5 ms·

I'm split on #2. I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inf

I'm split on #2. I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feelings and we are being cruel", my response is "yes, but that is nature." Two qualifiers. Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't. But will I ever "regret" choosing to eat meat, or fault those who do? Not a chance. I'm sure many people will disagree with the following, and I'd hope to hear a response rather than just get downvoted to oblivion, but so long as it is sustainable (which is a BIG qualifier that links heavily with my above statements about technological progress), we are at the top of the food chain, period. I am a predator, and I take pleasure in continuing to be one, to certain degrees. Given that my justification is simply "this is a system that has worked for far longer than humanity has existed" mixed with "but I like it (so long as it does not become destructive to the point of disrupting said system that has existed successfully for so long)" I admit I feel that this is a weak argument. But I've both never found a really compelling counter, nor have I found any particular "holes" in mine. (Aside from the obvious "but it's not sustainable", to which I'd hand wave a bit and blame that more on an unfortunate side effect of market forces than on the choice to eat meat itself, which is also a bit of a reduction problem since the latter powers the former, and turtles all the way down, but I'd mostly respond with that I'd rather look for solutions than knee jerk responses, and personal consumption at this point is NOT going to impact "how things are", perhaps ignoring the wisdom of the whole "be the change you wish to see" etc... (but then, the change I want to see is simply better implementation, not vilification/removal of the "problem", so maybe not?) Wow, this rambled. Sorry about that. This is just an issue that I have convoluted feelings on, as someone who tries to be conscious about both maintainable systems and loving to consume animals.

svantana 13y ago
Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition affects the body. True, but there are societies that are vegetarian and have been for centuries. Apparently veggies are healthy! - You are a predator? I don't know you but I'm willing to bet it's been a while since you hunted down, killed, and ate an animal in the wild. - "The system has worked" - with that kind of reasoning you could justify anything from rape, manslaughter, ostracizing, etc. Being civilized means rising above unhealthy instincts. I think you should probably just stick with "it tastes good". Can't argue with that.
- existencebox 13y ago
  No bait intended, I honestly mean it. I just felt like "it tastes good" being a weak justification since it is by nature very subjective, so I look for a better justification. also, to answer in order: -Indeed, there are multiple approaches, and this is why I find it hard to select one vs. the other. If my body "craves" meat, there's usually a reason due to digestive peptides that the nutrition from the food I'm craving is something that'd be useful. I realize I could with time potentially reprogram this, but, the statement stands. -You'd actually be wrong. I enjoy both bow hunting (which I had the opportunity to learn initially as a boy scout) and game shooting. -If you notice, I qualify that with avoiding creating undue harm. I think it's quite a strawman to draw an equivalence between consuming animals that are killed in a humane fashion with e.g. rape especially. If you kept it to manslaughter, you'd have a stronger point, since I have a hard time arguing against anything outside of specific targeted uses of violence either. (please don't take this as bait; just that there have been wars in history I do not oppose.)
  - nhangen 13y ago
    People crave sugar, nicotine, narcotics, and other things that aren't good for them, so your argument falls apart there. You crave meat for a variety of psychological and physiological reasons, but not necessarily because you're missing something that meat provides. My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to?
scoofy 13y ago
Just because you are a predator, just because it may be "natural," doesn't make our current system of meat production morally acceptable. I generally am sympathetic with what you're saying, however, I'm mostly pescatarian due to the issues you completely overlook. So, without getting into the arguments about whether or not humans ought to eat meat (for argument's sake, let's assume we were carnivores, and could not survive without eating mammalian flesh). I cannot think of a moral framework, besides the laughable "other mammals are not conscious," that would justify the inhumane conditions our mammals we feed on are kept in. Solitary confinement, often not seeing the sun their entire lives, fed corn in buckets rather than they would feed on naturally. For what? So we save a dollar or two on each burger or pork chop we eat? When you really stop to think about it, it's abhorrent. It may be natural to eat meat if you are a predator, but i see no reason why it's natural to torture. And i think that is what the future will look back on and be ashamed of.
- existencebox 13y ago
  In your topic about inhumane treatment, I apologize if I was unclear, I intended to make it very obvious (" Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't.") that this is where I stand. We should strive in all things to cause as little undue harm as possible. (and trust me, I realize the potential conflict with this and advocating eating meat, which is why I try to apply lots of thought to the problem)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- kiba 13y ago
  Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right either.
brortao 13y ago
At the current rate of consumption, it isn't likely that animals will be treated better. A "better implementation" isn't going to happen for a very long time (in the US, 99% of animals are factory farmed [1]). Demand is at such a high rate that it isn't financially feasible to eliminate factory farms. There's also the environmental aspect - meat is very resource-intensive, and a huge source of pollution [2]. A UN report from 2010 stated that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." [3] This goes not only for meat, but for animal products in general (the dairy and egg industries cause just as much, if not more, suffering than the meat industry). Eating meat can be morally justified if it's done in a humane way, I think. The problem is that unless you have your own small-scale farm, it's almost impossible to find animal products that aren't the result of suffering. I don't find it very likely that things will change unless we, as a society, move towards a (much) lower consumption of animal products. [1] http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming [2] http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources/ http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report...
a3_nm 13y ago
> Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make The environment for which your instincts have been tuned has very little to do with the one you are living in. Obesity makes it quite clear that people's instincts are misguiding them, and that our understanding of nutrition is less wrong than instincts. (I am not advocating vegetarianism, just addressing this specific argument.)

svantana 13y ago

Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition affects the body. True, but there are societies that are vegetarian and have been for centuries. Apparently veggies are healthy! - You are a predator? I don't know you but I'm willing to bet it's been a while since you hunted down, killed, and ate an animal in the wild. - "The system has worked" - with that kind of reasoning you could justify anything from rape, manslaughter, ostracizing, etc. Being civilized means rising above unhealthy instincts. I think you should probably just stick with "it tastes good". Can't argue with that.

existencebox 13y ago
No bait intended, I honestly mean it. I just felt like "it tastes good" being a weak justification since it is by nature very subjective, so I look for a better justification. also, to answer in order: -Indeed, there are multiple approaches, and this is why I find it hard to select one vs. the other. If my body "craves" meat, there's usually a reason due to digestive peptides that the nutrition from the food I'm craving is something that'd be useful. I realize I could with time potentially reprogram this, but, the statement stands. -You'd actually be wrong. I enjoy both bow hunting (which I had the opportunity to learn initially as a boy scout) and game shooting. -If you notice, I qualify that with avoiding creating undue harm. I think it's quite a strawman to draw an equivalence between consuming animals that are killed in a humane fashion with e.g. rape especially. If you kept it to manslaughter, you'd have a stronger point, since I have a hard time arguing against anything outside of specific targeted uses of violence either. (please don't take this as bait; just that there have been wars in history I do not oppose.)
- nhangen 13y ago
  People crave sugar, nicotine, narcotics, and other things that aren't good for them, so your argument falls apart there. You crave meat for a variety of psychological and physiological reasons, but not necessarily because you're missing something that meat provides. My argument for not eating meat is simple - why kill something for food if I don't have to?

scoofy 13y ago

Just because you are a predator, just because it may be "natural," doesn't make our current system of meat production morally acceptable. I generally am sympathetic with what you're saying, however, I'm mostly pescatarian due to the issues you completely overlook. So, without getting into the arguments about whether or not humans ought to eat meat (for argument's sake, let's assume we were carnivores, and could not survive without eating mammalian flesh). I cannot think of a moral framework, besides the laughable "other mammals are not conscious," that would justify the inhumane conditions our mammals we feed on are kept in. Solitary confinement, often not seeing the sun their entire lives, fed corn in buckets rather than they would feed on naturally. For what? So we save a dollar or two on each burger or pork chop we eat? When you really stop to think about it, it's abhorrent. It may be natural to eat meat if you are a predator, but i see no reason why it's natural to torture. And i think that is what the future will look back on and be ashamed of.

existencebox 13y ago
In your topic about inhumane treatment, I apologize if I was unclear, I intended to make it very obvious (" Do I think we could be better? (more humane raising and slaughter) Abso-fucking-lutely. Do I think as technology grows, that we should move to more humane options? I would be more appalled if we didn't.") that this is where I stand. We should strive in all things to cause as little undue harm as possible. (and trust me, I realize the potential conflict with this and advocating eating meat, which is why I try to apply lots of thought to the problem)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
kiba 13y ago
Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's right either.

brortao 13y ago

At the current rate of consumption, it isn't likely that animals will be treated better. A "better implementation" isn't going to happen for a very long time (in the US, 99% of animals are factory farmed [1]). Demand is at such a high rate that it isn't financially feasible to eliminate factory farms. There's also the environmental aspect - meat is very resource-intensive, and a huge source of pollution [2]. A UN report from 2010 stated that "a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." [3] This goes not only for meat, but for animal products in general (the dairy and egg industries cause just as much, if not more, suffering than the meat industry). Eating meat can be morally justified if it's done in a humane way, I think. The problem is that unless you have your own small-scale farm, it's almost impossible to find animal products that aren't the result of suffering. I don't find it very likely that things will change unless we, as a society, move towards a (much) lower consumption of animal products. [1] http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming [2] http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources/ http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/meat-wastes... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report...

a3_nm 13y ago

> Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make The environment for which your instincts have been tuned has very little to do with the one you are living in. Obesity makes it quite clear that people's instincts are misguiding them, and that our understanding of nutrition is less wrong than instincts. (I am not advocating vegetarianism, just addressing this specific argument.)