not preachy. Maybe rhetorical, since I thought *we* would feel an affinity with the infant.

“…as for suffering animals - most were bred to suffer and die to keep us happy and fed.”

That’s just glib. That’s how slavery was defended.

[nisse]

In my opinion, suffering is the cause for "evil". No one will do any harm to anybody else if he feels peaceful and loving in himself; our desires cause pain to ourselves and to others as well.
You mean if he/she's doped up? You're probably right.


This world is a world of contrasts and duality – we cannot imagine any "good" without comparing it to something "evil". There is no day without the night and no high without the low.
Meaningless, and what's worse, false, comparisons. Day and night are two extremes of solar light intensity. Where there are no such extremes there is polar day/polar night. High and low are positions within the earth gravitational field corresponding to (obejectively) higher or lower potantial energy. Good and evil are abstract concepts in our heads that can be summed up by no objective measure, rest on no facts and can be *completely* internal (think of crazy people)


But unlike the animals, human beings are able to discern and to realize that they are doing harm to others when they hurt or kill them.
Is that why we as a society refuse euthanesia? Because "we" know better than the sufferer whether or not death is good/bad?


There is consciousness in every form of life – even the stones have some sort of life in them – but the consciousness is much lower in plants than it is in animals, esp. in the higher developed ones.
Well there's a fact I was not aware of. Care to cite something on that?


And unfortunately, we have to nourish on something, so if there is some feeling and empathy in us, we should not discriminate between animals that one can eat and animals that one should not eat (like our pet dogs or cats), but we should spare all of them.
And why not? We have made that distinction for centuries. Farming (including animals) is part of our culture (i.e. the thing we are trying to preserve)


Buying meat in some shop is easy, but who of you would be capable of killing himself the animal that he wants to eat?
No one said it's easy. It's a skill, as any other..and if there were no stores around, most of us would probably be able to kill our dinner, as we were before ;). Pretty much everyone I know who was brought up on a farm has no problem with killing animals for food, meanwhile being the urban dweller that I am, I can barely bring myself to touch uncooked meat.

[nisse]

You’re projecting. I never said that. I said we outnumber our prey.
...and were unnatural...and had nightmarish framing practices...obviously I paraphrased, but the meaning was there ;)


Before I was a vegan, I could see how alike a baby cow crying for it’s mom, and a human infant crying for it’s mom are. It’s not preachy. Maybe rhetorical, since I thought *we* would feel an affinity with the infant.
Yeah, but just becasue before you were a vegan you didn't see that a brussle sprout is also crying out for help doesn't mean it's not. A calf is not a human infant, fyi. I'm open minded enough that I can feel affinity to it as well as the brussle sprout.


That’s just glib. That’s how slavery was defended.
...except that no one (to my knowledge) *bred* slaves for improved texture, or marbled meat, or higher milk production. If it's not homo sapiens it's not a human.

[Loki]

Off-topic posts have been moved here (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11873).

[Lahtari]

Buying meat in some shop is easy, but who of you would be capable of killing himself the animal that he wants to eat?

http://environmentalblogging.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/bambi.jpg

+

http://members.arstechnica.com/x/excelon/Ruger%20Mini-14%20Wood%20Stock.jpg

=

http://www.broilerking.com/images/1/steak23.JPG

:hungry:

[Hulda.Kin]

For me, if I was hungry enough I would have no qualms in catching something and killing and eating it... the self-preservation gene would kick in loudly!
Generally my diet is vegan style 5 days out of 7(or that percentage of meals are vegan) I eat a very small amount of dairy and meat(usually the white type Prawns, Tuna, Hake or chicken).. I prefer a minimum amount of animal products as well as keeping gluten products to a minimum as well, this is based on a diet that suits me and one I feel better living on. However, if I need a quick energy boost then I will eat meat only and usually a small portion of red meat as that gives me the boost required.
Obviously my demand on the animal kingdom is less than usual but I don't think that I am saving any animals because of it, in fact I did go vegan for a while to see how it felt, knowing full well that even then I was not saving any animals as IMO those quoted saved animals don't actually exist, I believe those figures are merely based on speculation as to how much regular portions of meat would add up to in regards to animal size.. if I had a fetish for only chicken wings and needed a dozen for a meal each night of my life then that's 6 chickens being killed for just one days consumption. What turned me off remaining a vegan or even a vegetarian was 2 things, firstly the lack of energy I had and i have CFS so need every bit i can muster and then the biggie was being in contact with a heap of vegans who came across as self-righteous fundies of the worst type... so I decided to become a flexitarian.
My ancestors were hunter gatherers and I am in debt for their prowess at being good at it, for without them i wouldn't be here. Intensive factory farming is cruel, so it's healthier to either catch your own or get your meat direct from farmers.

I get squeamish over the sight of blood and have never caught a rabbit or other land dwelling animal for food, however I grew up on the water in Sydney and used to fish off our jetty all the time. My mum is a crack shot and used to go rabbiting with her dad when she was younger and my partner grew up on a farm and is more than capable of hunting as well.
Maybe having a conscience is what makes it hard for some humans to eat meat but in nature that does not exist, the wolf, tiger, crocodile, shark etc hunts and kills it's food, it's survival and what it eats to do so never ends up on the net for discussion... it just gets on with the business of living and reproducing it's kind, that's what we need to do to keep our kind alive too.. eat well and reproduce :-)

[Chris]

“...and were unnatural...and had nightmarish framing practices…”

Unnatural and nightmarish for the animals and some people.

“...no one *bred* slaves for improved texture, or marbled meat, or higher milk production…”

They were bred for cotton production.

[Chris]

“I get squeamish over the sight of blood and have never caught a rabbit or other land dwelling animal for food.” ------Hulda.Kin

I grew up hunting and what bothered me more than blood was seeing an animal I shot lose it’s footing and fall. It’s hard for me to word it, but one minute the animal has it’s dignity and then it’s on the ground. Sometimes they run away and you have to trail them, but others struggled to get back up for a brief moment.

Once I learned I could survive, even thrive, without meat, I never looked back, other than to regret I ever intentionally killed deer.

Unless I’m starving I can’t imagine eating meat again, but with hunting the animals have freedom and dignity until their death. Farmed animals often don’t have one day of comfort for their entire lives.

[Svanhild]

I became vegetarian with 14, owing to the Bambi effect and compassion for the animals shown in those horrible PETA videos and the shock worked for 16 or 17 months. During that time I learned that many vegetarians and as good as all vegans are spoiled do-gooders with messianic features who use extreme cases in third world countries or in the USA to depreciate a whole industry, the meat processing sector, and the honest and downright butchers next door who do their job complying with all high standards. I couldn't stand the "We are superior humans and all those meat eaters are sinners and cannibals"-talk. Vegetarian and vegan communities tend to have delusional and religious features. It began to feel wrong to be a part of them more and more.

Additional to these impressions I've lost a lot weight and began to feel ill. My body is fine-boned by nature and vegetarian meals did not saturate the needs of my body in its imporant growth phase during puberty. I got migraine, felt tired all the day and had a low blood pressure.
As if this wasn't enough I began to thirst for the taste of meat products. The rest of my family prepared animal food but I had to eat replacement products, soja meals or fruits and vegetables. The smell of animal food on the table grew unbearable, metaphorically speaking my mouth was watering. It became clear to me that I am not a vegetarian by body and mind, all bambi effects aside.

My phase of vegetarism ended with porcine strips in cream and mushroom sauce. I remember it as one of the most tasty meals I've ever eaten. :wink Over the following months my body weight went back to normal and my health problems disappeared slowly. I killed my first and only mammal so far two years later when I had to shot an unconscious pig with a bolt gun during a two-day internship in a local butcher's shop in the course of a school project to become acquainted with different occupational areas. It was hard, but it didn't felt wrong if all rules are strictly adhered to. Eat and to be eaten, it's the run of nature.

[Freomæg]

A purely vegan diet is not healthy
I beg to differ. I went from a 10 stone weakling to a 14 stone, musclebound vegan. Anyone who knows me would say I'm one of the healthiest people they know.


I'm vegan, and I'm sure I'll be very alone in this thread :(
You're not!

As for the thread subject matter - I'm sure plants seek self-preservation, but they don't do it with the same 5 senses that animals do. Point being, a plant cannot see its suffering nor experience emotional trauma like an animal does. Furthermore, plants live and die bound to a piece of dirt whatever happens, animals do not live free and natural whatever happens - most of the ones we eat live in a cage, raped, tormented and unnatural. My major issue is not with eating meat or dairy per se, but specifically with the methods we use.

[Klärchen]

I have been a vegetarian for 27 years, and I feel much better now than when I was still eating meat! In the beginning, it was a bit difficult, because on has got accustomed to meat and fish, but there are so many other tasty things. And if you have nothing to eat – why kill animals? One can eat so many of the plants in our surroundings, one only has to know which ones. And there are also many very tasty dishes based on tofu, for example.

[December]

I have been a vegetarian for 27 years, and I feel much better now than when I was still eating meat! In the beginning, it was a bit difficult, because on has got accustomed to meat and fish, but there are so many other tasty things. And if you have nothing to eat – why kill animals?Most of people who eat meat never killed an animal. They just buy it ready to cook. Or cooked. How many people you know who have witnessed or killed an animal? None. Most of proud meat eaters would just piss their pants if they went hunting boars and saw one running towards them.

I would love to see some holding, say, a turkey steady to chop his head. And I'm not only speaking about the killing sensation that will make you puke until you get used to it. I mean, those little 25lb birdies, run, strive, kick, peck. ;)


One can eat so many of the plants in our surroundings, one only has to know which ones. And there are also many very tasty dishes based on tofu, for example.I admire vegetarians who can mantain themselves healthy. It's not just a matter of going berserk and stopping to eat meat. One has to follow a strict diet to asure the ingestion of essential amino-acids that your body can not synthesise at all. This is basic science that I've learnt in the school.

Personally I admit that I do not have enough patience and will to be vegetarian, though I'd gladly be. It's a matter of habituation. Being upbrought in a maritime-oriented culture, along with pork, beef and poultry, all kinds of seafood are omnipresent in our diet and they provide all what you need.

Seafood is much more healthier and since I don't enjoy seeing animals in captivity, by avoiding (but not barring) meats, specially red and fried (textbook diet for people who practice sports) I'm not only mantaining a healthy diet: At least, most of fishes and shellfishes are only minimally aware/intelligent, caught in the wild and their killing much faster and clean.

My 2 cents.

[Jamt]

I would love to see some holding, say, a turkey steady to chop his head. And I'm not only speaking about the killing sensation that will make you puke until you get used to it. I mean, those little 25lb birdies, run, strive, kick, peck. ;)


I am glad that you would love to see it and I hope you will someday.
It’s the most natural thing in the world; it makes food taste more and it would probably make you a better person.

[ikki]

meateaters should stick to eating eachother and leaving the plants alone... :D

[December]

I am glad that you would love to see it and I hope you will someday.
Be so kind to read again:



I have been a vegetarian for 27 years, and I feel much better now than when I was still eating meat! In the beginning, it was a bit difficult, because on has got accustomed to meat and fish, but there are so many other tasty things. And if you have nothing to eat – why kill animals?Most of people who eat meat never killed an animal. They just buy it ready to cook. Or cooked. How many people you know who have witnessed or killed an animal? None. Most of proud meat eaters would just piss their pants if they went hunting boars and saw one running towards them.

I would love to see some holding, say, a turkey steady to chop his head. And I'm not only speaking about the killing sensation that will make you puke until you get used to it. I mean, those little 25lb birdies, run, strive, kick, peck. ;)


One can eat so many of the plants in our surroundings, one only has to know which ones. And there are also many very tasty dishes based on tofu, for example.I admire vegetarians who can mantain themselves healthy. It's not just a matter of going berserk and stopping to eat meat. One has to follow a strict diet to asure the ingestion of essential amino-acids that your body can not synthesise at all. This is basic science that I've learnt in the school.

Personally I admit that I do not have enough patience and will to be vegetarian, though I'd gladly be. It's a matter of habituation. Being upbrought in a maritime-oriented culture, along with pork, beef and poultry, all kinds of seafood are omnipresent in our diet and they provide all what you need.

Seafood is much more healthier and since I don't enjoy seeing animals in captivity, by avoiding (but not barring) meats, specially red and fried (textbook diet for people who practice sports) I'm not only mantaining a healthy diet: At least, most of fishes and shellfishes are only minimally aware/intelligent, caught in the wild and their killing much faster and clean.

My 2 cents.

I meant I'd love to see many who are so prompt to claim being proud meat-eaters killing an animal for a change. I have that experience, as you can read.


It’s the most natural thing in the world; it makes food taste more and it would probably make you a better person.Yes, it is the most natural thing of the world and no, it does not make food taste better. It may even make it taste worse if you are not strong and fast enough. Or if a blood ritual is made out of it, like semites do. Also a pig in captivity which is not castrated at a very young age will make the meat taste awfully.

As for the consideration about the quality of a person based on a random sentence of his own, it is something I will not do. That surely does not make me a better person.

Regards.

[Jamt]

meateaters should stick to eating eachother and leaving the plants alone... :D

Meateaters dont eat other meateters, they eat planteaters eg vegans.

[The Black Prince]

I'm born as the son of a farmer, I learned to take good care of most kinds of the four legged that is common in our habitat. It is actually not that hard, it doesn't take guts, or what some people refer to as 'berserkerness'. It's rather just skill and technique whats necessary.

As a worker on farms I've also seen the conditions most animals are held, it is actually quite different than shown on TV all the time. Usually the media only portrays old fashion agriculture, where chickens or pigs are shown forced upon in tight formations. I never encountered this in reality..:confused: Rather the contrary animals are held today better than ever (that is for the last 1000 of years) on farms. Perhaps it does occur, those thightpacked porkfarms, but it is illegal. And for as far as I know already for decades.

Oh, and I read all the articles which tell that it is better to grow crops instead of animals, because the latter theoretically takes more of the first to develop, to be ecological profitable (1kg meat = 7kg grain). This is the grossest BS that exist.:)
If we would only grow crops we would not have the profit of manure to refertilize fields. And since most don't appreciate the extensive use of artificial fertilizer, most sand and peat soils would not have the ability to feed more than one family per 3ha. Or even less persons, if you take into the calculation that a part of the crops harvested is of a to low quality to meet our general accepted food standards (nobody likes brown potatoes or wormy strawberries).

Another more difficult to estimate element is the use of fungicides, pesticides and herbicides. The way to lessen the need of these is to make the crops wilder instead of further specializing them (more specialized crops are more suspectible to diseases). It looks nice on paper, but there was a reason why the first farmers and all the latter generations specialized crops:"A higher yield the hectare". If you would take a grain from let say 4000ya it would be twice as thin and twice as short. So you would need 4 times the amount of land to grow the same amount of food. If we recalculate it within our previous scheme, we now would need 12ha of peat or sandy land to grow enough to substantiate one family.

The peat and sand soils were traditionally mostly used for stockbreeding, it is only for the last 100 years with the upcome of artificial fertilizers that it is possible to grow crops there for the free market. Earlier indeed part of those more marginal soils was used for growing crops. However mainly for selfsubsistence by peasant families, next to the sheep- and stockraising. Thus not to supply next to the farmers themself, people living in urban areas.

the problem lies not with people who eat meat. Neither does the solution lie with people who are vegatarian or veganist. The problem lies in a world population of six billion people that craves to be fed. And if the world population is to grow more, more food is to be provided. So intensivation of the current agricultural production will be asked.
The people outside the Western hemisphere don't give a damn about animal rights, human rights aren't even a big deal there.

So ongoing sentimentality of the Western consumer will only lead to a lesser production of Western farms caused by the growing regulations and haltering of agricultural promotion. Causing that the decreasing foodproduction of the west must be countered by importing food from outside the western hemisphere.

There are various reasons why this may not happen. The first is that all the efforts to make farming more ecological, or better said more adaptive to the sentimental needs of the Western consumer will be made undone by growing imports from regions where such paradigm doesn't exist. A second argument is the amount of power this way accumulated by non-western countries: Nowadays food costs relatively nothing in our countries because we have a surplus or neutral balance. But the moment food becomes only a tiny bit scarce it becomes more important than oil, gas or clean water.

If those future food exporting countries would shut down the pipeline of food towards the - by than - dependant West, large scale hunger would occur and chaos would be the effect. This basically means that in such a world the countries that control the food source, have the power and the ability to gain more power, while the dependant countries will grow weaker and weaker.

Further I do want to stress I have nothing against vegetarians or veganists. I know many who I am friendly with and who usually find it quite interesting to know how things work on a modern farm.:)
But there are those that are trying to use false interpretations, or interpretations of data that is by far not complete or acreddited. This they do to achieve something that suits there sentimental needs to convert others on something what isn't based upon truth, but on short term thinking and a certain selfishness.

[nisse]

I agree with your analysis, but isn't the use of artificial fertilizers and GM crops (and/or pesticides/herbicides/fungicides) a necessary product of the 6 billion people to feed?
IMO, in a sense, we live in a different food reality now...is there any way back? Or can we only attain food security by embracing and further perfecting modern, artificial farming methods?

[The Black Prince]

I agree with your analysis, but isn't the use of artificial fertilizers and GM crops (and/or pesticides/herbicides/fungicides) a necessary product of the 6 billion people to feed?
IMO, in a sense, we live in a different food reality now...is there any way back? Or can we only attain food security by embracing and further perfecting modern, artificial farming methods?
Yup, I would not disencourage a more Amish lifestyle so to say.:D
But we can't go back if we want to feed the world population. And since it is still growing, we would need more to keep an agricultural surplus.

A surplus is needed to insure food security, though farmers hate it since it means a price for products just below costprice. A thorough subsidizing program must be able to cover the gap (though during the last decade the belief init has taken a dive).
Every government needs a surplus of food to ensure that there is enough food. Lack of food will cause more unstability than a lack of oil or gas, since the availability of food works on the economy even in a short term.

[nisse]

It is very depressing. I can't help but think that the removal of the average citizen from their food source is a means of maintaining control over the population. The realization of how little influence I have over the production of what I need to survive (food) has always been very demoralizing :(

The idea of a vertical farm (http://www.verticalfarm.com/index.html)is intriguing....although I am not sure if it's even worse than what we already have (if you look at the website, they refer to modern agriculture as "traditional practices" :D...rather funny IMO)

[Jamt]

Yup, I would not disencourage a more Amish lifestyle so to say.:D
But we can't go back if we want to feed the world population. And since it is still growing, we would need more to keep an agricultural surplus.

A surplus is needed to insure food security, though farmers hate it since it means a price for products just below costprice. A thorough subsidizing program must be albe to cover the gap (though during the last decade the belief init has taken a dive).
Every government needs a surplus of food to ensure that there is enough food, lack of food will cause more unstability than a lack of oil or gas, since the availability of food works on the economy even in a short term.

Because nowadays the modal people living in urban societies don't produce their own food, which do gave us the room to industrialize and to commercialize, the sideeffect it cause is an enormous dependance of the average/modal people (now urban citizen) for a stable food market.

Would you agree that modern agriculture, necessary as it is, is fragile as hell in the face of major unforeseeable problems in society? The dependence on fossil fuels and a complex “just in time” distribution network and so on?

[The Black Prince]

^Modern agriculture isn't, since it can always be tuned back to less modern so to say.
But the people or perhaps better said the society based upon an easy source of food, which is not halve as stable as it seems, is very fragile.

[December]

Would you agree that modern agriculture, necessary as it is, is fragile as hell in the face of major unforeseeable problems in society? The dependence on fossil fuels and a complex “just in time” distribution network and so on?

Interesting. Speaking in agriculture and fuel in the same paragraph inexorably leads me to also think in the food-vs-fuel problem.

In 2007 and 2008 I saw the price of essential foodstuff like milk and bread increase to absurd levels... and they didn't lower since then. Biofuel, China, India and our path of excess in the West must seriously be reviewed.

One guy said that the path of excess leads us to the tower of knowledge. But I don't like to know that I'm paying €0,80 for 1l of milk. Also 2€ for 1kg of bread is a robbery, specially when it tastes 3rd grade surplus foreign flour.

[Freomæg]

I am glad that you would love to see it and I hope you will someday.
It’s the most natural thing in the world; it makes food taste more and it would probably make you a better person.
It certainly is a most natural thing, but the point is: how many meat-eaters have done it? Part of me believes that all meat-eaters should at some point be called-on to slaughter an animal. There's very little honour in eating meat whilst having none of the stomach necessary to actually kill it. We probably would all be better people if we at some point had to slaughter our food.

[The Black Prince]

Interesting. Speaking in agriculture and fuel in the
same paragraph inexorably leads me to also think in the food-vs-fuel problem.

In 2007 and 2008 I saw the price of essential foodstuff like milk and bread increase to absurd levels... and they didn't lower since then. Biofuel, China, India and our path of excess in the West must seriously be reviewed.

One guy said that the path of excess leads us to the tower of knowledge. But I don't like to know that I'm paying €0,80 for 1l of milk. Also 2€ for 1kg of bread is a robbery, specially when it tastes 3rd grade surplus foreign flour.
Well the supermarkets are making huge profits over the backs of the farmer and the consumer in that case. Because the prices of milk and other agricultural produce are only a third nowadays of what it was in 2007.

http://i48.tinypic.com/15drv5.jpg
Dairy prices Netherlands 2007-2009


It certainly is a most natural thing, but the point is: how many meat-eaters have done it? Part of me believes that all meat-eaters should at some point be called-on to slaughter an animal. There's very little honour in eating meat whilst having none of the stomach necessary to actually kill it. We probably would all be better people if we at some point had to slaughter our food.
Well I've done it. And I also think a large part of our members from the Americas who have a hunting license did it. Also other members who grew up on a stockfarm or who's (father was) a butcher, have done it.
And if you ask me, it is overrated in literature and the media. It is more like Jamt said, it is one of the most natural things in the world, my father did it, my forfathers did it and though I have no proof of it, I think al my ancestors did it. Hell, monkeys also still do it: if a chimp can purchase flesh in some kind of way he will prefer it above plants and nuts (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nok3TOwOxsE).

Though in most NW-European countries, for as far as I know, it is illegal and a capital offence to slaughter an animal yourself. For the Netherlands you need to be licensed as butcher and in the possession of a special chamber where blood and other not usable products must be kept separated from eachother and ready to be picked up by specialized transporters for further destruction.
Next you need to take care that everything that is slaughtered is being researched for animal diseases: cows for BSE and FMD. Goats for Q-fever etc..

[Freomæg]

Well I've done it. And I also think a large part of our members from the Americas who have a hunting license did it.
That may be so, and good for you. But you'll agree that still, only a small percentage of all meat-eating Americans have slaughtered an animal. To me, that's what's unnatural. In fact, I'd call those peoples' actions as unnatural as my action of not eating meat at all. At least I'm not pretending to be a real carnivore whilst eating pre-packaged beef from Brazil.

[nisse]

That may be so, and good for you. But you'll agree that still, only a small percentage of all meat-eating Americans have slaughtered an animal. To me, that's what's unnatural. In fact, I'd call those peoples' actions as unnatural as my action of not eating meat at all. At least I'm not pretending to be a real carnivore whilst eating pre-packaged beef from Brazil.
I agree that not knowing where food comes from and how it was obtained is unnatural, but this is not limited to meat. There are plenty of people who have never been on a farm. Period. That does not mean they're not entitled to eat *anything*.

As for being a carnivore, we aren't. We are omnivores and that's determined by our physiology and *traditional* diet. It has nothing to do with being able to actually kill your food yourself.

[Fortis in Arduis]

As for being a carnovore, we aren't. We are omnivores and that's determined by our physiology and *traditional* diet. It has nothing to do with being able to actually kill your food yourself.

Whilst human beings may be omnivorous, that does not mean that meat-eating is optimal for us, even if it is traditional.

What it does mean, however, is that human beings referring to themselves as 'carnivores' are the most laughable of our species.

Some traditions such as alcohol and tobacco consumption, and the excessive and bizarre consumption of 'famine foods' which have become 'delicacies' in Cantonese cuisine (I shall spare us all the details...) are traditions which are decidedly retro.

There are traditional reasons why pig production is beneficial to humans, because we occupy a similar position in the food chain.

Producing pork has meant, in the past, that in times of famine, the pigs can be killed and eaten and their land used for extra production of non-animal foodstuffs.

However, this is 2009, and without the prospect of famine in Europe, what use is pig production?

Look at Cantonese cuisine and extrapolate.

We do not need meat, it is excessive, and should be restricted to areas where arable farming is not possible, so as to maximise our food surplus (which is an economic weapon of war against those nations which cannot produce a surplus) and our potential for population growth.

[Lahtari]

If those future food exporting countries would shut down the pipeline of food towards the - by than - dependant West, large scale hunger would occur and chaos would be the effect. This basically means that in such a world the countries that control the food source, have the power and the ability to gain more power, while the dependant countries will grow weaker and weaker.

Don't know about other countries, but at least in Finland we have storages for about 2 years (in addition with a heavily subsidized farming industry). So in this situation we would have plenty of time to increase domestic farming, don't you agree?

[Lahtari]

That may be so, and good for you. But you'll agree that still, only a small percentage of all meat-eating Americans have slaughtered an animal. To me, that's what's unnatural. In fact, I'd call those peoples' actions as unnatural as my action of not eating meat at all. At least I'm not pretending to be a real carnivore whilst eating pre-packaged beef from Brazil.

Sorry, but that's just as stupid as saying it's "unnatural" for people who don't have guts to kill another human being to enjoy peace and national independence (even if they can serve in army support). Or that someone afraid of using a chainsaw should not buy wooden items. Or that someone who don't have the patience to learn how to play a musical instrument should not listen to music.

[Klärchen]

It certainly is a most natural thing, but the point is: how many meat-eaters have done it? Part of me believes that all meat-eaters should at some point be called-on to slaughter an animal. There's very little honour in eating meat whilst having none of the stomach necessary to actually kill it. We probably would all be better people if we at some point had to slaughter our food.
Well, I am accustomed to seeing a lot of blood, as I formerly worked in a hospital. But why should I try to get accustomed to see others suffer? And animals - at least the higher developed ones, also suffer and don't want to die. We should at least not justify our actions by comparing ourselves to the animals which have no sense of discrimination.

[The Black Prince]

Don't know about other countries, but at least in Finland we have storages for about 2 years (in addition with a heavily subsidized farming industry). So in this situation we would have plenty of time to increase domestic farming, don't you agree?
Well I meant it rather in a future scenario..;) And Finland with the other 'geographic' Nordic countries (Dan-Nor-Swe-Ice) have in such a situation the advantage that they are relative less dense populated (ca. 25mln people) than f.i. the Benelux (28mln), Germany (82mln), France (62mln) or the British Isles(66mln).

Anyway I must also say that I don't know the exact agricultural situation in Finland f.e.: what you grow and raise yourself, what you export (beside timber and Nokia..:p), what gets imported, etc.. Two years of reserve is something.:)
However you also know that all the European countries have gas and oil reserves for several years storaged. But when The OPEC shuts down the oilcrane, prices will go up in the West, despite the amount they have in in reserve.

[Svanhild]

What it does mean, however, is that human beings referring to themselves as 'carnivores' are the most laughable of our species.
If so, it counts for humans referring to themselves as herbivores likewise. You can survive without meat but you can eat it. You can survive without crop products but you can eat them.



However, this is 2009, and without the prospect of famine in Europe, what use is pig production?
Meat and its products are tasty. People like tasty meals and we should accept that tastes are different. The use of pig production is to deliver people who share the same tastes with food and meals. No other reasons are required as justification.

We do not need meat, it is excessive, and should be restricted to areas where arable farming is not possible, so as to maximise our food surplus (which is an economic weapon of war against those nations which cannot produce a surplus) and our potential for population growth.
Exactly such chains of reasoning disassociated me increasingly from the vegetarian community. It's the overly didactic demeanor I was talking about. Forbiddances. Regulations. Restrictions. Condescension. Know-it-all manner. It's bloody similar to a messianic ideology: "We" the vegetarians, down there the "others", the unrefined eaters of corpses. I was so sick of such claims and arguments that it felt restorative to be reintegrated into the meat eating majority.

Eating meat doesn't need a higher reason. Most people like the taste, our body can process it and humans always ate meat. Those of us who decided to pursue other dietary habits should acknowledge it. Lecturing others about it has none or only contra-productive effects.

That are my two cents as a former vegetarian and now genuine omnivore. :)

[Klärchen]

I am sorry, feya, I did not discover your post earlier!


In my opinion, suffering is the cause for "evil". No one will do any harm to anybody else if he feels peaceful and loving in himself; our desires cause pain to ourselves and to others as well.You mean if he/she's doped up? You're probably right.
Have you really never felt peaceful except for when being doped up, feya? I have, although it isn't a constant state of mind. But I guess there were indigenous people who felt much better in themselves before we came and imposed our consumerism on them.
By the way, consumerism seems to be one of the main incitements of globalization, destroying culture and cultures rapidly.


This world is a world of contrasts and duality – we cannot imagine any "good" without comparing it to something "evil". There is no day without the night and no high without the low.Meaningless, and what's worse, false, comparisons. Day and night are two extremes of solar light intensity. Where there are no such extremes there is polar day/polar night. High and low are positions within the earth gravitational field corresponding to (obejectively) higher or lower potantial energy. Good and evil are abstract concepts in our heads that can be summed up by no objective measure, rest on no facts and can be *completely* internal (think of crazy people)
Even a little light can only be discriminated from a little more light by its contrast. But maybe this is too much going into philosophy. The same applies to good and evil, which are concepts that change from time to time and from culture to culture. From a higher point of consciousness all the contrasts are seen as one, but even if the terms good and evil are totally inverted, there is still a contrast between them. Okay, we should move to another thread where this subject is being treated. But if you sit in the dentist's chair or have to undergo an operation, you won't care much about philosophy or if there is good or evil. Then you (and me, too) just want to avoid the pain, right? And this is how every being feels, even the animals.


But unlike the animals, human beings are able to discern and to realize that they are doing harm to others when they hurt or kill them.Is that why we as a society refuse euthanesia? Because "we" know better than the sufferer whether or not death is good/bad?
Well, this is again another issue, I think. I am German, and our horrifying history has told us to be very careful about human life, for the Nazis did practise euthanasia. The same applies for instance to the question if stem cell research should be allowed or not. It is easy to preach morals as long as one is not suffering himself. Do you live in Canada? What are the laws there?


There is consciousness in every form of life – even the stones have some sort of life in them – but the consciousness is much lower in plants than it is in animals, esp. in the higher developed ones.Well there's a fact I was not aware of. Care to cite something on that?
Have you ever tried to make your rubber plant retrieve your newspaper? Okay, bad example...


And unfortunately, we have to nourish on something, so if there is some feeling and empathy in us, we should not discriminate between animals that one can eat and animals that one should not eat (like our pet dogs or cats), but we should spare all of them.And why not? We have made that distinction for centuries. Farming (including animals) is part of our culture (i.e. the thing we are trying to preserve)
Then I won't be able to persuade you, I'm afraid. Enjoy your pet dog.


Buying meat in some shop is easy, but who of you would be capable of killing himself the animal that he wants to eat?No one said it's easy. It's a skill, as any other..and if there were no stores around, most of us would probably be able to kill our dinner, as we were before ;). Pretty much everyone I know who was brought up on a farm has no problem with killing animals for food, meanwhile being the urban dweller that I am, I can barely bring myself to touch uncooked meat.
As I already mentioned, I am used to see a lot of blood and terrible wounds. But fortunately, I have preserved my ability of feeling pity with other creatures. Would you like to live in a world where empathy is an unknown notion?

Meat and its products are tasty.
Hm, okay, but would you also like it if it were not prepared and without any spices, just raw?

[Cail]

We do not need meat, it is excessive, and should be restricted to areas where arable farming is not possible, so as to maximise our food surplus

Sorry, i'm not going to start eating tasteless shit because of your ideas. And we don't need food surplus, as we don't need huge population. I'd prefer making our enemies' population small, rather than ours big. Earth is meant to be populated by 5 milliards or so, but these 5 milliards should be of good stock. Quality > quantity.

[Jamt]

Respect for vegetarians who do it for spiritual reasons. It makes a lot of sense considering mankind’s history, Hinduism, Buddhism, and the Christian tradition of fasting. Respect for all the mystics living and dead. Your wellbeing can still not be aborted from what your ancestors have being eating for a million year. A Swede needs butter fat and probably pig fat to feel all right, our ancestors have been living of it for more than 6000 years. It might be impolite to discontinue that diet. The idea that animal fat makes humans fat is as wrong as getting green from eating greens and most Hindus have never been vegetarians, even Hare Krishna’s eat animal fat.

[nisse]

Well put, Svanhild!

If so, it counts for humans referring to themselves as herbivores likewise. You can survive without meat but you can eat it. You can survive without crop products but you can eat them.
Actually, we wouldn't be able to survive without crop products for long. Meat doesn't have fiber, is low in many nutrients and induces ketoacidosis. We really are just genuine omnivores :)


Have you really never felt peaceful except for when being doped up, feya? I have, although it isn't a constant state of mind. But I guess there were indigenous people who felt much better in themselves before we came and imposed our consumerism on them.
...and there were others that engaged in cannibalism and scalped people...consumerism is not what makes us (humans) angry and violent. IMO we're that way by nature, or we wouldn't be as successeful as we are.


By the way, consumerism seems to be one of the main incitements of globalization, destroying culture and cultures rapidly.
Very true.


Even a little light can only be discriminated from a little more light by its contrast.
It can also be discriminated from more light by measing the current it induces and comparing it to the current induced in other light conditions --> it does not matter who does it, there is an objective metric that can be used.


From a higher point of consciousness all the contrasts are seen as one, but even if the terms good and evil are totally inverted, there is still a contrast between them.
May be so, but we can't all agree on what that higher point of consciousness is, so there is no objective metric. Tis all I'm saying.


But if you sit in the dentist's chair or have to undergo an operation, you won't care much about philosophy or if there is good or evil. Then you (and me, too) just want to avoid the pain, right? And this is how every being feels, even the animals.
That's the problem - not necessarily. People do stupid stuff (IMO) like breast augmentation where they pay money and go out of their way to suffer pain - clearly our ideas can be above the sensation of pain, and it is not something to be avoided at all costs.


Well, this is again another issue, I think. I am German, and our horrifying history has told us to be very careful about human life, for the Nazis did practise euthanasia. The same applies for instance to the question if stem cell research should be allowed or not. It is easy to preach morals as long as one is not suffering himself. Do you live in Canada? What are the laws there?
Euthanasia is not allowed in Canada. As for stem cell research, here again we happen upon difference of opinion that is not rooted in any fact. I work in stem cell reseach and know the arguments made both for and against...I've also noticed that it all comes down to your personal beliefs and definitions in the end.


Then I won't be able to persuade you, I'm afraid. Enjoy your pet dog.
I've got no pet animals or plants. A good thing, may be? :D


As I already mentioned, I am used to see a lot of blood and terrible wounds. But fortunately, I have preserved my ability of feeling pity with other creatures. Would you like to live in a world where empathy is an unknown notion?
Certainly not. I don't think that would even be possible, as empathy is key to our ability to communicate and one of the main things that makes us human. But there is a time and a place for everything. If empathy prevents you from striking your attacker in self-defence - I'd rather do without. Empathy, IMO, is a higher level function, and that's where it belongs - not among inborn instincs, which is what we rely on to get food and in flight/fight situations.


Hm, okay, but would you also like it if it were not prepared and without any spices, just raw?
The Japanese do - sakuraniku is a traditional dish of raw horse meat.

[Klärchen]

...and there were others that engaged in cannibalism and scalped people...consumerism is not what makes us (humans) angry and violent. IMO we're that way by nature, or we wouldn't be as successeful as we are.
That depends on what one calls "success". I understand by "consumerism" the avidity for having more and more. And the feeling of being imperfect if one has not got everything the other ones have. There is also a great variety of indigenous cultures, but those I am thinking of, were and are even trying to respect nature instead of exploiting it.


It can also be discriminated from more light by measing the current it induces and comparing it to the current induced in other light conditions --> it does not matter who does it, there is an objective metric that can be used.
...
May be so, but we can't all agree on what that higher point of consciousness is, so there is no objective metric. Tis all I'm saying.

I read below that you are a scientist, aren't you? I have several sources written by serious German-speaking scientists which I would like to publish here. I'll try and find something in English. But it's late now...


That's the problem - not necessarily. People do stupid stuff (IMO) like breast augmentation where they pay money and go out of their way to suffer pain - clearly our ideas can be above the sensation of pain, and it is not something to be avoided at all costs.

Obviously they suffer mentally due to some inferiority complex, and this mental suffering is stronger than the momentary physical pain. But it is suffering anyway. Do the animals have inferiority complexes, too?



Euthanasia is not allowed in Canada. As for stem cell research, here again we happen upon difference of opinion that is not rooted in any fact. I work in stem cell reseach and know the arguments made both for and against...I've also noticed that it all comes down to your personal beliefs and definitions in the end.

That is a very interesting issue, let's discuss that tomorrow, okay?


The Japanese do - sakuraniku is a traditional dish of raw horse meat.

And you, would you like it, too? Or Svanhild?

[nisse]

That depends on what one calls "success". I understand by "consumerism" the avidity for having more and more. And the feeling of being imperfect if one has not got everything the other ones have. There is also a great variety of indigenous cultures, but those I am thinking of, were and are even trying to respect nature instead of exploiting it.
By "success" I meant the fact that, as Chris mentioned in his first post, we are the top predator, at present.


I read below that you are a scientist, aren't you? I have several sources written by serious German-speaking scientists which I would like to publish here. I'll try and find something in English. But it's late now...
...about qualitative morality? I'd certainly be interested in reading that.


Obviously they suffer mentally due to some inferiority complex, and this mental suffering is stronger than the momentary physical pain. But it is suffering anyway. Do the animals have inferiority complexes, too?
I don't know, do they?


That is a very interesting issue, let's discuss that tomorrow, okay?
Sure.


And you, would you like it, too? Or Svanhild?
I don't know. Never tried. But I never thought I'd like sushi and I love it...so may be? It would certainly help me get over my sqeemishness abount raw meat :fwhat:

[Svanhild]

Hm, okay, but would you also like it if it were not prepared and without any spices, just raw?
Raw meat isn't damaging but it's easier to chew prepared meat and it tastes better. Some sorts of ham are raw but salted and smoked for several weeks or months.

I once ate pure raw unprocessed meat, Italian carpaccio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpaccio), but it did not meet my taste. :rolleyes:

What's about you? You eat raw and unprepared mushrooms? Cereals? Grains of rice? Potatoes? :wink

[Fortis in Arduis]

Exactly such chains of reasoning disassociated me increasingly from the vegetarian community. It's the overly didactic demeanor I was talking about. Forbiddances. Regulations. Restrictions. Condescension. Know-it-all manner. It's bloody similar to a messianic ideology: "We" the vegetarians, down there the "others", the unrefined eaters of corpses. I was so sick of such claims and arguments that it felt restorative to be reintegrated into the meat eating majority.

I was merely making the economic and patriotic case for reduced meat production, not enforced vegetarianism.



That are my two cents as a former vegetarian and now genuine omnivore. :)


I became vegetarian with 14, owing to the Bambi effect and compassion for the animals shown in those horrible PETA videos and the shock worked for 16 or 17 months.

You forced yourself to be a vegetarian for moral or ethical reasons and you made a fool of yourself.

Well, I never had that problem. As I left childhood I gained more control over my diet and just drifted into not eating meat and then became interested in diets recommended for yoga practicioners, for health reasons.

I dislike factory farming because I fear for the quality of the product, and I think that meat is fetishised and over-consumed as a luxury product because of consumerism, and I do not like consumerism.

However, I do like fur, leather, stuffed animals and sometimes even the smell of cooking meat (but not the taste), but I just do not eat it, and I never made a moral argument about that.

I never campaigned against bloodsports, in fact I once campaigned for them, as a vegetarian.

I never said that 'meat is murder'.

I just do not eat it.

[Freomæg]

Sorry, but that's just as stupid as saying it's "unnatural" for people who don't have guts to kill another human being to enjoy peace and national independence (even if they can serve in army support). Or that someone afraid of using a chainsaw should not buy wooden items. Or that someone who don't have the patience to learn how to play a musical instrument should not listen to music.
I don't buy your comparisons. Killing is not unavoidable in the pursuit of peace, whilst it is in the pursuit of meat. And anyway, all able humans probably should have the capability to kill another human in preserving their own freedom. The use of wooden items and music do not involve anything as serious as the sacrifice of an animal's life, so those of us who want to enjoy those things owe them nothing. I do, however, feel that we owe the animals who sustain us a certain respect. You can't compare the sacrifice of an animal to a cut piece of wood.

[Klärchen]

I read below that you are a scientist, aren't you? I have several sources written by serious German-speaking scientists which I would like to publish here. I'll try and find something in English....about qualitative morality? I'd certainly be interested in reading that.

I am not sure if it is qualitative morality, it is rather an attempt to connect natural science and spirituality. Unfortunately, I could not find much in English, only this source by Prof. Hans-Peter Dürr :

What is Life? – Scientific Approaches and Philosophical Approaches, Chapter 7:
Hans-Peter Dürr, Inanimate and Animate Matter: Orderings of Immaterial Connectedness – The Physical Basis of Life (http://books.google.de/books?id=KVHF1nQ8iG8C&dq=Hans-Peter+D%C3%BCrr,+what+is+life%3F&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=shOQQqlfY8&sig=ETfMIUVs3z6TgvZk1NKl_BLdlKw&hl=de&ei=lQ45S9z5FIf7_AaQiqWJCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false)

About Hans-Peter Dürr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Peter_D%C3%BCrr)


What's about you? You eat raw and unprepared mushrooms? Cereals? Grains of rice? Potatoes? :wink

Yes, I do, I love unprepared white mushrooms and even cereals, esp. oats. But not potatoes, and one should absolutely avoid eating raw beans. This will make you feel very sick... http://www.smilies.4-user.de/include/Krank/smilie_krank_116.gif

[Lahtari]

I don't buy your comparisons. Killing is not unavoidable in the pursuit of peace

Well, try telling that to the Hun the next time he's in the need of owning a misty and rainy island with a bad cuisine. Or to the criminal berserking with a machine gun in public space.


whilst it is in the pursuit of meat.
...
The use of wooden items and music do not involve anything as serious as the sacrifice of an animal's life

Using a sharp object is unavoidable in creating a wooden item. It also involves sacrificing a living tree.

Even if you consider sacrificing an animal life something serious, it still doesn't make any sense to tie meat consumption to the ability to kill an animal. You could as well tie it to the ability to watch a horror movie, to perform an autopsy or to jump over 2 meters in high jump. The last one would actually make more sense since it would make the fatsoes to stop eating meat until they're in shape again. :p


I do, however, feel that we owe the animals who sustain us a certain respect. You can't compare the sacrifice of an animal to a cut piece of wood.

Sorry mosquitoes, but I don't share your morality that "all life is sacred." :p

The taboo of cannibalism is sensible since it has a function of maintaining civil order among human groups. A taboo of meat would have no such function.

[nisse]

Sorry mosquitoes, but I don't share your morality that "all life is sacred." :p

I think all life (andn ot only life) is sacred...trees, animals, us...that's why nothing should ever be wasted and we have to use all resourses responsibly and respectifully - that also means respecting our own omnivorous nature :)

IMO, the problem with vegans is not that they take moralizing too far, it's that they don't take it far enough ;) :D

[Skandi]

It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat. That’s a measurable difference. A vegan diet requires 300 gallons of water a day, conversely a meat eating diet takes more than 4,000 gallons of water.

“Eating meat is a drop in an ocean.”

It's more.

No it doesn't You are suggesting that a chicken needs to drink 95 gallons a day

[nisse]

No it doesn't You are suggesting that a chicken needs to drink 95 gallons a day
...erm...water required is not only water the chicken drinks - there's water involved in processing the meat, in keeping the farm sanitary, as well as irrigation and processing of the grain that the chicken needs to be fed.

[Skandi]

...erm...water required is not only water the chicken drinks - there's water involved in processing the meat, in keeping the farm sanitary, as well as irrigation and processing of the grain that the chicken needs to be fed.


no you are assuming that the chicken is factory farmed. Which it does not have to be.
You do not need water to process the meat. except a quick wash, and there is no irrigation of grain in my country and grain does not require water to be given to chickens. I have also never used 90 gallons a day in washing out a hen house! I'm allowing the other 5 gallons a day for some humongous wash at the end,that would use 1500 gallons

[nisse]

no you are assuming that the chicken is factory farmed. Which it does not have to be.
You do not need water to process the meat. except a quick wash, and there is no irrigation of grain in my country and grain does not require water to be given to chickens. I have also never used 90 gallons a day in washing out a hen house! I'm allowing the other 5 gallons a day for some humongous wash at the end,that would use 1500 gallons
ah, good point. Great demonstration of how, when done right, farming is really not wasteful :)

Unfortunately, not chicken are farmed with huge amount of waste, and I assume the figures are an average :ohwell:

[Fortis in Arduis]

ah, good point. Great demonstration of how, when done right, farming is really not wasteful :)

Unfortunately, not chicken are farmed with huge amount of waste, and I assume the figures are an average :ohwell:

Indeed, and there is no such thing as a karma-free diet at all, so we have to be grateful, but I have yet to see the lard-lumps who over-consume meat and other foodstuffs being grateful to God.

They always seem a little greedy to me.

Yes, I know, evidence of the 'holier than thou' attitude of vegetarians, but when I am looking 30, at age 50, and feeling 21, being perceived to be some sort of spiritual snob will not trouble me.

The idea is to set an example, rather than preach, but we stoop occasionally. :cool: