5 ms·

As a, for lack of a better term, total vegetarian, do you have any moral thoughts on different types of animals? Was the herbavore vs omnivore vs carnivore thin

by ethbro 10y ago

As a, for lack of a better term, total vegetarian, do you have any moral thoughts on different types of animals? Was the herbavore vs omnivore vs carnivore thing a consideration? Did you debate mammal protein vs fish? Curious how people arrive at "their" vegetarianism.

molloy 10y ago
The term you're looking for is lacto-ovo vegetarian.
- ergothus 10y ago
  That's the term, but most people that don't deal with vegetarians don't know it. (I've also seen a number of vegetarians & pescatarians that don't know it, which is somewhat surprising to me). But yes, I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian.
ergothus 10y ago
Speaking for myself on a very subjective issue: I do. My gradual elimination of meats was done on a roughly sliding scale of animal awareness - pigs seem more aware than turkeys seem more aware than chickens, and most fish come in below that. I based this mainly on my understanding of there general awareness of the world, which is hardly a strict scientific method, but I was trying to acknowledge the concept you're describing, figuring that while it was all bad, if I wasn't going to immediately do totally right, I should choose to do it in the least bad manner. Insects are actually a point of confusion for me. My general rule of thumb for whether I think I should kill something to eat it (or have someone else kill it for me to eat) is based on my instinctive empathy: If I saw the animal injured, would I feel bad for it? land-based animals - Yes. Fish - Yes. Eggs? No. (lots of issues in the egg industry, but the base concept didn't bother me). Bacteria? No. But this leaves insects in a weird place. I will kill an insect that is a pest to me without much concern. Mosquitos are dead if I get a chance, houseflies are welcome to leave, but if they don't, I can swat them without guilt. Ants, while an absolutely favorite creature of mine, also fall prey to my self-centeredness. BUT - the idea of hundreds/thousands of insects getting ground up DOES bother me. I _think_ that's because I don't empathize with the bugs the way I do with animals, but I don't like what it says about us to kill in such numbers even if I don't empathize directly, Regardless, while I don't have a solid answer, it was easy enough to give up the few foods involved. (Pretty much Junior Mints, in my case)
bitexploder 10y ago
Flirted with stints of vegetarianism. Still eat far less meat than "average" and can go many days without meat. I am okay eating animals, they are tasty. They think, they die, they go to my tummy. I try to eat grass fed and "humane" local stuff these days precisely to avoid issues that occur at mass produced meat factories (antibiotic needs, etc.). This makes meat cost more, which makes me eat less. The central reason for me comes down to sustainability. Eggs and milk are still not the most humane things to me, but they are sustainable and quite a bit better than killing the animals they come from. They cost way less to produce and eggs/cheese/dairy make a lot of tasty stuff I am less willing to give up than meat. We can probably sustain the planet if everyone eats a light to moderate amount of dairy/eggs, but based on what I have read we really can't do that with the amount of meat consumption in America (and other places that are meat heavy in their culture.) Not only that but Americans are used to cheap meats and are very very slowly becoming used to paying for meat at prices where it can be raised more healthily (legitimate free range, zero antibiotics due to much lower animal density, etc.) tl;dr save the planet, and maybe because I occasionally feel bad animals die for me to live a more convenient life. edit: also, regarding the fish only "vegans"...honestly... it is hard enough to safely define one thinking meat from another. I think people do a lot of mental twists and turns and narrative building to convince themselves that something like say, fish, are "lesser" thinking meats. Insects? Fungi? Bacteria? How do you define your thinking meat? The philosophy of this is actually fiendishly difficult if you take it seriously and don't just stop when your brain has convinced you that you have it figured out. I also don't think it is even subjective, even though it is a very passionate subject. At some level if you eat animals you have to accept the consequence and can't just rationalize away you are eating the muscles and fats of an animal that had its own thing going on. I just never felt strongly convinced by the whole strict vegan argument given the amount of energy required to live that way (it is actually hard and difficult to be a really strict Vegan, in my opinion that time can be better spent reducing misery of actual humans in a lot of cases)
- ergothus 10y ago
  > I also don't think it is even subjective, even though it is a very passionate subject. I'll agree to that. If you have a definition of "thinking/self-aware/conscious/sapient/concept of choice", any given creature either IS or ISN'T. But we can't agree on a definition, and we have no real means to test. So it's a non-subjective fact that we (currently) have only subjective means to determine, and subjective arguments over what we're even talking about. On the topic of sustainability, I recently learned just how much of the global corn crop goes to feed animals: so much that when people talk about the industry of growing corn, they just talk about animal feed. Corn for human consumption is such a tiny slice of the market it only comes up if you zoom in on certain parts.

by ethbro 10y ago

molloy 10y ago

The term you're looking for is lacto-ovo vegetarian.

ergothus 10y ago
That's the term, but most people that don't deal with vegetarians don't know it. (I've also seen a number of vegetarians & pescatarians that don't know it, which is somewhat surprising to me). But yes, I'm an ovo-lacto vegetarian.

ergothus 10y ago

Speaking for myself on a very subjective issue: I do. My gradual elimination of meats was done on a roughly sliding scale of animal awareness - pigs seem more aware than turkeys seem more aware than chickens, and most fish come in below that. I based this mainly on my understanding of there general awareness of the world, which is hardly a strict scientific method, but I was trying to acknowledge the concept you're describing, figuring that while it was all bad, if I wasn't going to immediately do totally right, I should choose to do it in the least bad manner. Insects are actually a point of confusion for me. My general rule of thumb for whether I think I should kill something to eat it (or have someone else kill it for me to eat) is based on my instinctive empathy: If I saw the animal injured, would I feel bad for it? land-based animals - Yes. Fish - Yes. Eggs? No. (lots of issues in the egg industry, but the base concept didn't bother me). Bacteria? No. But this leaves insects in a weird place. I will kill an insect that is a pest to me without much concern. Mosquitos are dead if I get a chance, houseflies are welcome to leave, but if they don't, I can swat them without guilt. Ants, while an absolutely favorite creature of mine, also fall prey to my self-centeredness. BUT - the idea of hundreds/thousands of insects getting ground up DOES bother me. I _think_ that's because I don't empathize with the bugs the way I do with animals, but I don't like what it says about us to kill in such numbers even if I don't empathize directly, Regardless, while I don't have a solid answer, it was easy enough to give up the few foods involved. (Pretty much Junior Mints, in my case)

bitexploder 10y ago

Flirted with stints of vegetarianism. Still eat far less meat than "average" and can go many days without meat. I am okay eating animals, they are tasty. They think, they die, they go to my tummy. I try to eat grass fed and "humane" local stuff these days precisely to avoid issues that occur at mass produced meat factories (antibiotic needs, etc.). This makes meat cost more, which makes me eat less. The central reason for me comes down to sustainability. Eggs and milk are still not the most humane things to me, but they are sustainable and quite a bit better than killing the animals they come from. They cost way less to produce and eggs/cheese/dairy make a lot of tasty stuff I am less willing to give up than meat. We can probably sustain the planet if everyone eats a light to moderate amount of dairy/eggs, but based on what I have read we really can't do that with the amount of meat consumption in America (and other places that are meat heavy in their culture.) Not only that but Americans are used to cheap meats and are very very slowly becoming used to paying for meat at prices where it can be raised more healthily (legitimate free range, zero antibiotics due to much lower animal density, etc.) tl;dr save the planet, and maybe because I occasionally feel bad animals die for me to live a more convenient life. edit: also, regarding the fish only "vegans"...honestly... it is hard enough to safely define one thinking meat from another. I think people do a lot of mental twists and turns and narrative building to convince themselves that something like say, fish, are "lesser" thinking meats. Insects? Fungi? Bacteria? How do you define your thinking meat? The philosophy of this is actually fiendishly difficult if you take it seriously and don't just stop when your brain has convinced you that you have it figured out. I also don't think it is even subjective, even though it is a very passionate subject. At some level if you eat animals you have to accept the consequence and can't just rationalize away you are eating the muscles and fats of an animal that had its own thing going on. I just never felt strongly convinced by the whole strict vegan argument given the amount of energy required to live that way (it is actually hard and difficult to be a really strict Vegan, in my opinion that time can be better spent reducing misery of actual humans in a lot of cases)

ergothus 10y ago
> I also don't think it is even subjective, even though it is a very passionate subject. I'll agree to that. If you have a definition of "thinking/self-aware/conscious/sapient/concept of choice", any given creature either IS or ISN'T. But we can't agree on a definition, and we have no real means to test. So it's a non-subjective fact that we (currently) have only subjective means to determine, and subjective arguments over what we're even talking about. On the topic of sustainability, I recently learned just how much of the global corn crop goes to feed animals: so much that when people talk about the industry of growing corn, they just talk about animal feed. Corn for human consumption is such a tiny slice of the market it only comes up if you zoom in on certain parts.