A Vegetarian future?

[Acme]

Other than calling the third largest agricultural state the second largest what "claims" have I made that isn't true?

Just a couple examples. In post #23 you say

... To cut costs large American companies use rice and corn because they are cheaper grains. As a result American beer has to be drank cold to avoid off flavors not present in European ales that are made from high quality malts. Most in the states don't know any better and just drink what they are given. ...

So first, you don't have any reference to back this up. Why is that important? Because you are using it as evidence in support of your larger argument. What is a 'large' American company? What evidence do you have about what Americans know about their beer and what percentage is 'most'? Who says European beers always taste good? What American beers don't have corn or rice fillers? Are the companies that make them 'big'? Who drinks these beers? Do they know what they are drinking? How do you know?

 

Then in post #36 you say:

...

I think your point about b12 is exaggerated. The most common type of vegetarians consume dairy products and eggs which are both good sources of b12. Besides, 500 million vegetarians in India and 50 million in China proves humans can safely be vegetarian. ...

You may think it, but you don't give evidence. In fact, you are wrong according to what I read. To whit:

...Because B12 is critical for life and isn't found in any amount in plants (except some types of algae), it is by far the most important nutrient that vegans must be concerned with.

 

In fact, B12 deficiency is very common in vegans, one study showing that a whopping 92% of vegans are deficient in this critical nutrient (1). ...

Why Vegan Diets Suck

 

Get the picture? You give little evidence and the links you do give you misinterpret and draw conclusions the articles don't support.

 

 

There are facts a person uses to highlight a truth and then there are board general statements meant to help frame perspective. I have provided links for everthing I have posted that highlighted a truth.

No; you have not.

 

... Thus far it seems the most you have contributed to this discussion is to give a review of what others have posted.

Well, it seems to me your ability to critically analyze written material isn't trustworthy so I guess it's a push.

I wasn't sure where to put this thread. It is an environmental and political question about our long term sustainability. ...

UN Commission on Sustainable Development, WaterMore Nutrition Per Drop, 2004

 

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

...

I reread the entire report in order to refocus on your original question. Anyway, I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation. Whether politics straightens out any of that is anyone's guess and everyone is guessing like mad. However, I see nothing factual there that necessitates the conclusion that humans are in for a vegetarian future. Even were we to not start growing meat in vats and kill & eat every last meaty creature on the planet , we would just start eating each other with our salads. Soylent green is people!

[sunshaker]

 

I reread the entire report in order to refocus on your original question. Anyway, I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation. Whether politics straightens out any of that is anyone's guess and everyone is guessing like mad. However, I see nothing factual there that necessitates the conclusion that humans are in for a vegetarian future. Even were we to not start growing meat in vats and kill & eat every last meaty creature on the planet , we would just start eating each other with our salads. Soylent green is people!

 

Perhaps "soylent green" is the way to go,

 

As some have mentioned those poor Americans, "largest obese nation",

Why not save on funeral fees and taken your departed to your local butcher, I am sure this would help to relief the suffering of many creatures,

We should should try and make a change, At least for the sake of our children.

 

Many pigs/sows are kept in cages they cannot even move, impregnated until they can no longer give birth then slaughtered,

 

Why do we hide this behind closed doors? So we can all turn a blind eye and enjoy your bacon sandwiches.

 

I am not preaching,

 

"Supply and demand",

When more of us demand a vegetarian diet, The food industry will react to that demand and supply a veggie option that will come down in price with that demand.

 

You cannot force this vegetarian life style on others, But each who make this choice will relieve the suffering of these and many other animals.

[Ten oz]

Just a couple examples. In post #23 you saySo first, you don't have any reference to back this up. Why is that important? Because you are using it as evidence in support of your larger argument. What is a 'large' American company? What evidence do you have about what Americans know about their beer and what percentage is 'most'? Who says European beers always taste good? What American beers don't have corn or rice fillers? Are the companies that make them 'big'? Who drinks these beers? Do they know what they are drinking? How do you know?Then in post #36 you say:You may think it, but you don't give evidence. In fact, you are wrong according to what I read. To whit:Why Vegan Diets SuckGet the picture? You give little evidence and the links you do give you misinterpret and draw conclusions the articles don't support.No; you have not. Well, it seems to me your ability to critically analyze written material isn't trustworthy so I guess it's a push.

I reread the entire report in order to refocus on your original question. Anyway, I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation. Whether politics straightens out any of that is anyone's guess and everyone is guessing like mad. However, I see nothing factual there that necessitates the conclusion that humans are in for a vegetarian future. Even were we to not start growing meat in vats and kill & eat every last meaty creature on the planet , we would just start eating each other with our salads. Soylent green is people!

You continue to mix vegetarians with vegans in an attempt to make your b12 argument stick. This thread asks about vegetarians not vegans. So your "why vegans sucks" link does not counter any of my points. As I already posted, with links, the most common types of vegetarians do consume dairy products and eggs. So b12 is not an issue. As for saying 500 million people in India and 50 million people China proves a vegetarian diet can be safe.......I have no idea what you consider inaccurate about that? I did not say it proves a vegetarian diet is superior. No degree was given. I believe "safe" is the oppropriate word. Perhaps our definition of the safe within the context used is different?

 

You said "I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation." well that is the crux of this thread IMO. The rest is just what to do about it and that is entirely a matter of opinion regardless of which facts either side provides. So we basically agree on what the current state of affairs are and disagree about how society should handle it moving forward.

 

Bringing up my beer reference made me chuckle. I like that. Like I said before you latch on to every comment whether it is to the point being discussed or not. That isn't a bad thing.

"Standard American lagers are knows as “American Adjunct Lagers”. This means these are lagers that are brewed with adjuncts. Adjuncts are any non-malted grain, like rice or corn. This means that rather than using 100% malt, large breweries will cut the malt with corn or rice (or both). This will dull the flavour, lighten the colour, and barely affect the alcohol level. Thus, the large breweries can still brew a 5% alc./vol. beer, but at a lower cost. Corn and rice are less expensive than malt, so it’s an attractive cost-cutter for breweries. In addition, the beer will now appeal to the masses — if drank cold enough, the beer will lose almost all of its flavour, and go down like water." http://thehoppyending.wordpress.com/the-craft-beer-difference/

[Acme]

... As for saying 500 million people in India and 50 million people China proves a vegetarian diet can be safe.......I have no idea what you consider inaccurate about that? I did not say it proves a vegetarian diet is superior. No degree was given. I believe "safe" is the oppropriate word. Perhaps our definition of the safe within the context used is different? ...

I didn't mention that, but I think you mean more than 50 million in China this time.

 

You said "I agree that the factual parts of the report are evidence that current meat production, particularly beef, is on shaky ground as far as sustainability and environmental degradation." well that is the crux of this thread IMO. The rest is just what to do about it and that is entirely a matter of opinion regardless of which facts either side provides. So we basically agree on what the current state of affairs are and disagree about how society should handle it moving forward. ..

I agree that we basically agree on our agreement. I saw one thing -I think in your original paper- that may be a positive political action, and that is to take away government subsidies of beef producers.

 

Bringing up my beer reference made me chuckle. I like that. Like I said before you latch on to every comment whether it is to the point being discussed or not. That isn't a bad thing.

I'm glad I said something to make you chuckle. I admit that I got caught up in arguing for arguing sake. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

 

American lagers are knows as American Adjunct Lagers. This means these are lagers that are brewed with adjuncts.

Adjuncts are any non-malted grain, like rice or corn. This means that rather than using 100% malt, large breweries will cut the malt with corn or rice (or both). This will dull the flavour, lighten the colour, and barely affect the alcohol level. Thus, the large breweries can still brew a 5% alc./vol. beer, but at a lower cost. Corn and rice are less expensive than malt, so its an attractive cost-cutter for breweries. In addition, the beer will now appeal to the masses if drank cold enough, the beer will lose almost all of its flavour, and go down like water." http://thehoppyending.wordpress.com/the-craft-beer-difference/

 

Taking your colloquial approach and agreeing with you again, most big company American beers (Budweiser, Miller, etc.) are slop and I would rather take a punch in the eye than drink one. I live in the Pacific Northwest where you can't spit without hitting a microbrewery and I love my beer warm & strong. Currently preferring the IPA's.

 

How'd I do?

 

...

You continue to mix vegetarians with vegans in an attempt to make your b12 argument stick. ...

Just a PS here. If you were to follow the highlighted link #1 in my quote on B12 you would find I/they didn't mix the B12 results. Anyone adopting a vegetarian and/or vegan diet would do well to have their B12 levels checked to be sure they are not deficient and if they are to take steps to remedy the issue.

 

Serum Vitamin B12 and Blood Cell Values in Vegetarians

Abstract

Serum vitamin B12 and complete blood count values were determined for 83 volunteer subjects from an American vegetarian society conference (USA). Among subjects who did not supplement their diets with vitamin B12 or multiple vitamin tablets, 92% of the vegans (total vegetarians), 64% of the lactovegetarians, 47% of the lacto-ovovegetarians and 20% of the semivegetarians had serum vitamin B12 levels < 200pg/ml (normal = 200900 pg/ml). However, their complete blood count values did not deviate greatly from those found for nonvegetarians, even though some had been vegans or lactovegetarians for over 10 years. Macrocytosis among the vegetarians was minimal; none had mean corpuscular volume > 103 fl.

[Ten oz]

I didn't mention that, but I think you mean more than 50 million in China this time. I agree that we basically agree on our agreement. I saw one thing -I think in your original paper- that may be a positive political action, and that is to take away government subsidies of beef producers. I'm glad I said something to make you chuckle. I admit that I got caught up in arguing for arguing sake. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Taking your colloquial approach and agreeing with you again, most big company American beers (Budweiser, Miller, etc.) are slop and I would rather take a punch in the eye than drink one. I live in the Pacific Northwest where you can't spit without hitting a microbrewery and I love my beer warm & strong. Currently preferring the IPA's.How'd I do?...Just a PS here. If you were to follow the highlighted link #1 in my quote on B12 you would find I/they didn't mix the B12 results. Anyone adopting a vegetarian and/or vegan diet would do well to have their B12 levels checked to be sure they are not deficient and if they are to take steps to remedy the issue.Serum Vitamin B12 and Blood Cell Values in Vegetarians

I live in Southern California and there are craft breweries all over here too. I also homebrew. I went through a long IPA stage but currently find myself drinking a lot of Triple Belgian ale. Thank god you didn't counter, for argument sake, that Bud, PBR, Miller, etc were great beers, lol. I am not sure I would've been able to constrain my response.

Edited June 5, 2014 by Ten oz

[Acme]

I live in Southern California and there are craft breweries all over here too. I also homebrew. I went through a long IPA stage but currently find myself drinking a lot of Triple Belgian ale. Thank god you didn't counter, for argument sake, that Bud, PBR, Miller, etc were great beers, lol. I am not sure I would've been able to constrain my response.

What? Me stir up trouble?

 

I have been favoring Ninkasi's Triceratops Double IPA @ 8% out of Eugene lately. As far as I have seen they are only in 20oz bottles and as I had some manual labor to do this week & didn't want to be so impaired I am today sucking on a Lagunitas @ 6.2% out of Petaluma. It's OK, but it's no Triceratops.

 

Segue to a recent kurfuffle over in Oregon and a proposed ruling from the FDA to stop brewers from sending their spent grain to feed cattle.

 

Full article: >> FDA addresses concerns over proposed spent-grains rule

Brewers grains and distillers grains have become important, high-quality feed commodities in cattle operations, and cattle provide an excellent option for utilizing these byproducts, turning what otherwise could be waste into wholesome and nutritious food. So when the FDA issued a proposed rule that would introduce new food-safety requirements on breweries and distilleries that supply the byproduct feeds, manufacturers and cattle producers expressed serious concerns. ...

[Ten oz]

What? Me stir up trouble? :lol:I have been favoring Ninkasi's Triceratops Double IPA @ 8% out of Eugene lately. As far as I have seen they are only in 20oz bottles and as I had some manual labor to do this week & didn't want to be so impaired I am today sucking on a Lagunitas @ 6.2% out of Petaluma. It's OK, but it's no Triceratops.Segue to a recent kurfuffle over in Oregon and a proposed ruling from the FDA to stop brewers from sending their spent grain to feed cattle.Full article: >> FDA addresses concerns over proposed spent-grains rule

Interesting link. I give my spent grain to a co-worker who has chickens. Haven't read up on any specific figures but I imagine the growing taste for craft beer is greatly increasing demand for malted grain which also increases the amount of spent grains to be disposed of.

[EdEarl]

Interesting posts about beers, but is there a point about being vegetarian?

[Acme]

Interesting posts about beers, but is there a point about being vegetarian?

Not so far, but feel free to make one.

 

 

He was a wise man who invented beer. ~ Plato

[iNow]

Of course people can survive as vegetarian. There are millions of examples of this happening everyday. The question is how to move people in that direction and whether or not the effort is worth it given the sociocultural implications.

[Ten oz]

Of course people can survive as vegetarian. There are millions of examples of this happening everyday. The question is how to move people in that direction and whether or not the effort is worth it given the sociocultural implications.

 

That is the question. I was hoping you'd guys have the answers.

 

Seriously though is isn't simple. I think the first step is moving people away from eating so much beef. As was pointed out earlier the dairy industry is supplemented by the beef industry. So dairy industries from other sources like Goat, Sheep, Horse, Buffalo, and even Camel would need to grow.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Ten oz

[dimreepr]

As was pointed out earlier the dairy industry is supplemented by the beef industry. So dairy industries from other sources like Goat, Sheep, Horse, Buffalo, and even Camel would need to grow.

 

That wouldn’t really change anything; you’d just reduce the number of cattle by increasing the number of other animals.

The point I was making is: in order to have any sort of dairy products you need the selected animal to have offspring.

What do you do with the males?

A very small percentage will go on to stud, the rest are surplus and without a beef industry they would either, be killed and disposed of or they are allowed to live and will need feeding, also what would happen to the animals that are infertile or to old?

[EdEarl]

Of course people can survive as vegetarian. There are millions of examples of this happening everyday. The question is how to move people in that direction and whether or not the effort is worth it given the sociocultural implications.

Our society could use some sociological improvements, as any system can be improved. But, is an increase in vegetarian population an improvement?

[StringJunky]

Our society could use some sociological improvements, as any system can be improved. But, is an increase in vegetarian population an improvement?

I suppose the overarching improvement in adopting a vegetarian mindset is that one is consciously/proactively trying to adopt a healthier lifestyle which has beneficial spinoffs like reducing alcohol consumption. cutting smoking, more exercise and reducing saturated food intake etc. Regardless of whether there is confounding factors in determining the healthiness of a vegetarian diet specifically, vegetarians do generally live longer.because of all the other personal changes that go with it it seems.

Edited June 6, 2014 by StringJunky

[EdEarl]

I suppose the overarching improvement in adopting a vegetarian mindset is that one is consciously/proactively trying to adopt a healthier lifestyle which has beneficial spinoffs like reducing alcohol consumption. cutting smoking, more exercise and reducing saturated food intake etc. Regardless of whether there is confounding factors in determining the healthiness of a vegetarian diet specifically, vegetarians do generally live longer.because of all the other personal changes that go with it it seems.

You seem to be saying that a vegetarian life style causes spin-offs; however, it is also possible that people who are more health conscious tend to not smoke, exercise, and become vegetarian. In fact, the latter seems more likely. Thus, the question remains open, "Is an increase in vegetarian population an improvement?"

[Ten oz]

That wouldn’t really change anything; you’d just reduce the number of cattle by increasing the number of other animals.

The point I was making is: in order to have any sort of dairy products you need the selected animal to have offspring.

What do you do with the males?

A very small percentage will go on to stud, the rest are surplus and without a beef industry they would either, be killed and disposed of or they are allowed to live and will need feeding, also what would happen to the animals that are infertile or to old?

Ethically it wouldn't change anything. We would still be killing. In term of efficiency and sustainability it would be positive. Other red meats like Goat meat is actually more sustainable. They are browsers not grazers and more of them can be raised per acre than beef.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/goat-meat-the-final-frontier/2011/03/28/AF0p2OjC_story.html

 

I just don't know how we get from where we are in the united states to vegetarian in one adult step. All I can imagine right now are a multitude of baby steps. That is why are brought up steering us away from beef.

Our society could use some sociological improvements, as any system can be improved. But, is an increase in vegetarian population an improvement?

I believe it would be an improvement. IMO one of societies biggest problems is that we ignore the unsustainable course we are on. We do it with energy, banking, urban sprawl, our diets, with everything. As demand surpasses what crude oil can satisfy we just turn to shale oil and keep on truckin'. As the average amount of indebtedness grows we just change interest rates and brankruptcy laws and keep truckin'. As we fertile land runs out we just build communities in deserts and keep truckin'.

I don't think Vegetarianism is the cure to all of humanities problems. I do think it would help. We, society, needs to start thinking about doing things more efficiently rather than always working to finding ways to get more. it is time to start thinking about how we can get by with less.

[Phi for All]

The "We should all go vegetarian" argument says we should morally stop eating meat because we don't have to, that we have the ability to choose. But at it's roots, the argument removes all choices, and narrows our options down to one.

 

I dislike the "we should stop killing animals for food" argument in general. It's too emotional to be rational. And it seems to say that all the human children who will die of malnutrition will be worth it if we can just save the pigs and cows.

 

I don't think you will ever overcome the economic reality that a chicken produces eggs at a declining rate as they age. At a certain point, they're worth more as meat than as layers. And it's intensely wasteful not to use a dead chicken.

 

Animal husbandry and livestock production was a big part of what got us where we are. While it may not be sustainable depending on future populations, there are other alternatives that satisfy most objections and don't call for drastic changes in our basic diet, which is something that concerns me way more than the ethics of raising animals for food.

 

The health argument seems subjective. Some don't tolerate red meat while others thrive on it. YMMV seems to be the best policy here. Ask your doctor.

 

And if the focus in the argument now is on beef, then education is the first step. If another red meat alternative can be offered, it will help a great deal. Most of the pushback on the vegetarian argument is because it's all about denial of something ingrained into our society. I could eat a goatburger if you give me enough good reasons to buy it, but you will never sell me a something-not-meat-because-we've-banned-meat burger. That's not the way the market works.

[EdEarl]

Considering the 1 acre farm that grows 1M pounds of food, including fish, is there an advantage to a vegetarian diet over a Mediterranean type diet that includes eating fish? Since tilapia eat algae, and algae grow very fast, given the proper nutrients, this system might be extremely efficient.

[Ten oz]

The "We should all go vegetarian" argument says we should morally stop eating meat because we don't have to, that we have the ability to choose. But at it's roots, the argument removes all choices, and narrows our options down to one.

I dislike the "we should stop killing animals for food" argument in general. It's too emotional to be rational. And it seems to say that all the human children who will die of malnutrition will be worth it if we can just save the pigs and cows.

As humans we are unique in how bloodthirsty we are. No other species on earth kills just for the sake of killing. Other animals kill out of neccessity. I think our ability to kill without any risk factors has desensitized us. Killing out of neccessity is different than people killing just because they rather eat chicken wings at the bar on friday night that nachos with beans and salsa. Even apex predators have specific diets that don't over exploit their prey.

 

 

I don't think you will ever overcome the economic reality that a chicken produces eggs at a declining rate as they age. At a certain point, they're worth more as meat than as layers. And it's intensely wasteful not to use a dead chicken.

We use animal products for a lot more than just food. Dead chickens won't go to waste

 

 

Animal husbandry and livestock production was a big part of what got us where we are. While it may not be sustainable depending on future populations, there are other alternatives that satisfy most objections and don't call for drastic changes in our basic diet, which is something that concerns me way more than the ethics of raising animals for food.

Growing crops was a huge part of what got us to where we are too. I would also argue that early civilizations didn't eat as much meat as we eat today. They had livestock but not enough of it to afford meat being the center piece of every meal. They used livestock for dairy and to help with their crops. Killing and eating the animal out right was more of something done for special occasions or as animals required being put down.

 

 

 

And if the focus in the argument now is on beef, then education is the first step. If another red meat alternative can be offered, it will help a great deal. Most of the pushback on the vegetarian argument is because it's all about denial of something ingrained into our society. I could eat a goatburger if you give me enough good reasons to buy it, but you will never sell me a something-not-meat-because-we've-banned-meat burger. That's not the way the market works.

I am not trying to refocus the discussion to beef. It was just a suggestion that steering away from beef might be a place to start. Hopefully other posters will come up with some more suggestions. Someone early mentioned insects. That is an interesting idea.

 

For the record I do not believe we, the U.S., will be vegetarian in my lifetime.

[dimreepr]

You suggest ethics isn’t part of the argument in your reply to my post and then this.

 

 

As humans we are unique in how bloodthirsty we are. No other species on earth kills just for the sake of killing. Other animals kill out of neccessity. I think our ability to kill without any risk factors has desensitized us. Killing out of neccessity is different than people killing just because they rather eat chicken wings at the bar on friday night that nachos with beans and salsa. Even apex predators have specific diets that don't over exploit their prey.

 

 

You can’t have it both ways; if ethics does inform your reason to want a vegetarian future then you have still to answer my point about sustainability.

[Ten oz]

You suggest ethics isn’t part of the argument in your reply to my post and then this.

 

 

 

 

 

You can’t have it both ways; if ethics does inform your reason to want a vegetarian future then you have still to answer my point about sustainability.

I understand what you are saying. You are right. I am trying to have it both ways. I do undertsand the ethical argument and I do feel compelled by it however I don't believe it will ever be a cause for action. The majority isn't moved by it. So I try to avoid allowing it to inform my decision making. Cold hard economics is the only thing that will cause action on change. Ethics won't. So I am dispassionate about it. At some point as our population grows and our resources become further constrained I think there will be a shift.

To get from A to B society often lingers in a contradictory state. Before homos3xuals were allowed openly in the military we had the contradictory don't ask don't tell. After we ended slavery we continued to allow Jim Crow in the south. I suppose I am currently in one of those states right now. I see value in being a vegetarian both ethically and enviromentally yet I am not one. I don't eat red meat and limit how much chicken and fish I eat to once a day. That is far as I can go for now. I am still the son of my father. Which is to say a product of my environment.

[dimreepr]

I understand what you are saying. You are right. I am trying to have it both ways. I do undertsand the ethical argument and I do feel compelled by it however I don't believe it will ever be a cause for action. The majority isn't moved by it. So I try to avoid allowing it to inform my decision making. Cold hard economics is the only thing that will cause action on change. Ethics won't. So I am dispassionate about it. At some point as our population grows and our resources become further constrained I think there will be a shift.

To get from A to B society often lingers in a contradictory state. Before homos3xuals were allowed openly in the military we had the contradictory don't ask don't tell. After we ended slavery we continued to allow Jim Crow in the south. I suppose I am currently in one of those states right now. I see value in being a vegetarian both ethically and enviromentally yet I am not one. I don't eat red meat and limit how much chicken and fish I eat to once a day. That is far as I can go for now. I am still the son of my father. Which is to say a product of my environment.

 

 

Then what you do want is something like what’s suggested by Douglas Adams, in “The restaurant at the end of the universe”; an animal that has been engineered to actually want to be eaten and finds pleasure in the knowledge of its death.

[Phi for All]

As humans we are unique in how bloodthirsty we are. No other species on earth kills just for the sake of killing. Other animals kill out of neccessity. I think our ability to kill without any risk factors has desensitized us. Killing out of neccessity is different than people killing just because they rather eat chicken wings at the bar on friday night that nachos with beans and salsa. Even apex predators have specific diets that don't over exploit their prey.

 

I think you're trying to rationalize the actions of other animals through your own highly intelligent human perspective. "Necessity" is another throwaway subjective term. As a species, our killing is just as necessary to us as it is to other species. We don't, as a species, kill for the sake of killing. There are always reasons for it on the level we're talking about here.

 

Further, your argument about chicken wings is fallacious. You're Begging the Question about whether the wings are a bad choice. Again, you're assuming a choice that really isn't a choice. And we're not over-exploiting our prey. No chicken shortages that I know of.

 

We use animal products for a lot more than just food. Dead chickens won't go to waste

 

 

But food is the biggest use of dead chickens by quite a factor. Do you really believe we'd find better uses for all that meat?

 

And before you suggest we feed it to other animals, tell me again why other omnivores get to eat what they were designed to eat, but not humans? Oh, right, intelligence. Hey, what if eating meat helped make us so intelligent?

 

Growing crops was a huge part of what got us to where we are too. I would also argue that early civilizations didn't eat as much meat as we eat today. They had livestock but not enough of it to afford meat being the center piece of every meal. They used livestock for dairy and to help with their crops. Killing and eating the animal out right was more of something done for special occasions or as animals required being put down.

 

 

An Appeal to Tradition?! Seriously, what is progress for if not to improve on what came before? Granted, we're probably too concerned with the economics of eating, but we're managing to feed a very large population somewhat successfully. We need to make sure our efforts to increase health and longevity include a good hard look at the food we eat, but we have that now. We're headed in an appropriate direction, imo, and the last thing we need is a radical change in this arena.

 

I'm not against radical change, but when it comes to something as important as the diet we've evolved to succeed on, I think in increments. Small increments. And we're doing that.

 

I am not trying to refocus the discussion to beef. It was just a suggestion that steering away from beef might be a place to start. Hopefully other posters will come up with some more suggestions. Someone early mentioned insects. That is an interesting idea.

 

 

Until someone comes along with the humanitarian guilt perspective again, and reminds us that insects are living beings too. Very tasty living beings when roasted.

 

For me, I care a lot about the animals that die to sustain me. I want to acknowledge that, just because the intelligence of my species allows us to domesticate animals and raise them for the resources they provide, I'm not taking their lives for granted. I acknowledge the necessity of slaughterhouses and will always lend my support for humane treatment in that process. I also think the whole vegetarian morality argument is based on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It starts with the sanctity of all life, then ignores human needs, and settles with higher order animals like pigs, cows and chickens. If the sanctity of life was really the issue, insects and plants wouldn't be on the menu either.

 

For the record I do not believe we, the U.S., will be vegetarian in my lifetime.

 

 

Not after you get a taste of designer cultured meat. Someday, maybe they can make it taste like broccoli.

[Ten oz]

I think you're trying to rationalize the actions of other animals through your own highly intelligent human perspective.

Highly intelligent by human standards or highly intelligent because I am human? Either way I think I will take that as a compliment.

Thank you

 

"Necessity" is another throwaway subjective term. As a species, our killing is just as necessary to us as it is to other species. We don't, as a species, kill for the sake of killing. There are always reasons for it on the level we're talking about here.

 

Further, your argument about chicken wings is fallacious. You're Begging the Question about whether the wings are a bad choice. Again, you're assuming a choice that really isn't a choice. And we're not over-exploiting our prey. No chicken shortages that I know of.

 

 

 

But food is the biggest use of dead chickens by quite a factor. Do you really believe we'd find better uses for all that meat?

 

And before you suggest we feed it to other animals, tell me again why other omnivores get to eat what they were designed to eat, but not humans? Oh, right, intelligence. Hey, what if eating meat helped make us so intelligent?

 

 

 

An Appeal to Tradition?! Seriously, what is progress for if not to improve on what came before? Granted, we're probably too concerned with the economics of eating, but we're managing to feed a very large population somewhat successfully. We need to make sure our efforts to increase health and longevity include a good hard look at the food we eat, but we have that now. We're headed in an appropriate direction, imo, and the last thing we need is a radical change in this arena.

 

I'm not against radical change, but when it comes to something as important as the diet we've evolved to succeed on, I think in increments. Small increments. And we're doing that.

 

 

 

 

Until someone comes along with the humanitarian guilt perspective again, and reminds us that insects are living beings too. Very tasty living beings when roasted.

 

For me, I care a lot about the animals that die to sustain me. I want to acknowledge that, just because the intelligence of my species allows us to domesticate animals and raise them for the resources they provide, I'm not taking their lives for granted. I acknowledge the necessity of slaughterhouses and will always lend my support for humane treatment in that process. I also think the whole vegetarian morality argument is based on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It starts with the sanctity of all life, then ignores human needs, and settles with higher order animals like pigs, cows and chickens. If the sanctity of life was really the issue, insects and plants wouldn't be on the menu either.

 

 

 

Not after you get a taste of designer cultured meat. Someday, maybe they can make it taste like broccoli.

I don't think anything you are saying is wrong. I wonder if future generations will but that is a far less tangible thing than the pros and cons of various agriculture. I myself am conflicted by what I believe is currently achievable, what is the most sustainable, the most cost effective, and how feel about it all ethically. I suppose religion was dreamt up in part to deal with such internal debates.

[Phi for All]

Highly intelligent by human standards or highly intelligent because I am human? Either way I think I will take that as a compliment.

Thank you

 

Both, I'm pretty sure. It's a compliment AND a fact, so I feel free to use it here shamelessly.

 

I don't think anything you are saying is wrong. I wonder if future generations will but that is a far less tangible thing than the pros and cons of various agriculture. I myself am conflicted by what I believe is currently achievable, what is the most sustainable, the most cost effective, and how feel about it all ethically.

 

 

It's easy to get caught up in moral dilemmas. I try to avoid broad solutions to nuanced problems. And eating these days isn't about killing, it's about eating something that was once alive, using a process we've adapted using the traits evolution selected for us. I respect that process and all its participants.

 

I suppose religion was dreamt up in part to deal with such internal debates.

 

 

I think religion was invented so people could get together after church for some fried chicken.