Jump to content
1=1

Ethics of Beef Production.

Should we breed cows for eating?  

35 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we breed cows for eating?

    • Yes
      25
    • No
      10


Recommended Posts

Oh, now it's HUMAN BABIES I'm growing to control. Are you suggesting that breeding cows is a slippery slope leading to the control of humans? Or that beef is a gateway food for cannibalism?

No, no, no. I am not suggestion that this could lead to other things, because that is an stupid argument which I am facing very often in other discussions... No, I want to say, that there is ethically no difference and I wanted to show that by giving a situation in which the exact same ethic would lead to something which we both consider wrong. And thats the case here.

When you say that it is okay to "kill [cows] humanely when [You] need them for food" BECAUSE you "raised them, treated them well and feed and watered them" it is a logic which dose not differ from the killing babies when you feed them and want them to eat.

That might be not your intention but that is the logical conclusion, so if you want to give a valid argument, you have to say it in another way, but then (I guess) you can't say it anymore because it is just not right.

 

You make the same mistake here:

For me, it's not morally wrong to raise animals, treat them well, feed them and water them, and then kill them humanely when I need them for food. On the other hand, I would have strong objections to abandoning a species that we had bred for millennia to be docile and non-aggressive and really tasty. The deaths they would face in the wild would be horrible comparatively.

 

By this logic it would be possible (((would be possible !!! I am not saying that would be your intense))) to reestablish slavery because we can make the black men more docile and when we water him he could work for us.

This is obviously just wrong and stupid, but it is in fact based on the same logic. Sorry. rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say that it is okay to "kill [cows] humanely when [You] need them for food" BECAUSE you "raised them, treated them well and feed and watered them" it is a logic which dose not differ from the killing babies when you feed them and want them to eat.

I'm sure Phi will respond, but I need to jump in here.

 

This is true to you because you are equating cows and humans. I don't think anyone else is going to agree with you on that notion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since we are all reasonable critical thinking individuals I am sure that no one is going to quote from the bible to explain why humans are not cows.

That is the base for this discussion :)

 

So, I say that humans are just animals. Animals with some very developed abilities and with some abilities which are not the top of the evolution. Humans are just some a bit advanced animals, and that is way I am equating them at least a little.

Or can you give me a provable or falsifiable argument why humans differ in a key aspect from animals? Provable means no statements like "because animals have no awareness", falsifiable means no statements like "God wants us to rule over animals" (as said above).

 

I would be happy to get that kind of argument and I would like it very much if I could justify killing with it, because it would make my life simpler, but I don't think that there is such an argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point of view to consider. Humans are naturally part of the food chain. Is it more ethical for an ever growing population to support that population with food from the wild or to supply itself with food it has raised for the purpose?

 

Also, why would a herbivore evolve with canines? It would seem the very existence of canines in humans would make them omnivores over herbivores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point of view to consider. Humans are naturally part of the food chain. Is it more ethical for an ever growing population to support that population with food from the wild or to supply itself with food it has raised for the purpose?

Okay, absolutely the second one. But lets expand your view. Is it more ethical to eat wild animals, or self-made animals, OR not to eat animals and instead make food that could supply everyone? As I said, if we would stop feeding animals (to make food out of them) with feed that we could consume, we would have enough to erase all starvation.

 

Also, why would a herbivore evolve with canines? It would seem the very existence of canines in humans would make them omnivores over herbivores.

 

We are not herbivores, we are omnivores, but that does not mean we have to eat everything, that means we can decide what we eat. The allegation we could not eat meal is as false as the allegation we could not not eat meal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem the very existence of canines in humans would make them omnivores over herbivores.

 

No. Fruit bats have canine teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, if we would stop feeding animals (to make food out of them) with feed that we could consume, we would have enough to erase all starvation.

Are you suggesting we could make our own feed from grass instead of using cows to convert grass into a feed we can consume? Obviously we could consume grass directly but our own digestive system is not nearly as efficient as the cows in converting it to a protein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you suggesting we could make our own feed from grass instead of using cows to convert grass into a feed we can consume? Obviously we could consume grass directly but our own digestive system is not nearly as efficient as the cows in converting it to a protein.

 

Apart from the fact that we could use the pasture to plant rye, animals don't consume all the stuff we couldn't. Just the first quotation I've found while searching: "According to a recent report by Compassion in World Framing, "[c]rops that could be used to feed the hungry are instead being used to fatten animals raised for food." It takes up to 10 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of edible animal flesh.".

Feel free to inform yourself ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Fruit bats have canine teeth.

I wonder if that is an evolutionary remnant since most bat species they are related to are omnivores or carnivores. Are the canines in humans also an evolutionary remnant?

 

Apart from the fact that we could use the pasture to plant rye, animals don't consume all the stuff we couldn't.

Sure we could. Are you implying we could get the protein we need from this rye in place of cows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say that it is okay to "kill [cows] humanely when [You] need them for food" BECAUSE you "raised them, treated them well and feed and watered them" it is a logic which dose not differ from the killing babies when you feed them and want them to eat.

It's not the same logic at all, unless you think I want to raise human babies to eat them. Remember, I WANT TO EAT THE COWS. You're the only one here who is saying that raising babies and raising cows is logically the same.

 

That might be not your intention but that is the logical conclusion, so if you want to give a valid argument, you have to say it in another way, but then (I guess) you can't say it anymore because it is just not right.

Your logic is flawed, mostly due to your equating cows and humans.

 

You make the same mistake here:

 

 

By this logic it would be possible (((would be possible !!! I am not saying that would be your intense))) to reestablish slavery because we can make the black men more docile and when we water him he could work for us.

This is obviously just wrong and stupid, but it is in fact based on the same logic. Sorry. rolleyes.gif

WHAT?! You throw out more red herrings than Sam Quint! Why are you bringing human slavery into this discussion? It is NOT THE SAME LOGIC at all. Again, anthropomorphizing animals is completely untenable with regard to food production. It's already been established that we can't live on plants alone. We need animal protein so either we need lots of cattle (and other meat sources) or LOTS fewer humans.

 

Actually, based on YOUR logic, we need a tyrant vegan dictator to take over and kill off the excess humans so the remaining few can live comfortably as vegetarians. Sure, the cows and chickens and pigs and goats and other food animals will mostly die off too, but at least you won't be killing them with your own hands (unless they wander into your gardens?). They'll just die from starvation or predation, but I guess that's just vegan compassion at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the canines in humans also an evolutionary remnant?

 

A. Humans can most definitely survive without ingesting any animal flesh at all.

 

B. In addition to that, red meat in one's diet can even be viewed as harmful. It increases likelihood of breast cancer, CVD, cancer, etc.

 

So, it's up to you to decide.

 

To me, 2+2=4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I say that humans are just animals. Animals with some very developed abilities and with some abilities which are not the top of the evolution. Humans are just some a bit advanced animals, and that is way I am equating them at least a little.

To show how we can consider them different I'll quote a very wise man.

 

...it is in fact natural. We are more concerned about our family than some stranger. We are more interested in the wellbeing of our local comrades than the comrades of the comrades of the comrade.

By this logic it means things that are more like us and more in our action-space are more important than others. We have a well defined ranking by this, which might be not perfect, but useful for this.

To which I conclude that human babies can be considered differently than cows.

 

Here is another good argument:

There must be a line because saying there is no line means you can kill everything (including humans which definitely would not be useful), or you must not kill anything

 

And even if they are somewhat similar, I can draw the line anywhere I wish, because:

I am not always acting fully ethical because I am also an egoist human

 

Or,

When you list beings up in a row from human-like to non-human-like you can make some differences in the category sentient ...

 

It seems to me that you are not being very consistent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the same logic at all, unless you think I want to raise human babies to eat them. Remember, I WANT TO EAT THE COWS. You're the only one here who is saying that raising babies and raising cows is logically the same.

 

 

Your logic is that it is okay to raise cows to eat them because of reasons that are not connected to cows. And when you argue like that, I can replace the cow with a baby and the logic still works as good as yours (which does not work).

 

 

Your logic is flawed, mostly due to your equating cows and humans.

 

As I said, tell me the key point what completely separates human from animal without doing it like I described above.

 

WHAT?! You throw out more red herrings than Sam Quint! Why are you bringing human slavery into this discussion? It is NOT THE SAME LOGIC at all. Again, anthropomorphizing animals is completely untenable with regard to food production. It's already been established that we can't live on plants alone. We need animal protein so either we need lots of cattle (and other meat sources) or LOTS fewer humans.

THERE we have the POINT! This is just provable wrong. Please read my last posts and look it up, get some information and ask any world-economist or biologist you want. The human body dose not require animal protein. It is a fact that we can run at 100 % of health, ability and anything else WITHOUT meat consuming. That is nothing which is uncertain or not doubted, this is fact. And we could solve all starving problems just by not panting for animals but plating for humans.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. Humans can most definitely survive without ingesting any animal flesh at all.

Can you support that claim with evidence? Are there any consequences of a meat free diet? What diet is optimal? Are there advantages to diets that include meat that humans cannot get from a meat free diet?

Edited by doG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we could solve all starving problems just by not panting for animals but plating for humans.

Can you support that claim with evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already been established that we can't live on plants alone. We need animal protein so either we need lots of cattle (and other meat sources) or LOTS fewer humans.

 

That is false.

 

If by animal protein you mean B12, it's made in bacteria. That's how animals get it. So can we.

 

Can you support that claim with evidence? Are there any consequences of a meat free diet? What diet is optimal? Are there advantages to diets that include meat that humans cannot get from a meat free diet?

 

It's simple. Look at what is required by humans on a daily basis. Then look at the nutritional value in vegetarian food sources. Everything can be acquired, easily. There is nothing humans can't get in a vegetarian diet that they can get in one including meat. There are no advantages. Arguably, just detriments with eating meat- E.G. red meat. Like in the article I shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple. Look at what is required by humans on a daily basis. Then look at the nutritional value in vegetarian food sources.

Hold on now. You don't make claims here and then tell others to do your work for you to prove your claim. You made the claim then you prove it.

 

Secondly, you avoided the question asking if a vegan diet is optimal. It's not enough that we can just survive on a meat free diet but can we do so without loosing any of the benefits of a diet that includes meat? If it takes meat to be all that we can be I see no reason to be less than we can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Appolinaria, thanks for pointing out the facts. It helps a lot when you are questioned faster than you can type :D

To show how we can consider them different I'll quote a very wise man.

 

To which I conclude that human babies can be considered differently than cows.

 

Nice try ;) but not what I mean.

 

Of course you can consider human babies differently than cows because they are obviously not the same when you look at their abilities, or at they human-likeliness. But you are suggesting that there is a key difference of a fundamental difference that makes killing the one right while not the other one, and that kind of difference I have never proposed.

 

 

And even if they are somewhat similar, I can draw the line anywhere I wish, because:

Quote: "I am not always acting fully ethical because I am also an egoist human"

 

Yes, you can do whatever you want. But don't say that would be ethical!

 

When you list beings up in a row from human-like to non-human-like you can make some differences in the category sentient ...

In the category sentient. That means you can see that there are sentient creatures which are more human-like than others. This has nothing to do with the comparison between humans and animals. Its not like "Ho, ho,... Humans are more human-like" -.-

 

Maybe you get a better understanding of this concept when you make a differences between existential fundamental differences, and the "we are all animals" difference...

 

Or maybe it is clearer when I say: Use that sentence with raising cows and then killing them as an template and then make a list from 1 to 10 where you put the word "human babies" instead of "cow" at 1, and "lettuce" at 10 (or better "plants" in general because we have learnd that there is no gradation in plants), and let 5 be cows.

Than you will have a list which goes from unethical to ethical. And again: Now we are at the same point when I introduced you in the idea of making a cut at the point of ability of preventing. The maximum you can do is 9 and then there are only plants to eat left. You can not not eat them, so its okay to eat them.

 

Everything I said is absolutely logical consistent. But I might have left some clarifications out... (What is maybe because I think that you know what I think when I write down what I think the way I am thinking it)

 

Hold on now. You don't make claims here and then tell others to do your work for you to prove your claim. You made the claim then you prove it.

 

Secondly, you avoided the question asking if a vegan diet is optimal. It's not enough that we can just survive on a meat free diet but can we do so without loosing any of the benefits of a diet that includes meat? If it takes meat to be all that we can be I see no reason to be less than we can be.

 

Why should we do the work over and over again? I don't make a whole list of used assumptions starting with "1 is followed by 2" and "+ meas putting together" just to prove to you that 1+1 equals 2...

 

 

A site that gives you at least one answer:

http://www.soystache.com/plant.htm

 

Some other random sites that might be also helpful...

http://www.goveg.com http://www.veganoutreach.org http://www.vrg.org http://www.veg.org http://www.veggie123.com/

By the way: I am not one of these partially crazy peta nuts, but in some cases I can see their point ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we do the work over and over again? I don't make a whole list of used assumptions starting with "1 is followed by 2" and "+ meas putting together" just to prove to you that 1+1 equals 2...

You can't do the work over until you've done it the first time. No where here has there been proof posted that a vegan diet meets all of the dietary needs of humans. Claimants need to provide their own proof.

 

A site that gives you at least one answer:

http://www.soystache.com/plant.htm

 

Some other random sites that might be also helpful...

http://www.goveg.com http://www.veganoutreach.org http://www.vrg.org http://www.veg.org http://www.veggie123.com/

By the way: I am not one of these partially crazy peta nuts, but in some cases I can see their point ;)

None of those sites provide proof that all dietary needs can be met with a meat free diet, only that you can get some protein in your diet from alternate sources. Now, can you provide a link to any peer reviewed work that shows that humans can get everything they require for optimal health from a meat free diet?

Edited by doG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hold on now. You don't make claims here and then tell others to do your work for you to prove your claim. You made the claim then you prove it.

 

 

 

http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/5_Summary%20Table%20Tables%201-4.pdf

 

Please tell me which nutrients listed cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. I am not going to go through them one by one for you. It's unnecessarily tedious. Do it yourself, and let me know where I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

Secondly, you avoided the question asking if a vegan diet is optimal. It's not enough that we can just survive on a meat free diet but can we do so without loosing any of the benefits of a diet that includes meat? If it takes meat to be all that we can be I see no reason to be less than we can be.

Let me clarify this for you, before we move on. A vegan diet is different than a vegetarian diet. Vegans don't consume ANY animal products- that includes milk, cheese, etc. Vegetarians eat animal products such as milk and cheese, but no meat.

Secondly, I didn't avoid anything. The majority of vitamins are most plentiful in vegetables. You need to eat a large variety of vegetables in a non-vegetarian diet, regardless. Omitting meat doesn't have to affect nutrient intake. If anything, a diet including red meat is arguably more dangerous. Like I've said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try ;) but not what I mean.

 

Of course you can consider human babies differently than cows because they are obviously not the same when you look at their abilities, or at they human-likeliness. But you are suggesting that there is a key difference of a fundamental difference that makes killing the one right while not the other one, and that kind of difference I have never proposed.

Where have I suggested that there is a key fundamental difference that makes killing the one right while not the other? I've mentioned several times in this thread that there are times that it is considered right to kill humans.

 

You on the other hand most certainly did propose a fundamental difference that makes killing one type of life right while not the other.

 

Its okay to "kill" non-sentient beings, but that is just because it fits so nicely in my grey line ^^ When you list beings up in a row from human-like to non-human-like you can make some differences in the category sentient but it is quite hard to make differences in the category non-sentient. So... I have my line just there between the two categories

 

The reason it is considered ethical to kill cows is because people have decided that it is. Ethics are not something that we find etched in stone on the mount. They are what people decide they are. Just like you are doing above.

 

You find it ethical to kill vegetables but not animals based on sentience. That dividing line is your choice but it is no more valid than saying that you can only eat what you do not have to kill; that life is the dividing line.

 

http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/5_Summary%20Table%20Tables%201-4.pdf

 

Please tell me which nutrients listed cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. I am not going to go through them one by one for you. It's unnecessarily tedious. Do it yourself, and let me know where I'm wrong.

 

Nope. Your link proves you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/5_Summary%20Table%20Tables%201-4.pdf

 

Please tell me which nutrients listed cannot be found in a vegetarian diet. I am not going to go through them one by one for you. It's unnecessarily tedious. Do it yourself, and let me know where I'm wrong.

 

You know better. It doesn't work that way here. If you state some claim as fact it is your burden to back it up, not someone elses to refute you. Yes, you've posted a recommended list of dietary requirements that provides no sources for them, particularly the fats and proteins we use animal sources for.

 

 

Let me clarify this for you, before we move on. A vegan diet is different than a vegetarian diet. Vegans don't consume ANY animal products- that includes milk, cheese, etc. Vegetarians eat animal products such as milk and cheese, but no meat.Secondly, I didn't avoid anything. The majority of vitamins are most plentiful in vegetables. You need to eat a large variety of vegetables in a non-vegetarian diet, regardless. Omitting meat doesn't have to affect nutrient intake. If anything, a diet including red meat is arguably more dangerous. Like I've said.

I'm not particularly arguing in favor of red meat either. OTOH, I've noticed a number of articles in searching this topic where athletes have turned back from a meat free diet to add poultry and/or fish to their diets to get the energy and stamina they weren't getting from a meat free diet which made me wonder, what diet is optimal for us and is there truly a meat free diet that meets that need. I suspect humans could probably survive on beans, bread and water alone but should they? Is there a reason we should not use our ability to maximize our health, even if it means farming animals to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Can you point to where I am in error?

I am not going to go through them one by one for you. It's unnecessarily tedious. Do it yourself, and let me know where I'm wrong.

 

Sorry, that was my smart ass way of saying that it is very frustrating when someone makes a claim then tells you to prove them wrong. No offense intended. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.