You doubt the abolition of the use of animals? Really? What about blind people's guide dogs? Should we abolish them? What about police dogs? Should we abolish them? What about the mice used for cancer research drugs?
C'mon, face it, animal life is NOT equal to human life. You would rather test a very dangerous drug on an animal first before you give it to a human and risk killing them instead.
And where do you stop with the "use" of animals? Is it acceptable to use cows for milk? Or sheep for wool?
Oh, and, veganism may have been with us for a "whopping" six decades (basically since supermarkets came around), but meat-eating has been with us for thousands of years. So you can't tell me that we know as much about being vegan as we do about meat eating.
Red meat is detrimental to your health (in large quantities), but white meat is actually very healthy. Anything in large quantities is detrimental to your health, even beans.
The reason the doctors are skeptical about a diet that completely excludes one group of foods is because we still don't know the full consequences of a vegan diet. What we DO know however, is that if you eat a bit of everything in moderation then that is a good thing. So, personally, I see a risk with vegan diets. Why would I want to impose that risk on everybody else?
I'm also interested in something else. How do you see the ideal world in your mind? Humans are not allowed to eat animals, but its OK for other animals to eat animals? Or should we go around taming every lion and every tiger in the wilderness to prevent and stop ALL killing for food?
Because that is not the normal state of affairs. From an evolutionary point, it makes sense to not eat from your own species because they carry the same genes as you. Also, a human being is more likely to contribute to your life than another animal (sheep, cows, chickens, etc). If it was between you and a chicken, I would always eat the chicken, because with you lies the hope that you might discover the cure to cancer for example. With you lies the hope that you will contribute to society (and by extension, contribute to MY life) by doing a job and by being productive. Now do you see why human life is not equal to any other animal life?
I have read you saying that all life is equal and that all sentient beings are equal. Now, let me ask you something. If you were to walk by a river and you saw a little boy and his dog drowning in the stream. Their distance from you is equal, but if you go for one, the other is likely to move down the stream and possibly drown and die. Which one do you go for? Is there any doubt in your mind that you would try to save the boy first??????
Please read my last post again.
No one "chooses" to eat from their own kind. Cannibalism, whether between humans or animals, is a rare occurrence and only happens under extreme circumstances. For humans, those circumstances are even more extreme, i.e. your life has to be at stake and the other person is probably already dead.
Those actions are only "evil" once they are processed through the human judging brain. Nothing else on this earth is known to make a similar judgment. For animals, death and suffering are as much part of life as anything else. But they never judge it or dwell on it. They kill to eat and that's it. "Evil" as we understand it, is a description that resides only in the virtual world of our brain.
As for building a society that allows us to transcend our primitive state of being, that is an illusion. We are part of nature and we will always be bound to the same observed behavioral patterns we see in nature. Whether we do it by putting our fists up or by suing each other in court rooms, we are still doing the same thing. "Brutal ancestry" has simply taken another shape.
No, taste is not the only reason people eat meat. There are a few sources of protein, such as Meat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs and Vegetable sources such as Nuts, Soya and Beans.
But it's only the protein from animal sources that contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.
If you were to stick to vegetable sources, you would need to supplement your diet with a larger variety of foods and possibly some additional vitamin supplements.
So you see, it doesn't come without consequences.
Think about this for a second. We all know there are bad consequences if your diet excludes fruit and veg. What makes you think that there are no consequences at all if you completely exclude meat from your diet?
First of all, we HAVE eaten humans. Watch a movie called "Alive". It's a true story.
Secondly, eating from your own species is something that already happens in nature but for two significant reasons. One, is that when an animal is extremely hungry, it will eat the dead flesh of a same-species animal. The story above, proves that humans do the same thing.
Two, is when the eating of your own species is linked to social structure. For example, some lions, when they become leaders of the pack, they will eat the young baby-lions of other couples in the pack in order to prevent any future rivals and also in order to make it easier for the babies that they will produce to have less opposition as they grow. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing, especially when they become kings.
There is also another reason why some animals will eat their own. It happens when the baby-animal is born with a disability. Some mothers will kill their own disabled or weak babies if they think that the chances of their survival in the environment are slim. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing (Spartans).
So there you have it. These are the rare reasons why animals and people resort to eating each other.
But it is in no way the normal state of affairs. The normal state of affairs is that lions eat gazelles, giraffes, elephants, and every other animal apart from their own kind. Which is no different to the normal state of affairs for humans, i.e. we eat other animals instead of other humans.
The number one source for protein is Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs. You can also get protein from Vegetable protein foods such as Nuts and Seeds, Soya products, Beans, and some Dairy products.
From the above, protein from animal sources contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.
Plant sources, however, don’t contain the full range of essential amino acids and so are not as high in nutritional value as animal protein. But it's still possible to consume the required amino acids, by eating a well-balanced diet that contains a variety of different foods. Which is why a lot of vegetarians complement their diets with powdered protein and vitamin pills. So, taste aside, you can be more certain that you have it all in your diet if you eat white meat than if you eat only the vegan alternatives.
That's from the BBC healthy living website, I didn't make it up.
There is consequences if you don't have any fruit and vegetables in your diet. What makes you think that there is no consequences if you exclude meat? We are not meant to eat from just one group of foods. Why do you think doctors are so skeptical about not eating meat at all?
You can make a case about the standards of animal welfare, and the living conditions in farms etc. I'm totally with you on that one. But that is entirely different to telling people to stop eating meat.
Preaching is to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action. Which is why I think this is nothing short of preaching.
Lions and sharks are incapable of moral reasoning.
Moral reasoning is nothing more than a by product of a comfortable society.
You take that comfort out and moral reasoning vanishes in thin air.
Have you seen the movie "Alive"? Those people possessed as much "moral reasoning" as you and me. But when it comes to your life being at stake you will eat the dead corpse of your own brother to survive. That's how set in stone your moral reasoning is... (I was gonna say something about "shoving it" but I'm more polite than that)
Humans can decide to renounce their brutal ancestry.
I would be careful before going around telling people to renounce their brutal ancestry altogether. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would keep you alive if you were to find yourself stranded somewhere with nothing by wilderness. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would make you put your fists up and defend yourself against the playground bully. And it's not all physical neither. Your "brutal ancestry" is what makes you apply for a job and not really care for all the other applicants, regardless of how much more than you they need the job.
If you think that this "brutal ancestry" is only part of our cave-living past, you are deluded!
I am in complete agreement with you that we need to improve the conditions in which these animals live and also find better ways to make the killing perhaps completely painless.
But that is not what you have been advocating at all. That is not what the people that carry this slogan in the streets are advocating neither. They want us to stop eating meat period (someone else here used that word actually). That's what I have a problem with.
On the face of it, killing is something that sounds fundamentally wrong. But by your admission, the killing of animals for food is not so fundamentally wrong. What is more morally acceptable? That the Eskimos respect the fish and allow themselves to die? Obviously not. Why? Because that would be MORE wrong than killing the fish to survive.
Now, just because I'm not an Eskimo doesn't mean that somehow all the reasons that justified me eating meat are gone. What comes to play is choice. I am luckier than the Eskimo because if I don't feel comfortable eating meat then I have other alternatives to choose from. I can choose to eat meat one day and beans on the next day. But arrogant people feel really compelled to want to impose only one choice to everybody. And that is nothing short of fascism.
The logic is still the same regardless of whether you agree with the content. Which is why telling people to not eat meat because they can live on other foods is as strong an argument as telling people to drop bombs because they can.
The fact is, we wouldn't be having this argument at all if we were Eskimos. Right?
Your opinions are only valid and honorable as long as there is a supermarket nearby for you to buy your vegan alternatives. Right?
If the food industry hadn't progressed to the point where you can get your protein from a powder and other vitamins from pills, then you wouldn't be so tough and preachy on people that eat meat.
So if you can do something, do it? That is the absolute worst argument for anything.
And yet, that is exactly what you are advocating...
What you are saying is: if you can live healthily on other foods other than meat, then you should do it.
I have read all your arguments with a lot of attention cause for a long time I have wanted to understand the mentality behind this slogan.
I would like to point out that first you stated that Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable, but you then took that back and said that killing is wrong regardless. I would also like to point out that modern day slaughter houses have made the process extremely quick and as painless as it can get (after all we are killing them), in any case it's a lot more humane and a lot less torturous than it would have been in the wild.
My last point is this: Morality is a very fickle thing, it changes all the time. Your opinion and arguments about this is only valid for as long as you live near a super market where you can buy your variety of vegan alternatives. If you were to go visit an African village where you either eat the killed pray or you starve to death, you would be singing a different tune. Am I wrong? Or if you were to go live with the Eskimos, and fish is your primary food source. Somehow, killing that fish doesn't sound so wrong, does it?
So the killing of animals for food is not a fundamentally wrong thing to do, after all.
This "moral obligation" attitude only comes to play once we advance to a level where you can choose to not eat meat without any consequences. But just because you can choose, doesn't mean that you have the moral obligation to make the choice. And to take the moral high ground and preach onto others is extremely self righteous and arrogant, especially as you would be very willing to eat meat if you had to eat it in order to live.
Just be thankful that you have the choice.
