3 ms·

Even if that gets debunked, given that other animals do consume meat, why shouldn't we? Is it OK for a wolf to kill a rabbit for food (typically in a much more

Even if that gets debunked, given that other animals do consume meat, why shouldn't we? Is it OK for a wolf to kill a rabbit for food (typically in a much more painful way than a human would) but not OK for a human? Or maybe we should use our technology to make "justice" in the animal world, preventing wolves from eating other animals somehow? Mind you, I'm not sure what the correct answers to some of these questions are. Maybe in a few hundred years we will find eating meat obnoxious after all. But I don't think the issue is as clear-cut as your comment implies.

noondip 11y ago
Humans aren't obligatory carnivores like the example of the wolf you've used. From a physiological standpoint, it's more accurate to describe ourselves as "dedicated herbivores".
- Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
  I could have used omnivores as well, the fact that they are obligatory carnivores is not relevant for my argument the way I see it. The fact is that, from the viewpoint of nature itself (supposing there is such a thing), it's probably OK to eat meat as animals do it. By the way, now that you mention obligatory carnivores... another issue is that I don't think we can really sustain ourselves without killing animals one way or another. Agriculture starves animals by destroying natural habitats after all.
  - noondip 11y ago
    > from the viewpoint of nature itself (supposing there is such a thing), it's probably OK to eat meat as animals do it. This is an appeal to nature logical fallacy. Animals in the wild also commit infanticide and practice cannibalism. As natural as these behaviors are, they're not an instruction manual for how we should behave. > I don't think we can really sustain ourselves without killing animals one way or another. This is technically true, but we can drastically reduce the number of other sentient animals which suffer and die for no good reason, by switching to a plant-based diet. > Agriculture starves animals by destroying natural habitats after all. Animal agriculture is especially egregious when it comes to destroying natural habitats. The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops (source: FAO Livestock's Long Shadow), for example.
- pvaldes 11y ago
  Disagree. We are neither obligatory carnivores nor herbivores. We do not have a sophisticated herbivore's gut with four chameras and colonies of specialist celulose breaking symbionts. We do not need to eat our own faeces again to obtain vitamins and we do not ruminate our food, something that is normal in herbivores. We do not have a sophisticated nose to detect alkaloids, Do not have evergrowing teeth. We can not even eat legumes like soy in a raw state, and eating grass for us is like eating razor blades. From a physiological standpoint we are omnivores, and this is not a sin. Lots of other animals are omnivores also.
- undersuit 11y ago
  Dogs and by extension wolves are capable of eating a vegetarian diet. They seem to only be carnivores because they lack the ability to cook their foods.

noondip 11y ago

Humans aren't obligatory carnivores like the example of the wolf you've used. From a physiological standpoint, it's more accurate to describe ourselves as "dedicated herbivores".

Al-Khwarizmi 11y ago
I could have used omnivores as well, the fact that they are obligatory carnivores is not relevant for my argument the way I see it. The fact is that, from the viewpoint of nature itself (supposing there is such a thing), it's probably OK to eat meat as animals do it. By the way, now that you mention obligatory carnivores... another issue is that I don't think we can really sustain ourselves without killing animals one way or another. Agriculture starves animals by destroying natural habitats after all.
- noondip 11y ago
  > from the viewpoint of nature itself (supposing there is such a thing), it's probably OK to eat meat as animals do it. This is an appeal to nature logical fallacy. Animals in the wild also commit infanticide and practice cannibalism. As natural as these behaviors are, they're not an instruction manual for how we should behave. > I don't think we can really sustain ourselves without killing animals one way or another. This is technically true, but we can drastically reduce the number of other sentient animals which suffer and die for no good reason, by switching to a plant-based diet. > Agriculture starves animals by destroying natural habitats after all. Animal agriculture is especially egregious when it comes to destroying natural habitats. The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops (source: FAO Livestock's Long Shadow), for example.
pvaldes 11y ago
Disagree. We are neither obligatory carnivores nor herbivores. We do not have a sophisticated herbivore's gut with four chameras and colonies of specialist celulose breaking symbionts. We do not need to eat our own faeces again to obtain vitamins and we do not ruminate our food, something that is normal in herbivores. We do not have a sophisticated nose to detect alkaloids, Do not have evergrowing teeth. We can not even eat legumes like soy in a raw state, and eating grass for us is like eating razor blades. From a physiological standpoint we are omnivores, and this is not a sin. Lots of other animals are omnivores also.
undersuit 11y ago
Dogs and by extension wolves are capable of eating a vegetarian diet. They seem to only be carnivores because they lack the ability to cook their foods.