How many lives to support one life? Questions from a 20-year vegetarian.

[skip fox]

What would it be like to eat animals only occasionally instead of two-three times a day? How would the planet benefit? How would one's health? Weight? Blood pressure? What would it be like to lack steroids and hormones in one's diet? To eat good organic foods and locally grown vegetables and fruits when possible? How much more expensive would it be than eating so much meat? Is it entirely rational to eat meat? May we not think in terms of our species, coupled with our innovations and technology, evolving into herbivores (or 95% herbivores)?

Do we believe that others' lives are not as rich as our own? Can we be said to be disinterested in making such judgments? How can we even say with certainty that other species are unaware of their own mortality? (Maybe they just "wear it" better.) Etc.

To me, these questions sound parallel to those one would pose to a slavery proponent 160 years ago. They are not baldly provocative, but might open the door to different way of thinking about what one eats.

[Fovea]

1. Ten Thousand Broccoli.

One hundred thousand heads of lettuce.
Ground up Baby Soy beyond counting.

[semillama]

75. Who will hear the cries of the carrots? n/t

[Maru Kitteh]

86. Stupid.

Really stupid, but you already knew that.

[Fovea]

160. Will you then eat vat grown meat

when the technology makes it available?

[dorkulon]

168. I will. It's ethicalicious! nt

[G_j]

2. it would be nice to see a thoughtful discussion

but don't count on it

[QC]

63. Aren't thoughtful discussions against the rules now? n/t

[vadawg]

3. i think what you eat is a personal deciscion, if you want to be veggie fine

i just cant see you forcing others to become one, personally i eat very little meat that i dont catch, prepare myself and my garden and forest also provide a lot of the veggies we eat also, but i do like some chicken everyso often.

[skip fox]

7. Who said anything about force?

I'm surrounded by meat eaters like everyone else. Just amazed at how such obvious questions are ignored. They seem, for the most part, like fair and logical questions. If one's answers make one feel "forced," that was not the questions intent.

There are, I am sure, radical vegetarians who would propose a ban on animal consumption. That's far from my thinking.

[vadawg]

9. okay whats the obvious questions that you have

as i stated i dont eat a lot of meat but i have always taken every opportunity to take whatever meat i can find.

[skip fox]

14. I think most of the ones in the first paragraph are ones that present themselves readily

to a vegetarian.

(I was about to write "to an open mind," but I'm not trying to be abrasive. I just think most people have a vested interest in not thinking about these questions so they wouldn't come readily to mind.)

[michreject]

4. I'm doing my part

to help keep down the bovine gasses.:hide:

[Vickers]

5. My oldest kid has been a vegetarian for about 3 months now.

I'm about sick of her bullshit.

:P

I seriously think she looks less healthy now (we are a pretty active/healthy family). Not sure if it's her diet or what.

[unpossibles]

11. Well, if it helps, it's probably not easy for her either

I have been a vegetarian for 20 years; I initially cut back because of economic reasons (I could not afford much meat when I was putting myself through college) and finally gave it up because it started to gross me out when handling it while working in restaurants.

I look a lot healthier and younger than the vast majority of my carnivorous peers. I don't know that it's because of my diet, so I am not trying to make any specific claims, but I do wonder about it. A guy my age who always brags about how much meat he eats to me just had a serious heart attack. Coincidence? maybe, but to assume that meat magically makes you healthy is really naive and insulting.

Anyway, please try to be patient with your daughter. I got really sick and tired of the "bullshit" from my dad and other family members to the point where it really strained our relationship. They gave me more crap about not eating meat than I ever gave them for eating it - I don't believe in being preachy and feel that diet is a personal decision, but for years they tried to get me to eat meat, and frankly it got really old.

Your daughter is trying to do the right thing. Instead of deciding that her bullshit and her diet aren't worth her effort, you should support her by trying to encourage her to learn more about vegetarian nutrition than by saying she looks unhealthy and assuming it is because of her not eating meat. I know some nutritionally ignorant vegetarians who try to live on grilled cheese and salad, and a lot of times it's because their families insist on taking them to restaurants with no healthy vegetarian options and refuse to even try to meet half way.

I am not trying to point fingers at you, so I apologize if this sounds harsh, but your love for your daughter should be more important than dismissing her diet, a diet which can be equally healthy as a meat-based diet. Trust me. She will be less likely to be giving you "bullshit" if you are even slightly more supportive. Maybe you are to her, and if so I apologize for assuming, but your post strikes me as you saying you don't like to bother trying to help her with her decision, a decision which could be good for her and the environment.

[Vickers]

21. "Instead of deciding that her bullshit and her diet aren't worth her effort"

Wow.

Just....wow.

[unpossibles]

41. well, come on

until I read your later post about meals, it was impossible to decipher what you meant by "sick of her bullshit."

My only point was that I received (and still do!) bullshit from people about my own diet decisions; that it went both ways, and frankly more often toward me than from me.

If it helps, she'll outgrow that: most vegetarians do not remain militant and many tend to get preachy simply because they want to share what they see as a positive change.

And fwiw I did say several times that I was not trying to attack you. But it's hard to not get a little defensive as these threads always end badly, and I get at least one person 'cleverly' reminding me that animals are made out of meat. lol.

Props to you for your effort; I sincerely apologize for coming across as harsh.

[Ms. Toad]

23. You beat me to the post! n/t

[Ms. Toad]

19. If she's on her own to scrounge for food

at home and at school she probably doesn't have the ability to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. When I was in college back in the dark ages, my only alternatives to the all-meat-all-the-time fare served by the school was peanut butter. Although being a vegetarian is not unhealthy (aside from needing to find a non-meat way of getting the B complex vitamins), eating peanut butter three meals a day every day is not a healthy alternative.

You might get less "BS" out of her if a couple of days a week if either you prepared vegetarian meals or invited her to prepare vegetarian meals for the family. You'd have the added bonus of ensuring that at least a couple of days a week she is eating a healthy combination of food (and the cook gets a day or two a week off!).

It would also be helpful (if you are seriously concerned about her health) if you kept vegetarian staples around so she has healthy food to scrounge through. (Tofu, canned or dry beans, rice, cheese, eggs, yogurt). You might also want to ask her to research what basic nutritional needs she should be meeting every day/week and to track what she is actually eating to make sure she is meeting those needs. It is something she ought to be doing with any dramatic change in diet anyway until she learns what is healthy and what is not - and you might either learn something your self or at least be reassured that what she is doing is not unhealthy.

I am not currently a vegetarian (although I don't generally eat meat more than once a week), but my college age daughter is heading toward vegan (no animal products), which is even harder to maintain than a vegetarian diet because it cuts out cheese, milk, yogurt, egg - all good sources of relatively complete proteins (and variety), not to mention it pretty much means no processed foods. She is actively researching what it is that she needs to do to be healthy. She just asked me to bring home kale tonight, since she is aware that cutting out dairy means she needs to pay particular attention to meeting her calcium needs. When she was just vegetarian (starting 3 years ago), it was the B complex vitamins and iron that she was specifically paying attention to (as well as eating a variety of protein sources throughout the day to make sure she got a complete protein over the course of the day).

Good luck - it is hard when children get old enough to make decisions that don't always match the ones their parents made (and often wish their children would make).

[Vickers]

27. We always have plenty of healthy food around for her to eat.

I'd also say that meals for EVERYONE at our house are about 75% vegetarian these days. For the ones that do have meat, I provide a meat-free alternative for her.

I suppose the part that pisses me off is *I* am the one that seems more interested in trying to provide her a *variety* of healthy veg meals, and she seems to show less interest than me in helping out in that area.

That might be more a factor of her teenager-ness than anything else, though.

:P

[Ms. Toad]

34. I say - put her to work then!

I was chief cook and bottle washer every summer starting when I was 13 (so my mom could go back to school). Having my daughter cook for everyone doesn't work well in our family - we each pretty much cook for ourselves since our diet related needs aand tastes are quite different (one almost-vegan, one very calorie restricted mostly vegetarian, and one relatively calorie unrestricted meat eating diabetic)

But she is very particular about how her laundry is done - some items are hand wash (and MUST be hand washed) others that can be washed cannot ever be put in the dryer, etc. Guess who does the laundry for the entire family? Solved those teenager complaints pretty fast.

[jmowreader]

36. How much of the bullshit is of the "meat is murder" variety?

One of my sisters went veg for about two weeks when she was in college. That ended when she was informed by my long-suffering dad that McDonalds' CEO, contrary to what her vegan friends were telling her, was NOT Jack the Ripper.

[skip fox]

20. Twenty-years ago my son an daughter stopped eating meat (for different reasons), but

that's the original reason my ex-wife and I stopped eating it. Two keep from having to prepare another dish each night at dinner. Then we began loving the health benefits as well as the moral satisfaction of not deliberately killing animals.

[Matariki]

93. LOL - I got so anemic when I was a 20 year old vegan

all the while going on and on about how much 'healthier' I was - while I barely had the energy to stand up. Dark circles under my eyes and no period for a year. But you couldn't tell me anything. I was 20, LOL.

[Jane in Texas]

6. No, I don't believe other species lives are as "rich" as our own

I also don't believe that we should mistreat animals. Two hundred years ago, when animals lived on a farm or ranch instead of in little boxes, I would have had NO problems whatsoever butchering my own beef, pork, or chicken. However, now, just knowing how most animals live in order for me to eat them, I get a bit sick. I'm not vegetarian, but I think I'm slowly getting there.

I will say that comparing this issue to the slavery of human beings also makes me a bit sick. :(

[skip fox]

12. Can we be said to value our lives more than an animal values its?

It is true, some humans value life very much and will sacrifice their own for others through long service or heroic action, etc. But then many humans don't seem to value life very much at all. Their own or others. Look at how they throw it away. "Killing time" with television, inanities, self-deception, trying to "pitch" themselves rather than engaging with their time and actual thinking.

What man would give his life for an animal? What animal would give its life for a man? Well, there probably are some of both, but you see what I mean. An animal's life is as important to her or him as ours is to us.

I just think that whan we set the standards on such things ("richness" for examples) and think our scale is objective, we fool ourselves. Willful self-duping.

[Johonny]

15. You are a plant murderer

Clearly you value Your life more than those plants. Do you think plants want to be eaten? Because they don't. Plants have evolved all sorts of defense mechanisms to try to prevent horrible plant eater like you from destroying them, such as tough silicon coatings, thorns, toxins, barbs... Yet you choose to murder them in cold sap.

[scheming daemons]

24. +10

[skip fox]

35. Of course one can make any position look ridiculous by extension.

I didn't write "absurd extension." Because it's not as absurd as one typically hears on Linbaugh, but it does sound like what one hears on certain talk shows.

[Recursion]

96. What's absurd about it? All humans take life by eating

That's how eating works. Many are not mindful of that at all; I try to be. In my limited anecdotal experience of vegetarian friends, they are not mindful of that, but have convinced themselves that plants are not alive or sentient.

[superduperfarleft]

97. They've probably convinced themselves of that because plants are NOT sentient. n/t

[Recursion]

98. Plants respond to stimuli

I'm curious what your definition of "sentient" is?

[superduperfarleft]

100. A computer can respond to stimuli. Is a computer sentient?

As far as my definition of "sentient," I'm partial to the dictionary. I'm curious what your definition is.

[Recursion]

101. I do AI research. My answer might disappoint you

And it would take several pages.

But, if you've arbitrarily decided that plants' lives are worth less than animals', that's your decision. I disagree with it, and I suspect we're both being justificatory to a degree.

[superduperfarleft]

105. That's really cool, I'm a big fan of Terminator.

(I'm joking, but really, AI is fascinating.) I was more talking about my Dell than an AI.

There's nothing abitrary about my decision at all, in fact, it's far less arbitrary than someone who loves his cats but eats other people's cows. I'm not a scientist, and never claimed to be, but I think the difference between sticking a fork in a dog and sticking a fork in a piece of broccoli is pretty clear. Nevermind the fact that if sentience is dependent upon certain parts of the brain that almost all vertebrates have, it would stand to reason that plants aren't sentient. And as often as this subject comes up, I've still never seen had solid evidence presented to me that would make me reach a different conclusion. It's more of a way to poke fun at veg*ans than a belief that someone actually holds.

Your point about veg*ns not considering plants is incorrect as well, at least in my case. You could say that my version of "plants' rights" is the idea that human beings have a moral obligation not to alter their environment in a particularly dangerous way.

[Recursion]

108. Skynet was supposed to already be self-aware in the movie...

I'm not a scientist, and never claimed to be, but I think the difference between sticking a fork in a dog and sticking a fork in a piece of broccoli is pretty clear.

If it is to you, run with that. It's not to me, but I've always loved plants.

Nevermind the fact that if sentience is dependent upon certain parts of the brain that almost all vertebrates have

Why do you say that?

[superduperfarleft]

110. Re: the dog and the broccoli

Really? Have you tried it? I can assure you that when you stick a fork in a dog, the dog is able to at least fake it pretty well that he is in pain and would like me to stop. He may also remember the incident and treat me a lot differently going forward. I've never seen a piece of broccoli try to scurry away from me, and the broccoli's friends don't seem particularly concerned that I'm going to do the same thing to them.

And as far the parts of the brain comment, it's pretty well accepted that consciousness (at least in animals, not in computers) derives from certain parts of the brain. I didn't realize that this was still being debated, but feel free to correct me if you have other information.

[dorkulon]

169. Maybe, but they taste terrible

even cooked. :puke:

[skip fox]

104. I didn't say it's absurd. I said that using it as an argument is commonly

trying to put the opponent into the corner by suggesting he or she should either eat what everybody else does unmindful of distinctions, acknowledge hypocrisy, OR starve to death.

I said it's use is often a way of quieting debate, rather than following and usefully extending a duologue.

"Sentience," agreed, is a concept we have created maybe as a way of ignoring the deep inner life of plants. I agree. This is a "definite maybe" as they say. But one mustn't expect to take this question very far out of the sphere of the debater, someone looking for points or a "win." But I'm not a debater. I'm a person, writer, thinker, professor.

The way you've applied it indicates that it is not a disingenuous issue brought up to squelch debate.

[Recursion]

107. I shouldn't be thin-skinned on this (none of us should, but we tend to be)

I spend a lot of time, energy, and money that I don't really have making sure that the food I eat is local and sustainable, and I really get annoyed when people try to convince me that the fact that that food includes flesh is a priori proof that I need to be more mindful of my eating. But, like my subject says, I should just let people say that and go on.

[skip fox]

111. I didn't say "should" about anything, but not to be disingenuous, I admit

I'd like to have people consider the issue at the least. (And even hold the outside hope that some might change the most detrimental of their eating habits, like having meat three times a day and then meat snacks in the interstices.)

Thus, the questions I hope are more for personal consideration than public debate. (I'm trying to "plant" them, or help massage them to the surface, or reiterate them, but only as questions.)

[Veruca Salt]

53. +1

[dysfunctional press]

65. pompous assity strikes again...

"...Look at how they throw it away. "Killing time" with television, inanities, self-deception, trying to "pitch" themselves rather than engaging with their time and actual thinking..."

:eyes:

why is the way you choose to spend your time any better than how others choose to live theirs? some people enjoy their 'inanities' and watching television. the point of lihe, imho is to get as much enjoyment out of the time you have as much and often as possible. if someone enjoys watching television and isn't really interested in engaging with others- who are you to say that they are throwing their life away? :shrug:

[skip fox]

71. I'm someone who hates to see a life squandered. Who are you not to?

Actually I am a writer (poetry and fiction) with a couple books and an English professor(20th cent. American lit.) and I don't mean to be flip, but my life is dedicated to showing others how fullfilling a real life of meditative, intellectual, familial, and (yes) sensual engagement can be. (Nothing wrong with a little television, but putting one's attentions in the hands of others for hours and hours a day leads to a debasement of possibility as I see it. And I've been looking hard for at least 44 of my 62 years.)

I don't think your question is silly, but that's who I am.

[dysfunctional press]

74. who are you to judge what squandering is.

if a person is getting enjoyment from their life, then it isn't squandered.
after all, there are many people who would consider the writing and/or reading of poetry to be 'squandering' ones time to a very great degree- since you most likely get some kind of enjoyment from it, you probably wouldn't agree. and both viewpoints would be equally valid, for the people holding them.

you might find meditation to be fufilling, while others would find it incredibly boring and/or self-serving.
you might enjoy familial engagement, while others would rather have their fingernails removed with a pair of lineman's pliers.
nothing wrong with a little writing now and then- but putting one's attentions to a keyboard for hours and hours a day leads to a debasement of possibility as many see it.

enjoy.

[skip fox]

83. Of course there's always using enjoyment (and a simplistic sense thereof) as the only criterion.

In the face of which all other values pale. The worst hack is the equal of Shakespeare, the Met and Hooters run neck and neck, getting a lobotomy or learning a language is no longer "a no brainer."


You got me there.

[dysfunctional press]

147. what factor would you say is more important in living life than enjoyment..?

"The worst hack is the equal of Shakespeare"

if people don't enjoy shakespeare- what value are his works to them?
the people who go to hooters would probably say that the met isn't even in the running in the competition for their entertainment dollars.
ultimately, it's a matter of giving the people what they want.

and if there were only more pompous condescending assholes out there, maybe current culture would be something more akin to your tatstes... :shrug:

[skip fox]

150. What are you saying? It's all relative? Fox television news and The New York Times?

The Land of Lotus Eaters were very contented. Odysseus should have planted his oar there an then. The hell with home, effort, civilization, Homer, etc.

Can you seriously say that the level of a person's enjoyment is not just the prime but the only (as you have implied strongly) measure of human engagement and all considerations of quality are made by those who are condescending to those with simply different tastes? That's not pompous? That's not condescending to those who have devoted their lives to something more than self gratification of the simplest sort?

What sort of world does that propose? What then are values but a poll in which the common denominator will always prevail? Noah's arc has the validity of three hundred million years of evolution (if people enjoy thinking so). Shakespeare is worthless compared to Stephen King or Ela Wheeler Wilcox.

Equality in terms of the vote and fair treatment doesn't mean we have to say there are no values based on the quality of thought or work, does it?


How many professors who are trying to make people's lives more meaningful would say that "the meaningful" equates (not just primarily but only) to simple enjoyment. A few artists and writers may say this, but I doubt they are the types who would produce paintings or text of much WORTH (there's that word!


Should we get rid of all humanities programs in all universities? Give people a lobotomy and a bowl of ice cream? If we could get our highest enjoyment from a pill, the engagement with the products of human creativity or the joys of nature would not compare? Should we deride all striving for better levels of thought or commitment? There are, of course, sub-cultures that do this. Adolescents are famous for it(as there are for name calling).

Hmmm. . .

[dysfunctional press]

152. you seem like the kind of person who LOVES to hear himself talk...

and you show nothing but derision for those people whose tastes you find to be 'beneath' your own.
pretentious condescending would-be elitists are exactly the kind of people who give the left and liberals a BAD name in the eyes of SO many voters. it's an attitude that turns people off in a very big way, and ultimately why a center-right society may be the best we can expect.

btw- if a person doesn't enjoy their life and what they do- what's the fucking point of even being alive? you seem to think that everyone should enjoy the same things that you do- and that just isn't how it works.

[skip fox]

153. So why have kids do their homework instead of watching cartoons?

Geez.

[dysfunctional press]

154. because they are kids.

geez is right...:eyes:

[skip fox]

155. Some people are blind to qualitative judgments (though they make them all the time

--just as you would have your children strive for greater engagement in their lives by studying), so it's not worth the argument. Maybe they have an issue. Make what you will of that. (Another turd in the punchbowl? Another indefensible argument? Mugging it up for the crowd? How can you even contend one argument is better that another. . . . Oh, I see, that's how your justify what you just. . . . AH, forget it.)

You asked a question earlier about what is more important than enjoyment. I could have listed many things (love, endeavor, truth, sacrifice for others, considered thinking, conscience, etc.) but listing these things would sound like grand-standing, taking the easy way out. Of course, you could just say, the quest for truth and knowledge etc. are different types of enjoyment. I agree They represent the potential for greater depth and different levels of quality.

I've restrained from calling you names, though I did imply your stance on this is highly unconsidered, even adolescent. My apologies if you are, indeed, under 18 years old. (All is excused at a certian point.) My condolences if you are older.

Bye.

[Petals]

167. No he raises a good point.....

In addition to being a self-appointed arbiter of worthwhile activities I think you may wish to analyze your own motives and values. If you'd humor me for a moment I'd like you to explain what you feel is the value of self-improvement beyond the creature comforts is worthwhile. I suspect at the base of it there is more emotion than rationality. The things we find self-evident are often the least examined portions of our lives. If we were to trace the genesis of them back to their origin we might find something no more weighty than "well I prefer chocolate to vanilla".

By the way watching TV can be very engaging, I find that many scripted dramas to be wonderful exhibits into the imaginations and thought processes of others. They inspire me to my own imaginative flights of fancy. So I can see where one might gain enjoyment from sharing the contents of your own mind too through literary works. I'm just not certain it goes beyond a feeling of accomplishment. Any 10 year-old beating a level in Halo does that.

Tell me what makes what you do different?

[Irreverend IX]

158. Shakespeare was "Joe Sixpack" entertainment in his day.

All values are relative, and no system of values has a wholly rational basis. My system of values lends greater credence to the theory of evolution than to the Noah story, and this is because I perceive that evolutionary theory has a greater foundation in empirical reasoning than the Bible, and I value empirical reasoning over fancy because I think that action based on logic is more likely to produce the desired results than action based on emotion and inductive reasoning.

But why do I favor that which I perceive to be more "successful" and "effective?" This preference is rooted in the fundamental drive to survive and succeed, and there is no rational reason to favor survival and success. Most people value success because their brains are wired that way, not because it's the "logical" way to think. You can't even logically argue that living is preferable to dying. All value systems are built upon axioms with no rational basis.

You seem convinced that some things and some ideas are more "noble" and "meaningful" than others, but you fail to realize that these are wholly subjective judgments. You obviously value delayed gratification over instant gratification, hard work over sloth and nuanced ideas (inasmuch as you perceive them to be nuanced) over simplistic ideas, but there are no truly logical reasons to have these values.

You cannot empirically prove that a Shakespeare play is a "better" creative work than a monster truck rally, and in fact when Shakespeare was writing, his plays were seen as a "common" form of entertainment. The "great writers" back then were writing essays and novels, few of which are remembered now. You may think that discussing Hegel over soy chai is a "better" social activity than swilling Bud Lite and seeing who can belch the loudest, but you can't prove that it is.

[noiretextatique]

103. i like the way you think

when my niece was applying to college, i was a bit surprised that she was aiming so low ad staying so close to home. as it turns out, her choices were very wise because her mother got sick and died in her sophomore year. if she had gone further away, she wouldn't have been able to spend as much time with her mother.

she recently graduated and went on a cruise to the bahamas, something i don't think she would have ever dreamed of doing four years ago. i want my nieces to experience everything this world has to offer, and i don't want them to limit themselves because of fear, or because of conventional thinking. then again, i am their aunt, so there's little chance of that.

i went to italy when i was 19, and i bought a motorcycle when i turned 50. there is so much richness to experience in this world...if you allow yourself to experience.

[noiretextatique]

95. someone who sits and watches tv for thirty years

will likely develop heart problems. i think you would agree that certain things, though enjoyable at the time, don't ultimately prove to be the best thing in the long run.
i think this conversation is long overdue in america: whatever the hell you want to do is NOT ok.
it's not ok to eat mcdonalds and lay on the couch everyday. sure you may enjoy the hell out of that, but it's a lifestyle that will cause you serious health problems eventually. it's better for your health if you eat fresh produce and take a walk. meditation is helpful for a number of physical and emotional problems. education is a great thing, and it shouldn't be as optional as it is in this country given our appalling illiteracy rate.
i am sick of america's joesixpack mentality...we could use some erudition.

[dysfunctional press]

148. "i am sick of america's joesixpack mentality"

apparently you were born in the wrong place, in the wrong era.

sucks for you. :hi:

[noiretextatique]

149. i live in a progressive city with lots of artists, musicians, poets

where the joesixpack mentality isn't the norm...thank god :hi:

[skip fox]

151. But if ten million Joe Sixpacks enjoy Singer Twang, he should be the equal

in your valuation to Beethoven. After all Singer Twang is sold out night after night. Yahoo! Ride 'em hard and put 'em up wet!

(By the way, I wonder where Swift got the idea of Yahoos.)

[jgraz]

8. We'd do more good if we got sterilized and ate a steak every night.

I don't know if you have kids, but if you do, you're contributing to the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of animals in the future.

[skip fox]

17. How to cure all human disease, madness, vice, etc.: stop having kids. (Logic?)

Hmmm.

[jgraz]

61. How to avoid all strawmen: stop reading DU

I take it you either already have or are planning on having kids, right?

[skip fox]

72. I guess I should have used a smiley face. Irony for some, is too hard a case,

:)

[jgraz]

78. On DU? There's no statement that's too outrageous to be taken seriously

[scheming daemons]

10. Comparing humans who naturally act on their omnivore nature to "slave proponents 160 years ago" is..

beyond the pale.


Pathetic equivalence.

[Johonny]

13. I agree

[skip fox]

32. You guys sound like you're on Fox! Who said anything like moral equivalence?

What does parallel mean? That two lines are equally long? That the two arguments are as morally significant? Of course not. They are parallel in that there is a large percentage of a population who engages (fairly unthinkingly) in a practice which seems (pretty obviously) unhealthy (morally, economically, culturally, etc.) and in that populace there is a immediate resistance to entertain such questions possibly based on self-interest and possibly a desire to dominate (why do we parade in furs?). That people have emotional reasons based on taste and tradition to avoid seriously considering such questions. Etc. That's referred to as "parallelism."

Do they teach geometry in school? Or do people purposely misread so they can be dismissive? Are you proving my point?

[vadawg]

37. in your opinion it is morally unhealthy etc to eat meat, as to why wear furs, cause they are warm

i think as i stated if you ask most people like meat, they enjoy meat, nothing like that nice crisp bacon on a bed of cheese and toasted to perfection bread in the morning, and they dont really think that animals are equal to them or at least not the food animals.

[skip fox]

44. You take a single strand of an argument and comment on that.

The "liking" meat is a real argument! I mean, one we could sink our teeth into. I was a meat lover. A hunter, even, and loved to fish. I could never imagine being a vegetarian.

But in retrospect, it seems to me that in every bite of meat I had, there was something a bit off, a bit wrong, weird. Something odd about eating flesh. But this might just be in retrospect and self-justification.

Liking meat then, is a real issue. But a vegetarian might counter that 1. everything we like is not necessarily good for us; 2. innovation has made it possible to simulate the taste of meat in soy and other product (granted, never really good); and 3. people make many excuses to continue a practice which may be deleterious by saying they enjoy the outcome (PARALLELING slavery proponents).

But that issue is real and worth deep consideration. (I'm just saying what the argument might be. I DO take your point.)

[Veruca Salt]

56. 'nothing like that nice crisp bacon on a bed of cheese and toasted to perfection bread in the mornin

THANKS now I'm drooling for one! Yummy!

[Coventina]

16. *sigh* Here's my post before the flame war:

Here's how the thread will (probably) go:

"I'm a member of PETA - People for the Eating of Tasty Animals!"

(insert angry response here)

"Don't you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? Ergo, vegetarians are like Hitler!"

(insert the usual debunking argument here)

I guess it's summer re-run season.

Sorry, Skip Fox, no reflection on you, but these threads NEVER end well....

[vadawg]

18. lol its like youve read the script

[HopeHoops]

22. I'm in the 20 year + club also - so is my wife.

My eldest of three daughters is 18 today and all three are strong and healthy.

But I do have one question: Do vegetables scream when you cut them open?

[vadawg]

28. i hope not, though neither do puffins, rabbits or deer scream when cut open, as they are already dea

or at least i hope so,

[quakerboy]

69. Yes, they do

But you have to have a really really good mic to catch the sound.

[aikoaiko]

25. I put as much thought and care into eating meat as I do vegetables and fruits.

The only thing I won't eat on moral grounds is people, and then only most of the time.

[deaniac21]

50. You could be ruining your partners sex life!

[aikoaiko]

60. From putting equal thought into eating plants and animals? who knew?

:shrug:

[deaniac21]

133. You won't eat people......

[aikoaiko]

135. oh. oh my. yes, well, there's eating and then there's eating

My nickname is tornado tongue. :evilgrin:

[deaniac21]

159. I'm relieved....

[Richard D]

26. Eating meat is . . .

. . . responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation for 13 percent. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has suggested one vegetarian day a week.

[deaniac21]

51. Now if we could only do something about the oceans.

[Ron Green]

29. Public policy could and should encourage just the habits you name;

Eating LESS meat (perhaps a couple of ounces every other day, and that grass-fed and humanely raised and slaughtered); tax breaks and subsidies for farmers' markets and local eating; education away from fast food, HFCS, and corporate products.

Even a thoughtful OP such as this brings out the libertarians, anecdotalists and would-be anthropologists. I'm just waiting for "nanny state" to be mentioned.

[vadawg]

30. well if the policies try to force people to be veggies, then nanny statism is appropriate

problem is that meat tastes good, just like veggies and fruit there are so many varieties and ways to cook meat that it would be a shame to do away with it altogether.

[Ron Green]

33. I think that when a typical family week of eating includes

4 or 5 trips through the drive-thru with ground "beef" or industrial chicken at the center of it, then that family's eating is out of balance. Or when a meal HAS to start with a meat dish as its foundation. Or when 16- and 20-ounce steaks are seen as "normal" portions, as well as double meat and triple meat burgers.

And it's not a matter of force, it's a matter of education. Lots of people have learned what they know and do mostly from advertising and product availability.

[vadawg]

38. Education isnt going to teach people that meat dosent taste darn good

i ate meat long before i say any tv adverts for it and i got to say i thought it tasted darn good even then. Ive got no idea what you plan to educate people about, i think everyone knows that eating a 40ounce steak isnt good for you, but it is yummy and something to be enjoyed.

[unpossibles]

39. I assume you are aware that the meat industries are heavily subsidized by our tax dollars

to make it cheaper. Also, the state has told you what to eat since you were a little kid, in the form of USDA food pamphlets, etc.

Is that also Nanny Statist? Just curious.

[vadawg]

42. sorry no state told me what to eat, as i said i grew up eating everything that grew, crawled etc

and you i dont think the state telling you what you can or cant eat is what you want, how long would it be until something you liked was put on the dont eat list. Free choice of good and bad food should be what we look for not what i think is good or you think is good.

[unpossibles]

46. I am not saying the state should tell us what to eat

I am saying that my tax dollars make your meat affordable and safe, which makes something which would normally be a smaller portion into a three times a meal thing for some people. FWIW, I don't necessarily mind despite me not eating meat, but I do think it skews the perceptions of people.

And honestly, what the OP seems to be saying is that we should be encouraged to eat better for ourselves and the environment, not told what is forbidden to eat altogether.

[NoodleyAppendage]

31. Sorry I can't respond right now, I need to slaughter a calf.

Meat is murder, blah, blah, blah.

I eat plenty of meat, and I'm in great shape medically. Find something really important to harp upon. How about poverty or education issues? Why is always the meat thing?

J

[skip fox]

40. It's funny. I never hear "the meat thing." Maybe I'm not listening (very likely)

or maybe when a nerve is touched that which touched it (to follow the metaphor) seems ubiquitous and insistent. Pain is like that. Gives focus.

[MicaelS]

43. Vegetarians / Vegans / PETAns are like religious zealots

It's not enough they believe, they have to try and foist their morality on everyone else. I don't give a damn what you want to eat or why. You don't want to eat meat, wear leather, use animal products, that's your decision. Keep your morality the fuck out of my life. I don't wanted to be witnessed to by religious or animal rights fundamentalists. I don't want to be told what I can eat, smoke, drink or wear. And animals are not human beings. You might think so, but that's part of your fundamentalism.

[skip fox]

45. Gee, I thought it was a serious of mildly provocative questions, not a rant.

My posting have been anything like a rant. They don't sound shrill. They point out other people's good arguments as well as what I see as logical errors, etc.

I don't think any of the pro-vegetarian posting here have been baldly or insistently ideological. (I could be wrong.) If so, this post seems out of proportion or arguing with someone other that those who have posted here.

Or is it the "touchiness" issue previously noted. (If one shouts loud enough one doesn't need to consider what one doesn't want to.)

[unpossibles]

54. You were not ranting one bit

For whatever reason, people get really defensive about this topic, and I thought you approached it very calmly and without saying any of the typical strawman arguments or preaching.

I don't think it's unreasonable for us to look more closely at our diets, and I have absolutely no problem with people eating meat, although I do think that portions and frequency are not only ridiculous but that most people are NOT aware of it being a problem.

And for what it's worth, these things DO affect me directly, through taxation, health care costs and environmental effects, and I still do not get preachy about it, yet I can always count on some total stranger telling me to eat meat. Frankly I am used to it by now, and I too have met the occasional sanctimonious and annoying vegetarians/vegans, but the vast majority I know are very under the radar and see it as a personal choice. Hell, most of the time my friends and coworkers do not even know I am a vegetarian unless they are cooking for me, or notice what I order at restaurants. I don't discuss it unless asked or out of necessity, such as asking about ingredients before I eat something.

Fake meat technology (LOL!) has improved a lot the past 20 years also, as have choices at restaurants, but I also have noticed meat portions being increased/added to all sorts of things like salads and quadruple bacon cheeseburgers. It's impossible to miss, and people generally do not like discussing the idea of even being more moderate with intake.

Oh well. Good luck.

[G_j]

47. wrong

now if you said "some" vegetarians etc., you might have a point for reasonable discussion.
Sorry, your broad brush absolves you of any credibility. :hi:

[skip fox]

52. To be credible one should respond to what one reads and not what one didn't. I wrote:

"I don't think any of the pro-vegetarian posting here" meaning on this thread. Simple. Was anyone shrill? Intensely ideological?

Hmm...

[ZombieHorde]

57. People who eat horses get the same song. nt

[Ignis]

66. Bullshit.

I've been a vegan for almost 20 years, and I've never attempted to force my dietary choices on anyone else.

I'll be waiting right here for your retraction. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

91. And I find Texans to mostly be loud, obnoxious bigots.

But sometimes, it's just more polite to keep your opinions to yourself.

[WonderGrunion]

48. Why do vegetarians continually devalue the life worth of plants?

Just because a life form is more obviously alien than our own does not mean it totally lacks sentience. There is much evidence that trees and other like plants have ways of communicating between one another.

[skip fox]

59. That's a real question! And one worth debate. (Some plants desire to be eaten, by the way.)

But posing that question which appears to extend the debate in a rational direction, has practical (and not very rational) consequences. The argument goes: "You shouldn't make the distinction of what you will eat based on a certain type of sentience (consciousness . . . which, of course, is debatable, especially for those like me who believe that many life forms have a "richness" of experience) since such distinctions are arbitrary. The only way out of the hypocritical dilemma is to stop eating altogether or only consume synthetic substances."

But the argument is good. Yet I'm not an ideologue or want to score points. (So much as ask real questions.)

Practically, I find that this argument is most commonly used to summarily back your opponent into corner, meaning you don't have to seriously entertain his questions any longer.

But I'm not a debater. I'm a human dealing with human questions in a human manner.

[WonderGrunion]

64. Some animals desire to be injested as well

Although, they are parasites and provide no nutritional value in the process.

[skip fox]

68. Smartly said! Received as well.

[superduperfarleft]

89. Ooh, I'd love to see this "evidence."

Because I've NEVER seen a single bit of solid evidence that plants have what we would call "sentience." Since this bullshit comes up everytime veganism/vegetarianism is mentioned, you would think there would be a whole body of work in this field, and yet there never seems to be anything.

So I'll be waiting for that evidence. Until then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being a smart-ass, and not that you're a grade-A moron who actually thinks there's anything similar about sticking a fork into a live dog and sticking a fork into a piece of broccoli.

[WonderGrunion]

113. Some evidence for you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/science/10plant.html?_r=1&8dpc

The sea rocket, researchers report, can distinguish between plants that are related to it and those that are not. And not only does this plant recognize its kin, but it also gives them preferential treatment.

If the sea rocket detects unrelated plants growing in the ground with it, the plant aggressively sprouts nutrient-grabbing roots. But if it detects family, it politely restrains itself.

The finding is a surprise, even a bit of a shock, in part because most animals have not even been shown to have the ability to recognize relatives, despite the huge advantages in doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Chandra_Bose#Plant_research

His next contribution to science was in plant physiology. He forwarded a theory for the ascent of sap in plants in 1927, his theory contributed to the vital theory of ascent of sap. According to his theory, electromechanical pulsations of living cells were responsible for the ascent of sap in plants.

He was skeptical about the then, and still now, most popular theory for the ascent of sap, the tension-cohesion theory of Dixon and Joly, first proposed in 1894. The 'CP theory', proposed by Canny in 1995,<18> validates this skepticism. Canny experimentally demonstrated pumping in the living cells in the junction of the endodermis.

In his research in plant stimuli, he showed with the help of his newly invented crescograph that plants responded to various stimuli as if they had nervous systems like that of animals. He therefore found a parallelism between animal and plant tissues. His experiments showed that plants grow faster in pleasant music and its growth retards in noise or harsh sound. This was experimentally verified later on.

His major contribution in the field of biophysics was the demonstration of the electrical nature of the conduction of various stimuli (wounds, chemical agents) in plants, which were earlier thought to be of chemical in nature. These claims were experimentally proved by Wildon et al. (Nature, 1992, 360, 62–65). He also studied for the first time action of microwaves in plant tissues and corresponding changes in the cell membrane potential, mechanism of effect of seasons in plants, effect of chemical inhibitor on plant stimuli, effect of temperature etc. He claimed that plants can "feel pain, understand affection etc.," from the analysis of the nature of variation of the cell membrane potential of plants, under different circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormonal_sentience

Hormonal sentience, first described by Robert A. Freitas Jr., describes the information processing rate in plants, which are mostly based on hormones instead of neurons like in animals (except sponges). Plants can to some degree communicate with each other and there are even examples of one-way-communication with animals.

Acacia trees produce tannin to defend themselves when they are grazed upon by animals. The airborne scent of the tannin is picked up by other acacia trees, which then start to produce tannin themselves as a protection from the nearby animals. When attacked by caterpillars, some plants can release chemical signals to attract parasitic wasps that attack the caterpillars.

A similar phenomenon can be found not only between plants and animals, but also between fungus and animals. There exists some sort of communication between a fungus garden and workers of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa. If the garden is fed with plants that are poisonous for the fungus, it signals this to the ants, which then will avoid fertilizing the fungus garden with any more of the poisonous plant.

The Venus flytrap, during a 1- to 20-second sensitivity interval, counts two stimuli before snapping shut on its insect prey, a processing peak of 1 bit/s. Mass is 10-100 grams, so the flytrap's SQ is about +1. Plants generally take hours to respond to stimuli though, so vegetative SQs (Sentience Quotient) tend to cluster around -2.

In theory even an organism with a hormonal system instead of a nervous system could be intelligent in some degree, but it would be an extremely slow brain, to say the least.

And yet, at least higher plants are able to produce electrical signals, even if they do not use them in the same way animals do. František Baluška from the University of Bonn in Germany is one of the authorities on plant neurobiology.

[superduperfarleft]

114. The NY Times article was interesting, thank you.

But calling a chemical reaction or simply responding to stimuli "sentience" is a bit of a stretch. Of course, as I'm not a biologist, I will gladly admit that this is not my area of expertise.

So let's assume that plants are, by your definition, sentient. Do you think that a piece broccoli on a chopping board is comparable to a cow at the slaughterhouse?

[WonderGrunion]

116. Apples and cows

The broccoli has already been killed by the time it hits the cutting board. It also depends on the slaughterhouse. Some are humane. Many are atrocities. All food is a blessing from the Earth Mother and should be cherished for its' sacrifice.

[superduperfarleft]

118. No, food is sustenance.

It's not a blessing. And a pig getting bled out doesn't particularly care that you're thanking the Earth Mother for its flesh.

Now I know you're joking. You really had me going with the attempt at rationality in your previous post.

[WonderGrunion]

121. If you choose to use my spirituality as a dismissal of the rational

That is your choice.

Blessed Be.

[skip fox]

119. Some stun guns are so imperfect cattle have been known to "wake up on the line."

Geez.

[WonderGrunion]

123. I fully agree that factory farms and their slaughter facilities

are affronts to all things livings. I, however, grew up on a farm and have only had meat handled by private slaughterers that handle each animal individually. Great pains are taken to insure the animal does not unnecessarily suffer the process. All life on this planet thrives at the expense of others.

[skip fox]

130. As always all good points.

But thriving at the expense of other life forms can be lessened significantly with a vegetarian diet. For one, cattle have to eat 4 times the amount of corn to provide as much nutrition as corn. Now if they're grass fed, as many in this area are, that might be a different story, but corn-fed beef actually depletes the world's food supply.

I'm an Eng. prof., not a scientist, but the "four times" the amount is the figure commonly used. Maybe some could refute or support or clarify?

[WonderGrunion]

131. I think you're right about corn fed cattle

Ours always grazed in the clover meadow. In the winter, they were fed hay and there diet was supplemented with oats mixed with molasses to encourage fat production during the cold months.

[skip fox]

120. Funny. I'd shitting cow seeds!

;)

On edit: I realize the joke might be a bit tough. Apples are made, according the religious as well as the biologists, to be eaten (as are grains and nuts). But the biologists would not agree that the same is true for the bull or cow. Hence, "cow seeds,' as though they were meant to be eaten.

[skip fox]

115. LOVELY!

And it's impossible to read a decent scientific journal like AAAS's Science Magazine without realizing that something like consciousness (much less simply self-aware perception) is going on even at the cellular level. Hell, even memory goes on at a cellular level I'm told. (I don't have the support for that but it was in an article from Science that someone told me about.)

That's why I say it IS an issue. But one that most vegetarians deal with pragmatically.

(Although, as Robert Lowell puts forth, there are some vegans who will only eat fallen fruit.)

[HamdenRice]

49. "parallel to... slavery"-- Yeah, 'cause my great grandmother is moral equivalent of a pig, chicken

or trout.

My God, do people think before they write this crap?

[skip fox]

"Thinking," as you've aptly shown, is a highly relative term.

Hmm...

[superduperfarleft]

90. It's comparing institutions, not the subjects of that institution.

She's not saying that your great grandmother is the same as a pig or a chicken. She's saying that, when one looks that the two institutions, raising animals for food is very similar to the slave trade.

[ZombieHorde]

55. I drank a lot of soda and gained because of it. No said anything to me.

When I became a vegetarian for a few years people suddenly became deeply concerned about my diet.

People say atheists are the most hated group of people, but I sometimes wonder if the most hated group is actually vegetarians.

Edit to answer questons:

What would it be like to eat animals only occasionally instead of two-three times a day?

Fine if you are in charge of your own meals.

How would the planet benefit?

Overall reduction of pollution and global warming.

How would one's health? Weight? Blood pressure?

One would most likely see improvement in these areas.

What would it be like to lack steroids and hormones in one's diet?

I don't know the exact effects of steroids and hormones from meat consumption.

To eat good organic foods and locally grown vegetables and fruits when possible?

Fine, if you can afford it.

How much more expensive would it be than eating so much meat?

Depends on location and food preferences.

Is it entirely rational to eat meat?

To some extent.

May we not think in terms of our species, coupled with our innovations and technology, evolving into herbivores (or 95% herbivores)?

I don't know.

[skip fox]

67. What about vegetarian athesists??? (Yikes!)

Actually, I'm more of a radical agnostic, not even knowing if it's possible for us to frame the correct questions to ask, since most of the ones I've seen (and I read philosophy as well as science and literature) seem so impoverished. Is there a God or not? Is there life after death or not? (Geez, when will we get out of sunday school? How 'bout starting with: "What sort of engagement is this?")

[ZombieHorde]

70. I have been an atheist since I was a kid so I have been both atheist and vegan at the same time.

People seemed more concerned about the lack of animal products in my diet than the lack of god in my beliefs.

[skip fox]

73. That's interesting! It may really have to do with who you hang around with.

It's the same for me. I hang around with college professors.

But if we were around, say, "true believers" and "cane breakers" the story might be a bit different.

But what a great point! I can think of dozens of social groups where this would be true, but only a few where they'd care more about your religious beliefs. (

[csziggy]

58. While I will likely never go vegan, I have cut way back on meat consumption

For myself and I try to fool my husband into less meat. As part of a attempt to lose weight (or at the moment while recuperating from surgery, keep from gaining since I cannot exercise), I am only eating one serving of meat per day - a roughly 3 ounce serving.

If I make stews or casseroles, I stretch the meat so instead of one pound of meat to make four servings, I make the casserole into eight to twelve servings. Meatloaf has as much oatmeal as meat in them and then my hubby's big slab servings have mush less meat than he thinks he is getting. I have cut back on meals where the meat portion is straight meat since it is harder to keep to the smaller amount of meat when it is all in one lump.

I got this idea from an article about a man who set up his diet so that he ate basically vegan until six at night - no hamburger or deli lunches, no bacon and egg breakfasts, just cereals, fruits and, salads during the day. He lost weight, felt better and also felt as though he was reducing his impact on the environment. And it was easier than trying to go all out vegan.

[LWolf]

62. When mild, thoughtful questions

make people as defensive as ANY discussion of this topic does, you know there's "meat" for constructive discussion.

I'm sorry you are not getting any constructive responses.

I'd like to see everyone eat less meat. I'd like all meat, except for wild meat harvested by hunters, to be raised on small family farms, on grass, in pastures and free range (fowl) situations.

I can get that kind of meat where I live, in the vestiges of a once rural area.

I'd love a set of easy menus for a diet that relied less on meat and more on other things to control type II diabetes without medication.

I'm always trying to find ways to do just that.

I have free-range hens that provide me with fresh, organic eggs. No harm comes to the hens.

I love cheese. I used to get my cheese and milk from a friend who kept dairy goats. She's 1000 miles away now, so I use soy and almond milk, and buy organic cheese. From the local farmer's market when I can get it.

I eat only wild-caught fish, and those rarely. I get meat from a local butcher, who gets it from local ranches, not factory farms.

We can all take small steps towards more ethical food choices.

[Seldona]

76. You compare meat eating to slavery, and claim it isn't 'baldly provacative?'

What pure and utter bullshit.

[skip fox]

85. The word was parallel and it had to do with concepts you're not apparently willing to entertain like

cultural and moral myopia. (I doubt you'd even look up the term if I hadn't written this. On second thought, now I know you'll not read it now out of pique. Oops, slipped again since the last sentence will want you make you defy it. Oh no . . . ETC. ETC. I.e., How does it feel to be prey to such maneuvering???)

Ever wonder what thinking might be like?

[Petals]

166. Meat eating is more like genocide than slavery.....

....but dairy cows and beasts of burden yeah that's closer to servitude.

Of course the goal of genocide is eradication....

Could you imagine an Aushwitz where they raised Jews to adulthood and THEN shipped them back to the fatherland as weinerschnitzel?

I think for most people though the ethical questions might be parallel they will remain orders of magnitude more absurd until cattle and chickens obtain the right to vote

[EOTE]

77. A hearty K&R from this omnivore.

I appreciate this thoughtful post, and while I do love to eat meat, I'm trying to cut down for my sake and for the planet's sake. I don't really feel guilt for taking the lives of the cows and pigs that I eat, but I do feel guilty for the carbon footprint that my red meat consumption creates. I'm trying to find more heart and environment healthy replacements, but my diet is one of the hardest things in my life I've tried to change. My folks have done a great job of nearly eliminating red meat from their diets, my goal is to make red meat a special occasion type thing by the end of the year. I believe I could be happy with 3 or 4 good steaks every year. And maybe a cook out once or twice during the Summer. Absence certainly does make the heart grow fonder, I've found.

[flvegan]

79. This thread has gone almost as expected.

Sorry you're not getting more than a small handful of "discussion" responses, at least in my opinion.

To address the second paragraph about how animals regard their own lives...anyone that thinks animals do not value their lives is irrational. Animals know fear and express it. They're known to panic in the gates at the slaughterhouse. Every year we hear a story of some cow that's escaped the abbatoir. I doubt they just wanted to stretch their legs. And what sort of pompous ass is one to judge the value of one sentient life over another short of a survival instinct?

[truedelphi]

82. Fivegan, though I campaign for humane

Slaughter operations and more eco-friendly final feeding stations, the fact is that the dairy farmers really love the land. DO you want the entire nation to be casinos and vineyards?

If everyone in the USA stopped eating meat tomorrow, the farmers would be forced to slaughter most of the animals that they are raising. It would not be a pretty picture. And with the dairy farms gone, believe me, all the other many species of animals that depende on those meadows and forests would be heavily impacted also.

[flvegan]

84. Of course not.

I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone would stop eating meat tomorrow. I think that the OP's point of lessing meat out of one's diet is a good move for both those that eat it and for the environment. To suggest that the population of the US might go vegetarian tomorrow or in one fell swoop is absurd and would probably be catastrophic.
.

[truedelphi]

117. I realize that the entire nation is not about to

Stop eating meat tomorrow "in one fell swoop"

But so often, there seems to be a growing meme out there that cows are from the Devil.

In the same week that I read an "environmentalist's" article on how pig waste could save the planet, I read two other articles that read "The methane from the butts of cows is destroying the climate." I mean, when you see how a cow is supposed to live in nature, out in the meadows and the forests, you realize the greenery surrounding the cow is more than enough to offset the methane.

I guessd what I am trying to express is my growing concern. How can the environmentalists justify the sewage from the pig factories as the salvage of the planet in one breath and then talk about the methane from a dairy cow being dangerous in the next?

And over time, the meme of cows being dangerous will catch on. It took twenty years, and now everyone believes in global warming. So we have these odious government "carbon offset" taxes that will punish the poor while ignoring and/or rewarding the polluters.

Also, cows do not necessary steal away land that would be used to grow grain. All over the West, the land is often less amenable to farming wheat, rice or corn than to animal habitat, as the land can be steep and hilly, gravelly etc.

[LeftyMom]

102. That's a silly argument.

First of all, everybody's not going to stop eating meat tomorrow. Social change is gradual. Secondly because all of those animals will be slaughtered anyway. Dairy cows are killed as soon as their milk production declines, because when animals exist as machines for profit rather than as living beings with their own interests, it's imperative to kill and replace them when they no longer convert the inputs into salable product quite so efficiently.

Edit: Dairy is also a hugely polluting industry.

[truedelphi]

124. If Iyou get to California, let me have you tour the odious NEW vineyards

Not the pretty ones so often featured in the ads for the Wine Country Counties of California.

You may well be surprised at the desolate feel to the acre upon acre of sterility. Gone are the hedgerows that the Gallo and Mondavi establishments encouraged the workers to plant. Just nothing but over-pesticided, barren soil and little metal trellises with some skimpy vines hanging over the place where mighty forests were growing just a few years before.

If you contrast this to the meadows down the road, where the cows browse along, you will see what I mean. And where the cows are, you can see there is plenty of other wildlife. Where the vines hang, that is all there is, that and the chemicals needed to sustain them.

[superduperfarleft]

126. Man, you really hate vineyards.

I might have to crack open a bottle tonight in your honor.

(Note that this is a perfect example of the other side of the "MMM!!! I love meat!" crap that some idiot always posts in these threads.)

[truedelphi]

157. It's not just that I hate vineyards, it is that they are eating up

So much habitat that the animals, birds, insects have no where to go.

A generation ago, those who owned the land left hedge rows and trees to let the animals have a little bit of a place for their existence. But the greedier new vineyard managers won't even do that.

[LeftyMom]

129. If I get to California? Check my profile.

The only dairy cows browsing meadows are in cheese commercials.

[truedelphi]

139. No that is simply not true.

Marin County has had for decades a wonderful program that allows the dairy farmers to keep their farms in production. This was done in part so that the farm land would not become tract housing. (SIDEBAR: Having a house built in Marin is one of the great fears of citizens of that area. They protested houses being built during 80's and 90's with great great fervor - meanwhile office parks sprung up all along the freeways.)

And since the ecology crowd really has clout in Marin, those farms look pretty much the way they look in the commercials.

Same in Lake County, but here there is no County government support for the dairy farmer. If the economy had continued to boom along, with rampant housing loans being made and thus money to continue putting up houses, the dairy farmers would have probably been enticed to part with their lands in return for large profits, and tract homes could have gone in.

Another part of the world where there are delightful dairy farms is Vermont.

[LeftyMom]

142. Marin County hobby farms are for the amusement and tax benefit of the wealthy.

They really have nothing to do with how actual agriculture is practiced in the rest of the state. Almost all dairy production in California is on large CAFOs with 700+ cows. For ease of production those large facilities keep the cows in one place rather than moving them to pasture and bringing them back to milk.

Land prices are a factor, but the larger one is water- most parts of California are too dry for most of the year to feed a significant number of animals on pasture.

[paulsby]

80. you are making anti-scientific claims

as usual, for many vegetarians.

i'll give one example

please tell me how any steroids or hormones injected into an animal (think trenbolone, or bovine growth hormone) can be present in meat after the slaughter, let alone after it's cooked.

it CAN'T

if you don't WANT to eat meat from hormone enhanced animals, fee free.

but there is no SCIENTIFIC reason not to , since they are not present in the meat. they are metabolized, and for that matter, they are not orally available (they will not survive the stomach enzymes), nor will they survive cooking.

if you want to be an herbivore, or near herbivore, knock yourself out. i'm an athlete, and i thrive on meat . plus, it's tasty and it helps my performance (as does metric assloads of fruits and vegetables).

i also grow my own vegetables in my garden, a large %age of them.

but don't tell me not to eat hormome injected animals, without ANY scientific evidence that the flesh is in any way negatively affected.

show me ONE peer reviewed study that shows that trenbolone, bvgh, etc. can negatively affect meat.

[skip fox]

87. If you'll note, I never told anyone to do anything. If the answer to a few

of my questions shows a lack of scientific knowledge, does that disqualify consideration of the remainder? Is that rational? Seems odd.

And then to respond as though I "told" someone how to eat?

Where are all these words coming from? Not from me. (Sounds like a defensive reaction, but then I'm not a psychologist.)

[truedelphi]

122. Much of the reasoning of the vegetarian crowds is really not scientific.

And the type of etablishment that is taking over the once rather environmental dairy farms of Lake, Marin and Sonoma Counties in California involves parking lots for casinos, and of course vineyards - which are totally non-environmental.

Vineyards allow for no birds, insects of animals for miles! Meanwhile their pesticides contaminate the creeks and thus the rivers and lakes, making it ever more unlikely that salmon and other fish species will cope. To say nothing of the increase in cancers for humans dependent on the drinking water.

[superduperfarleft]

125. Is it a really an either/or between vineyards and animal exploitation? n/t

[truedelphi]

144. I am trying to puzzle my way through this.

When I deal with M$M, I am often encountering articles about how bad cows are.

Meanwhile the real danger to the environmnet - if you are examining the meat issue - are the pig farms.

They can ruin the entire water resources of a state - with their wastes running off into creeks and then lakes and finally the ocean. Pfisteria, a weird little micro organism, is brought back to life and ends up paralyzing and killing people who simply had the misfortune of having the spray of the contaminated ocean water hit their face.

Yet when I read the mainstream media, the wild hysteria is all about cows. But little (that I am seeing in the media) is said about the pig farms' situation.

Lake County where I live is like something out of the nineteen fifties. Many huge tracts of wild forests. Similar tracts of scrub brush. Dairy farms. Small farms of everything (a true family farm -say twenty rows of corn, three acres of grape, ten acres square of plums or pears, walnut orchard, and a creek to fish in.)

Then 6 mos later, I go down the same highway and one of the huge forests is in process of becoming vineyards. The horse farm is gone and is being replaced with vineyards. Two dairy farms are now about to become hotels for the casinos.

Worst of all, on the drive to Sacramento, I see the farmers are protesting acreage being taken through eminent domain and made into a prison.

I have yet to see a parking lot for a casino becoming a dairy farm! Or that parking lot turned into an open space, or forest preserve.

[truedelphi]

81. As a meat eater, when I support locally raised beef and chicken,

I am supporting the entire eco-system.

Like I have posted before, I wish I could take some of the "no meat" crowd on a tour of my entire county. (I mean, Lake County, California) You don't see huge numbers of cows penned into corrals and without room to roam. Instead, you see gorgeous meadows, complete with spring wildflowers, huge cottonwoods, poplars, elm, maple, oaks, and pine. Babbling brooks with butterflies nibbling at the plant life.

The land is inhabited by rabbits, skunk, squirrel, deer, chipmunk, snakes, skink, coyote, fox, and many types of bird. And yes, cows! Such is a dairy farm here in my area.

Now come with me to one of the vineyards that has been rented out by some well meaning but non-thinking "environmentalist" to the vineyards' people.

There is nothing for a ten mile square plot but metal trellises and skimpy vegetation called grape vines. The pesticides lace the air and get into the water. And the habitat for the animals and birds is such that those species have nowhere to go. In the old days, the old wine families left hedge rows for the wild life. But that is not happening in the newest of the vineyards. Why I don't know. There is already a glut of grapes on the market.

A local sports writer says that each year, we lose another fifteen per cent of the deer in california to the habitat conversion going on.

[skip fox]

88. Real arguments. Good ones. Rational and real. Not tongue gnawing, etc.

And I acknowledge their solidity.

My response would only be that I'm not an ideologue engaged in an argument for how the world should go or even how the individual should go. All I'd like to do (and in my experience many vegetarians are like me, not preachy but grounded in their beliefs) is ask a few questions in a non-provocative sense that may make people more fully consider their diets. I think, of course, that if people ate a less meat they and the environment would be healthier (not withstanding aberrations like the vineyards you mentioned).

These are questions I wish I'd asked myself years earlier. Maybe they were already in mind, but I hadn't let myself fully consider them.

The first is the bottom line moral question: How many lives to support a life. Personally, I'd feel guilty if I had to answer that as a meat/fish/poultry eater. But that's me. I bring it up for anyone else who might like to ponder that for her- or himself.

[truedelphi]

127. I eat far less meat than my parents ate.

It's salad for dinner one or two nights a week. And tofu something one or two other nights. Lentil soup sometimes even for breakfast. Lots of veggies.
But I refuse to hang my head about my meat eating. I really have come to believe that eating local meat is less damaging than other practices, such as plowing under a forest to help put in a monoculture of grapes and all their pesticides. Yet because of all the continuous spiel about cows and methane, some friends think I should bow my head.
Meanwhile they are leasing out their acreage to the monoculture of grapes.

[Matariki]

92. The thing I remember about being a 20 year old vegan

was that I was so damn certain I was right and everyone else was wrong. In fact I'm embarrassed by what a self righteous little snit I was. Telling everyone how they were killing themselves eating meat and so forth.

On the other hand, I think you presented some of your questions quite thoughtfully. I tend to agree that we eat more meat than is good for anything.

You should realize that comparing eating meat to slavery is a very inappropriate parallel. Just like PETA's billboard comparing chicken farms to the Holocaust - it really is very insensitive.

[skip fox]

94. Comparing, paralleling, relating, equating, etc. Different terms with some overlap.

But they mean different things.

I meant, as I wrote to a rather intemperate series of responses where they implied I had made a moral equivalence between the two, the situations are (as I wrote) parallel.

Because two lines are parallel does not make them the same length (or request a similar level of moral outrage).

Both deal with tradition and a level of callousness. Both concerned major populations of those who bought, sold, and used other creatures to their detriment. Both disliked questions about the benefit of the practice. You might pick at one or more of these, but you can see that they are parallels, not equivalences.

[Matariki]

99. How are they parallel? In what way?

You are calling human beings 'other creatures' in your parallel between slavery and meat consumption. You should probably lose that parallel if you want to have a reasonable discussion with people and not come off as callous.

[skip fox]

109. Parallel is a word meaning there are correspondences that "line up."

Is a the man who shoots a hog in the brain not callous? Not even just a bit?

Are people not creatures?

Are not both institutions thought of as beneficial by those in power?

Step back from the immediate (desired?) affront and look at it thoughtfully.

How are not parallels seen? Because the topic is offensive?

[Matariki]

156. If you want to communicate your point

making parallels between meat eating and slavery or the holocaust will shut down communication very quickly.

But suit yourself.

[pipi_k]

106. Trying my best...gave up beef three years ago

but still eat poultry and fish and pork.

Although I'd rather not eat pork either because I feel badly for the pigs...I like pigs, and not just to eat, but anyway...

So my family all know that I'm not a beef person, and don't really go crazy over meat anyway (I do love seafood) and I feel kind of guilty sometimes when they have us over for dinner or barbeque or whatever, and they ask what other kind of meat they can serve.

I tell them I don't NEED to have meat to be happy. I don't think they believe me. Shit, just give me a big dish of mac and cheese (homemade is great) and I'm fine with that. Soy burgers. Tuna sandwich.

I don't need no stinkin' meat

:7

[skip fox]

112. I've lived in Cajun country for all of the 20 years I've been meatless.

There are a few restaurants around here where you have to be content with a house salad and a potato, but it's relatively easy to get along not eating meat without social discomfort.

Some people still look at one amazed: "What do you eat, then," not realizing the myriad possibilities. I've even had waiters offer to bring me steamed vegetables thinking we are so limited. It was at a nice (but meat lovers) restaurant so they simply left the shrimp out of one of their pasta dishes. Simple.

After eating meat, I used to feel logged, heavy, sleepy. A lot less likely after a vegetarian meal. (And one feels as though he or she "burns with a cleaner flame.")

[mainer]

128. Harvesting an acre of wheat kills THOUSANDS of small mammals

You're aware of that study, aren't you? Unless you're cutting wheat by hand, mice and voles are massacred in huge numbers by mechanized harvesters. I've read that if you equate one mammal's life with another, more mammals are killed to make bread than to produce an equivalent number of calories that you'd get from killing one cow.

http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

[skip fox]

132. Another real argument. Not a bad one. For the debate floor.

And that obtains here as well to an extent.

Sure. We could speak of all the pesticides and poisons that kill rodents in terrible ways. Same thing in lumber production. They spray by plane (a cousin of Agent Orange).

But the argument in the practical (not simply a debater's) world denudes the question to an extend. Maybe that is its purpose. To cancel debate, much less (what I was engaged in) questioning.

It IS an intelligent point but like the one on who defines sentience (i.e., are plants conscious in a meaningful way?) it tends to try to deflect thinking rather than enhance it. Take on its face, it's troubling to a vegetarian who founds his diet on a certain type of morality.

[skip fox]

134. But wait. What are we feeding the cattle and pigs??? Don't they eat the corn and the oats and

plants that were grown in the fields. Therefore, each pig already represents the killing of X number for smaller mammals, etc. And it takes more plant resources to produce a calorie of pork than corn. Thus the X-number is a factor! Meat eaters would then be seen as responsible for exponentially more mine deaths, for instance.

But as I say, such matters seem more appropriate to the debater than the person trying to figure things out fully, not just with reason and numbers, but with feelings, considerations, repulsions, temperaments, etc.

[mainer]

145. The study quoted compares grazing meat animals to vegan diets

If the beef cattle are grass-fed, then there are no grains to harvest, no small mammals that get killed. So theoretically, you'd kill fewer animals by eating grass-fed meat animals.

[skip fox]

146. Makes sense. But note, it compares all vegetarian consumption to a percent of meat consumption.

Hmm.

[flvegan]

137. An acre of harvested product provides more enduser calories when fed to people

than calories provided when given to cows to be turned into meat to be fed to people. It's no small ratio either.

We can talk about water next if you'd like to.

[EndersDame]

136. Have you ever been around Cows or Chickens....

They are dumb and certainly not on the same level as a human being. I do think however that rights should be granted to Great Apes

[skip fox]

141. We bred them stupid and docile. So morally you might have a point.

But it's only a small moral point. You can expand it:

If we learned how to make flesh in vats or generate on only strings, maybe in tubes, how would eating that be morally wrong?

Good point.

But I don't like the idea of us raising lobotomized livestock as a way of appeasing my desire for a certain taste. That seems (TO ME!! I'm not arguing others should feel this way) morally tainted to say the least. (What if we could raise a stock of brainless children from seed. Would we eat them? Not a logical argument, but . . . Well, we're not in high school debate and though trying to be reasonable, not logically trying to "win" a certain type of logical debate.)

[dorkulon]

170. Big difference between growing muscle tissue and "lobotomized livestock".

I think the only arguments against lab-grown meat (obviously hypothetical at this point) would be based on superstitious feelings about "playing god" and other such luddite morality. There's nothing ethically wrong with creating and eating any matter that can't suffer. A moderate intake of meat is quite healthy, and if it could be done without dominating the landscape, without antibiotics, etc. I'd say it was much more ethical than the situation we have today.

Another concern is this: These domesticated animals we've bred can't survive in the wild. If we were to stop eating them, they'd pretty much cease to exist entirely. Is it better to keep them alive just to be killed, or to let them die off?

[AllieB]

138. I was a vegetarian for 10 years. It's easy being a vegetarian at 20.

Wait until you're 50. My health suffered as a result of my diet. I'm allergic to wheat, grains, soy and legumes. My blood sugar was a roller coaster (and I did not eat sugar, so it was the grains). My cholesterol rose, and my B-12 was in the toilet no matter how much I supplemented. I was under the care of a vegan nutritionist at the time.

I eat close to the land, organic produce, free range and hormone free meat, from small local farms. I don't have to take supplements, though I take Vitamin D because I live in a northern climate. To each his own-if vegetarianism and veganism works for you, more power to you. I don't tell people what to eat, and neither should you. Sanctimony is what spoils the message.

[lindisfarne]

165. 2 minutes of sun midday during summer months in northern climates gives you

far more Vitamin D than you need, if 40% of your body is exposed. It's harder to get in the winter, although you can sit out midday in your bikini for 10 minutes in 10 below weather!

Your listing of your choices is really an indirect suggestion to others of what they should do.

[AllieB]

172. Vitamin D deficiency is common in cold climates.

The angle/strength of the sun is probably not enough to prevent deficiency in people like me who don't go in the sun because we burn.

"Your listing of your choices is really an indirect suggestion to others of what they should do."

Actually it's a defense of my eating philosophy so the vegetarians who munch on their overprocessed tofu and fake-meat alternatives will leave me the fuck alone.

[proteus_lives]

140. To each their own.

Both my parents are Veggies but I never gave up eating meat.


evolving into herbivores? Not as long as we still have pointy teeth and eyes that face the front.


"Is it entirely rational to eat meat?" Why is not? It sounds like you're problem is with the meat industry not the meat-eaters.


"Do we believe that others' lives are not as rich as our own? Can we be said to be disinterested in making such judgments? How can we even say with certainty that other species are unaware of their own mortality? (Maybe they just "wear it" better.) Etc."

I've always wondered why some people equate animals lives with humans. It's vaguely insulting. I don't approve of the mistreatment of any living thing but their lives are not as rich as our own. They live by instinct and biological commands. Both you and I can rise above that. They don't wonder about mortality, they don't have the brain power. That's humans worth more then animals.

[skip fox]

143. Hmm. Science would debate some of your later points concerning level of consciousness.

The level and amount of complexity that even occurs at the cellular level is staggering. So much so that some scientists are discovering what is akin to memory and choice in these processes.

Is it only human arrogance that allows us to think our live better that non-human lives. (Another parallel with slavery by the way . . . I'M NOT MAKING A STATEMENT OF MORAL EQUIVALENCE . . . so please don't be dismissive on that issue).

Post-humanism would have it that man might be the animal who thinks he makes the only scale upon which to judge all else and doing so is objective. Is it vested interest to think so??

(Before you jump on me, I'm not a post-humanist, but they have raised enough questions in my mind that I no longer call myself a humanist with unthinking moral certainty.)

[dorkulon]

171. I think there's solid evidence we are the smartest animals around.

If you think about how we're having this conversation, it's hard to deny. Some other species show signs of high intelligence and empathy, but none really approach our cognitive or learning skills.

A lot of people gauge species by their capacity to suffer, also. By that measure, I'd say a lot of mammals are probably equal to us. But to just say no lives are more important than others is not realistic, I think. I mean, one has to draw a line somewhere. Is killing a mosquito akin to killing an elephant? I don't think so. So the question is where you put that line.

[lindisfarne]

163. At least make sure the animals you ate had good lives - treated and slaughtered

humanely. Buying locally and asking about these practices is a good step. Buying "certified humane" products is another.

[4lbs]

161. I don't eat beef or pork as much as I used to, but I do eat poultry and fish regularly.

However, I may start cutting back on the fish.

I'm now taking an Omega-3 supplement that gives quite a bit of the benefit that something like salmon does, and costs only about $10 monthly (I buy a large container for $20 every two months). That's less than what I used to regularly spend on fish (the tilapia, trout, and salmon, NOT canned tuna).

[lindisfarne]

162. Animals should be treated humanely and slaughtered humanely. Americans eat far

more meat than is needed, and far more than we used to. Cutting back isn't that big of a deal.

The way most farm animals live, they're better off dead.

Most Americans won't become vegetarians, but many will be willing to decrease how much meat they are, and some are concerned about the humane treatment & slaughter of animals.

We can improve the lives of animals through advocacy, through cutting back on consumption (reduces the bottom line of factory farms), and choosing to purchase locally if that's a realistic option for you (it isn't for many - but cutting back 50% & advocacy can make meaningful change).

[Petals]

164. Are we talking my life or yours? ;) N/T

[Mari333]

173. I like your OP.

Of course you will get all kinds of backlash on here, a lot of people assume you are trying to deny them their meat. which, you are not. you are merely mentioning the possibility of people looking in the mirror and cutting back.
I have been a vegetarian and now am a vegan for 20 yrs. I am a walking testimony to the quality of life Ive chosen. every person in my biological family has heart disease, vascular anomalies, horrific obesity, except for me. they eat meat, I dont.
I have a BP of 118/64. I am thin and healthy. On no meds.
I am the oldest of 6 . all 5 of my brothers and sisters are on heavy meds and my youngest brother has had quad bypass surgery at 45 yrs old. my other brother has had his veins removed in his legs and has ulcers oozing on them. my mother has her legs wrapped with ulcers. my sisters are both obese and have had complete hystorectemies for fibrous masses.
I am the only one. I wish I werent. I point my finger at one thing..they eat meat and I dont.
I dont believe in telling anyone how to eat, but I think your post is very thoughtful and well said.