Vegetarianism

[Skeptical]

Ideally a safe clean energy renewable energy source that is found to be widely available would solve pollution, and with widespread recycling programs would solve the level of waste.

 

However both are a century or two off, and if cleaner energy is expensive then the 2nd and 3rd world will continue to pollute until their economies match that or first world countries

Actually they shouldn't be that far off, but big players in the oil industry will do anything to keep generating that profit, the same reason why a drug that could cure many addictions is illegal as the pharmaceutical companies would lose large amounts of profit, and why hemp (a non-psychoactive member of the cannabis genus) is illegal to grow in the US, because the paper mill, cotton, pharmaceutical, and oil industries would all lose large amounts of profit.

 

Wait, what? Corporate interests are a problem when they run a country?

 

As long as corporations are allowed to run amok, there's really not much chance of serious environmental change.

[Furah]

Ideally a safe clean energy renewable energy source that is found to be widely available would solve pollution, and with widespread recycling programs would solve the level of waste.

 

However both are a century or two off, and if cleaner energy is expensive then the 2nd and 3rd world will continue to pollute until their economies match that or first world countries

Actually they shouldn't be that far off, but big players in the oil industry will do anything to keep generating that profit, the same reason why a drug that could cure many addictions is illegal as the pharmaceutical companies would lose large amounts of profit, and why hemp (a non-psychoactive member of the cannabis genus) is illegal to grow in the US, because the paper mill, cotton, pharmaceutical, and oil industries would all lose large amounts of profit.

 

Wait, what? Corporate interests are a problem when they run a country?

 

As long as corporations are allowed to run amok, there's really not much chance of serious environmental change.

No, corporate interests are a problem when they stifle progress. I recently watched a documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car? and it really went into how the rise and fall of the electric car came about. Electric cars could have become commonplace but oil companies stood to lose large amounts of profit so, along with others, did all they could to oppose the production, sale and use of electric car. They mostly succeeded, but with rising costs of petroleum electric cars will most likely become more commonplace.

[Rainbows]

And back on topic slightly, I could become a vegetarian cirumstantially - in fact, when my sister is at home, we mostly eat purely vegetarian dishes. I would, however, definitely miss all the mince based dishes (we eat a lot of mexican and italian meals, so :ohnoes: ).

[Assume Nothing]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

 

Well, that dives into the discussion about humans being glass cannons.

[Sy_Accursed]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

 

While the point us being top may be true it has huge flaws.

 

We msot definitely do not have control over nature that is why every year natural disasters kill so many people. I mean for all our technology we cant stop or even that accurately predict volcanoes, tornadoes, wild fire, earthquakes, tsunami etc.

 

Equally human arguably are not the top of the food chain, strip us back to JUST humans without all our technology and most predators would easily best us, heck heaps of predators can easily best us even with our tech.

[obfuscator]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

 

While the point us being top may be true it has huge flaws.

 

We msot definitely do not have control over nature that is why every year natural disasters kill so many people. I mean for all our technology we cant stop or even that accurately predict volcanoes, tornadoes, wild fire, earthquakes, tsunami etc.

 

Equally human arguably are not the top of the food chain, strip us back to JUST humans without all our technology and most predators would easily best us, heck heaps of predators can easily best us even with our tech.

 

Which is why we developed our technology: because we needed it to survive.

 

Saying that humans wouldn't be at the top of the food chain is unfair. Strip other animals of their claws and teeth, then compare.

[Sy_Accursed]

We have not conquered nature: we have temporary control over it, and the ability to end the world if our insanity ever prevails.

 

The modern world may have been paved over, sanitized, forests gone, rivers damned, mountains removed, and yet we now stand on the precipice of collapse. The evidence shows that we are racing down Hubbert's Peak, our acceleration driven by a suicidal desire to believe a finite resource can be stretched indefinitely. Our water is toxic, our air is poison to breathe, our trash coats the world, clog ecosystems, and our fertilizers turn waterways into massive algae farms.

 

We're holding a metaphorical gun to our collective head, stockpiles of nuclear weapons capable of ending all life several times over, or a far slower and more painful death by ecological suicide. That's one path - not a descent, but a dead end: there simply is nothing that way, a dead end for everything that we know. The second path is that we live. Whether or not we want to make that life anything worth living is a decision that's being made now.

 

We're at the top of the food chain, our technology is far more advanced than that of any other living organism, and we have the ability to [bleep] up the world on such a great magnitude. Sounds an awful lot like we have overthrown nature - for the time being at least, because you are right about the ultimate entropy thing. At the time being, humans hold the largest influence on the world. Whether it was deserved or not is another story.

 

And also, no matter how efficient or well-planned-out we are, we're still all going to die. Of course we could elongate our stay, but you can't really blame humans for their inevitable demise. Taking an opportunity and working with it however you possibly can is a key element of humanity, and when possibility doesn't allow it, nature has taken its title back. We're not there yet. Right now we're alive and kicking.

 

While the point us being top may be true it has huge flaws.

 

We msot definitely do not have control over nature that is why every year natural disasters kill so many people. I mean for all our technology we cant stop or even that accurately predict volcanoes, tornadoes, wild fire, earthquakes, tsunami etc.

 

Equally human arguably are not the top of the food chain, strip us back to JUST humans without all our technology and most predators would easily best us, heck heaps of predators can easily best us even with our tech.

 

Which is why we developed our technology: because we needed it to survive.

 

Saying that humans wouldn't be at the top of the food chain is unfair. Strip other animals of their claws and teeth, then compare.

 

Not really.

Claws and teeth are a part of the animal, we have claws and teeth too (well claws of sorts).

We only best animals through un-natural means.

The food chain is about the natural order, in the natural order many animals easily beat humans away from the top of the food chain.

[obfuscator]

 

Not really.

Claws and teeth are a part of the animal, we have claws and teeth too (well claws of sorts).

We only best animals through un-natural means.

The food chain is about the natural order, in the natural order many animals easily beat humans away from the top of the food chain.

 

I agree, but you're ignoring intelligence as a natural factor in survival. Since intelligence is a natural factor in survival, it should be included. As we used our intelligence rather than our physical assets to survive, what our intelligence created should be allowed.

[Sy_Accursed]

 

Not really.

Claws and teeth are a part of the animal, we have claws and teeth too (well claws of sorts).

We only best animals through un-natural means.

The food chain is about the natural order, in the natural order many animals easily beat humans away from the top of the food chain.

 

I agree, but you're ignoring intelligence as a natural factor in survival. Since intelligence is a natural factor in survival, it should be included. As we used our intelligence rather than our physical assets to survive, what our intelligence created should be allowed.

 

Intelligence is a factor but it is not your intelligence leading to your survival if you are using items created by others.

Heck even with all the tech in the world if you personally were to be plonked down in the middle of nowhere in the sahara or the amazon or the african wilderness you would undoubtedly die despite the tech and intelligence. Unless you happen to be a survival specialist and even then you are not beating nature you are relying upon it; assuming of course you don;t get killed by an predator while you sleep or run out of tech to fend them off.

[obfuscator]

 

Not really.

Claws and teeth are a part of the animal, we have claws and teeth too (well claws of sorts).

We only best animals through un-natural means.

The food chain is about the natural order, in the natural order many animals easily beat humans away from the top of the food chain.

 

I agree, but you're ignoring intelligence as a natural factor in survival. Since intelligence is a natural factor in survival, it should be included. As we used our intelligence rather than our physical assets to survive, what our intelligence created should be allowed.

 

Intelligence is a factor but it is not your intelligence leading to your survival if you are using items created by others.

Heck even with all the tech in the world if you personally were to be plonked down in the middle of nowhere in the sahara or the amazon or the african wilderness you would undoubtedly die despite the tech and intelligence. Unless you happen to be a survival specialist and even then you are not beating nature you are relying upon it; assuming of course you don;t get killed by an predator while you sleep or run out of tech to fend them off.

 

Undoubtedly die? Unlikely...you may well die but I'd say its far from certain (except in the sahara, and most animals would die too).

 

Intelligence also allows you to use items, not just create them.

[Sy_Accursed]

There are many animals native to all thoose areas who easily survive.

A human or even group of humans however would quite easily die if they did have specific expertise or sheer luck to avoid the predators n find a way out.

[obfuscator]

There are many animals native to all thoose areas who easily survive.

A human or even group of humans however would quite easily die if they did have specific expertise or sheer luck to avoid the predators n find a way out.

Yes, and many who wouldn't.

 

I think you give humans no credit whatsoever. With our intelligence, we can figure out how to gather food, create rudimentary weapons, and even find our way out of a large forest. Yes, some people wouldn't handle it well. Some would probably be okay.

[Alg]

There are many animals native to all thoose areas who easily survive.

A human or even group of humans however would quite easily die if they did have specific expertise or sheer luck to avoid the predators n find a way out.

Yes, and many who wouldn't.

 

I think you give humans no credit whatsoever. With our intelligence, we can figure out how to gather food, create rudimentary weapons, and even find our way out of a large forest. Yes, some people wouldn't handle it well. Some would probably be okay.

That intelligence has also led to us inhabiting many places that should otherwise inhospitable, which ultimately caused a lot of the problems that people say vegetarianism would solve and many that it doesn't. People live in the middle of deserts where you can't grow anything, for example, which we solved through irrigation and imports, though those have problems of their own (such as inefficiency).

 

That's what makes humans awesome in general. We're weak and slow but made up for it by being the best at manipulating out environment (Though of course we aren't the only species to do so. They can get away with doing so 'naturally', of course).

[Skeptical]

We are excellent at manipulating our environment, but all evidence is now pointing towards us not having recognized the limits that our biosphere imposes on us.

 

Sure, humanity as a species has resembled a Ferrari in terms of advancement over the past few hundred years, but when we hit the wall, we're going to be even worse off than we were before.

[Alg]

The optimist would say that we're smart enough to think of another way out, as we tend to do. Overcoming that kind of limit is something that we aren't bad at, which is how we got huge cities in the middle of the desert.

 

The pessimist would say that there are limits to how many limits we can actually overcome.

 

Either way, not going to be easy.

[Assume Nothing]

I think we are drifting more and more offtopic in this off-topic thread that I should create another thread for this discussion. Hmm

 

On Topic; I've tried Quorn instead of Mince and it doesn't taste the same at all. Why would you replace meat with fake meat? How is that any more ethical than eating real meat?

[obfuscator]

I think we are drifting more and more offtopic in this off-topic thread that I should create another thread for this discussion. Hmm

 

On Topic; I've tried Quorn instead of Mince and it doesn't taste the same at all. Why would you replace meat with fake meat? How is that any more ethical than eating real meat?

I don't think it's "more ethical" but the reasoning is obvious, since as you said, "it isn't real meat".

[Cacmypants]

These animals have no control over their fate, they're headed for the slaughterhouse from the moment they're born... and the image of baby chickens being passed along a conveyor belt is just monstrous. Although there won't be much reason to be a vegetarian once we can properly grow pure meat fibres from a few cells.

 

btw, civilization was built on agriculture and slavery. Notice how much of the 'savage' races around the world only ever had elements of one, but not both.

[Assume Nothing]

These animals have no control over their fate, they're headed for the slaughterhouse from the moment they're born... and the image of baby chickens being passed along a conveyor belt is just monstrous. Although there won't be much reason to be a vegetarian once we can properly grow pure meat fibres from a few cells.

 

btw, civilization was built on agriculture and slavery. Notice how much of the 'savage' races around the world only ever had elements of one, but not both.

 

First of all, I feel this topic could be raised again due to increased user traffic (thank you free trading on RuneScape), and that there has been no similar threads for a while now. I know I'm bumping a two month thread.

 

Secondly, I'd like to point out that most of this quote is an appeal to pity. It is irrelevant whether baby chickens passing through a conveyor belt's image is 'monstrous' or not, and even if it's true, it doesn't justify why one should become a vegetarian.

 

I do agree about the point that the cattle is raised to be eaten though, which is questionable. However, becoming a vegetarian/vegan does not stop the Food Industry from raising the same amount of cattle, unless a mass amount of people stop demanding the meat products raised unethically.

 

Simply refusing to consume what is already slaughtered, butchered and cooked is simply wasting resources (assuming it doesn't get eaten by anyone else). For example: You may be at a Bbq, and there are hot dogs and burgers to feed everyone, but you simply refuse to eat the products and they must be thrown away.

 

Also, it is a false dilemma that the only choices are to eat meat and cause 'x claim' or be a vegetarian and cause 'y benefit'. It excludes the possibility of the third option: to cut down on meat consumption. To stop eating meat altogether is unnecessary to keep 'y benefit'.

 

Even if by eating meat, then cattle would be raised to be slaughtered, it still doesn't justify why we should stop eating meat altogether.

 

There are a number of alternative solutions - To eat less meat, so the ethical 'consequences' aren't so 'big'; To inform the government about the ethical impact and social rejection of raising animals to be slaughtered, and vote in a new law against it (note: This only stops the Meat Industry's operations, and still allows people to eat meat freely); To only consume meat from farms with ethical practices.

 

Lastly, I am unsure how your last statement was relevant to the argument, thus I ignored it.

 

Feel free to debate (Though I will post in 3 hours because I need -some- sleep)

[MissFrodo]

I agree

[mad4u689]

I think we are drifting more and more offtopic in this off-topic thread that I should create another thread for this discussion. Hmm

 

On Topic; I've tried Quorn instead of Mince and it doesn't taste the same at all. Why would you replace meat with fake meat? How is that any more ethical than eating real meat?

 

I think Quorn is absolutely delicious. I don't think it tastes much like meat (though I don't really remember because I haven't eaten meat in over 10 years), but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it in its own right. However, for marketing purposes, it's often easier to market it as "fake <meat>" because it gives you some idea how best to prepare it and reminds you that what you're eating is similar to meat in certain nutritional respects (i.e. generally high-protein).

 

However, if you take the premise that it's more ethical not to kill animals that have suffered in factory farms than to kill animals that have suffered in factory farms (and I do take that premise), of course it's more ethical than eating real meat. The argument is then fairly obvious.

 

So what you really question is that premise: is it ethical to kill animals that have suffered in factory farms? An either/or answer is probably insufficient here. There are ranges of morality. It's probably more ethical to kill a 90-year-old man who had only a few months to live than to kill a 40-year-old individual raising two babies in the prime of her life, but both are "unethical". It's probably less ethical to fake-out your friend with a disgusting web image than to send them a legit Youtube video, but both are generally accepted and considered "ethical."

 

Personally, I think killing animals is more "unethical" than "ethical" and should be avoided if possible. I think killing a pig (very smart, as far as animals humans eat go) is far less ethical than killing a shrimp (arguably not conscious at all). I'd kill an animal for survival, or to save someone else's life, etc. However, since I'm relatively privileged and can access high-quality healthy vegetarian food, it is the right decision.

[das]

is this considered trolling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZDv9pgHp8Q

 

I personally think it's ok to eat meat.

 

Let's say Cows were the dominant species on earth. and just as smart as us.

 

Do you think cows would have any moral qualms about not slaughtering intelligent humans? Who are capable of being used as beasts of burden, to produce milk and meat?

 

I think your ethics depend on your lifestyle. Personally I have no problems with Cows, Pigs, Chickens or Fish as sources of meat, however living in the south, I generally pass on Deer, and refuse to eat Rabbit (Too cute). I guess for chicken, I see them as an inferior species, and thats Darwinism at it's finest.

[Rock Hard]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=sponsor

 

sponsor a veggie today

[LitterBug]

is this considered trolling?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZDv9pgHp8Q

 

I personally think it's ok to eat meat.

 

Let's say Cows were the dominant species on earth. and just as smart as us.

 

Do you think cows would have any moral qualms about not slaughtering intelligent humans? Who are capable of being used as beasts of burden, to produce milk and meat?

 

I think your ethics depend on your lifestyle. Personally I have no problems with Cows, Pigs, Chickens or Fish as sources of meat, however living in the south, I generally pass on Deer, and refuse to eat Rabbit (Too cute). I guess for chicken, I see them as an inferior species, and thats Darwinism at it's finest.

 

Haha, I don't think that cows being the dominant species on earth argument works very well. Not that they couldn't be the dominant species, but this whole moral qualm point of view.

 

If you think about what you said - it sounds like cows would eat humans because they are superior. For some reason, that reminded me of wars/fights. In some cases, the victor would destroy the opposition and slaughter tens of thousands of people. However, I've yet to hear an account of a story where the victor began to eat the losers.

 

I know my argument is a little farfetched but I don't think we eat cows just because we're "superior" and they can provide milk and meat for us.

[Orpheus]

Humanity as a whole fits the "glass cannon" trope perfectly. We really are weak compared to most other species, we'd outright lose to stuff like bears, lions, etc.. Yet we can make weapons that would turn this entire planet into a smoldering crater. Lots of power, but little defense overall.