Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron Tomkins sees no difference between those sheep and two cabbages torn from the ground. For the record : I do see a difference, and I'm sure you do too.

Don't put words in my mouth. It's not that I see no difference between sheep and cabbage. My point is: if the main reason we're deciding to become vegetarians is because we don't want living creatures getting killed, then we sure as hell don't think of plants as living creatures (I stress the if, because I'm not implying that everyone does that. But a lot of vegetarians I met seem to lean mostly on that aspect).

Either way, living creatures are going to get eaten. Plant or animal.

You know, I get sad when I see an animal dying. I also get sad when I see a forest burning. Why is that? Why don't I feel hurt when I see a match burning or a piece of plastic burning? Could it be because plants are also living creatures?

Cockroaches are living creatures too. I assure you most vegetarians (at least the ones I know) wouldn't care for getting rid of that giant cockroach in their bathroom if the only way to do it was killing it. But to us, a cockroach is a disgusting creature. We would probably be happy if someone told us there is a way to get rid of cockroaches forever and not affect the natural cycle.

Again, it's a matter of what we feel empathy towards.

 

[quarky]

For the most part, we modern humans are far removed from our food sources.
I don't think its a good idea to be so removed.
Most meat eaters I know have no clue as to what is involved in their meat.
If they did, I believe they would think differently about it.

Some things are just disgusting to most of us, and that's enough reason to avoid those things...even if its not quite rational. The 'gut' reaction has some purpose.

I have trouble with the argument that eating plant foods is violent. It certainly doesn't have to be. In the case of fruits, the tree doesn't get killed when we eat the apple.
With most grains, the plant is already done when we harvest its seeds. The mother plant is insured of reproduction through our symbiosis with it. We save a few of the seeds, and nurture more plants. There's no violence in it, unless its in our violence toward the soil...which is an issue in most modern agriculture...and one that will come back to haunt.

When people are more connected to their food, they tend to have more empathy. They also tend to eat less. When foods are highly processed, and we are far removed from that process, its easy to over-eat. If we have to clean our fish, for instance, we tend not to eat as much of it as we would if it just comes in a big package of filets without eyes and guts.

 

[Trakar]

For the most part, we modern humans are far removed from our food sources.
I don't think its a good idea to be so removed.
Most meat eaters I know have no clue as to what is involved in their meat.
If they did, I believe they would think differently about it...

While I generally agree with much of what you are saying, I disagree with your sentiment that a more personal intimacy with the harvesting and preparation of our food would make us either eat less, or tend toward not eating meat.

In general, those that are "squeamish" about killing or preparing meat, are only so because they haven't had much exposure to it. Personally, I think that all children should have much greater exposure to ranches, hunting and fishing.

I've nothing against those who choose to not eat meat, but, I am rather offended by those who somehow seem to imply that I have a distorted or "improper" moral outlook because I eat meat and am intimately involved in the harvest and preparation of the vast majority of that meat for consumption.

 

[Elaedith]

Don't put words in my mouth. It's not that I see no difference between sheep and cabbage. My point is: if the main reason we're deciding to become vegetarians is because we don't want living creatures getting killed, then we sure as hell don't think of plants as living creatures (I stress the if, because I'm not implying that everyone does that. But a lot of vegetarians I met seem to lean mostly on that aspect).

Either way, living creatures are going to get eaten. Plant or animal.

I have personally never encountered a vegetarian who said that their reason is not wanting 'living creatures' being killed, unless by 'living creatures' they mean animals specifically

You know, I get sad when I see an animal dying. I also get sad when I see a forest burning. Why is that? Why don't I feel hurt when I see a match burning or a piece of plastic burning? Could it be because plants are also living creatures?

More likely because a match and a piece of plastic have no enviromental, social or aesthetic value. I assume you would feel something if you saw a famous work of art, or someone's home burning.

Cockroaches are living creatures too. I assure you most vegetarians (at least the ones I know) wouldn't care for getting rid of that giant cockroach in their bathroom if the only way to do it was killing it. But to us, a cockroach is a disgusting creature. We would probably be happy if someone told us there is a way to get rid of cockroaches forever and not affect the natural cycle.

Again, it's a matter of what we feel empathy towards.

Feeling more empathy towards animals that have a greater capacity for awareness and suffering is hardly irrational. If you believe that awareness and capacity for suffering depend on the brain, particularly cortical regions, then its a fair bet that animals with less developed brains or no cortex suffer less fear and less conscious awareness of pain.
Many people feel different levels of empathy for a human embryo and a full-term human baby. Or even if they don't, they accept that killing one is more justifiable than the other. Why is that? Is it totally irrational? Both are living creatures, and even the same species.
If we accept distinctions between human embryos and more developed humans, there is no reason to scoff at distinctions between animal species with very different levels of brain complexity.

 

[Tumbleweed]

Christ the Meany fed poor little fish to the masses. Meanwhile soft hearted Rednecks use barbless hooks and practice catch and release when fishing for bass

 

[quarky]

While I generally agree with much of what you are saying, I disagree with your sentiment that a more personal intimacy with the harvesting and preparation of our food would make us either eat less, or tend toward not eating meat.

In general, those that are "squeamish" about killing or preparing meat, are only so because they haven't had much exposure to it. Personally, I think that all children should have much greater exposure to ranches, hunting and fishing.

I've nothing against those who choose to not eat meat, but, I am rather offended by those who somehow seem to imply that I have a distorted or "improper" moral outlook because I eat meat and am intimately involved in the harvest and preparation of the vast majority of that meat for consumption.

I would argue that our nomadic ancestors, for the most part, consumed edible vegetation, insects, small animals and such, gathered by women. This diet was augmented by the occasional large mammal, procurred by males that wandered off from the tribe in pursuit of such food.

Its not so much that meat was eschewed; it was a matter of effort involved.
As far as eating less when being more connected to one's food source, I would argue that there is more satisfaction; more gratification; more sum time involved in the whole eating thing...when we have more involvement.

This point is subtle, yet relevant, imho.
When country kids go out to pick blackberries, they eat all they want. Its a slow process compared to a city kid getting an analogous fix with a processed berry treat, wherein one can consume the equivilent calories in a mere instant.

We like to eat. Trying to get a meal of black walnuts by cracking nuts and picking out the goodies will involve one's eating urge for hours instead of minutes.

Does this make sense?

 

[Trakar]

I would argue that our nomadic ancestors, for the most part, consumed edible vegetation, insects, small animals and such, gathered by women. This diet was augmented by the occasional large mammal, procurred by males that wandered off from the tribe in pursuit of such food.

Its not so much that meat was eschewed; it was a matter of effort involved.
As far as eating less when being more connected to one's food source, I would argue that there is more satisfaction; more gratification; more sum time involved in the whole eating thing...when we have more involvement.

This point is subtle, yet relevant, imho.
When country kids go out to pick blackberries, they eat all they want. Its a slow process compared to a city kid getting an analogous fix with a processed berry treat, wherein one can consume the equivilent calories in a mere instant.

We like to eat. Trying to get a meal of black walnuts by cracking nuts and picking out the goodies will involve one's eating urge for hours instead of minutes.

Does this make sense?

I do understand what you are striving for, but I feel that the comparisons aren't legitimate, in that you seem to be conflating the difficulty/time of
individual hand and primitive harvesting with "intimate involvement," and thus a reduced consumption merely because of the time and effort required. This, IMO, is improper, however, for any number of reasons, among these:

1) I can use advanced and even mechanical food harvesting methodologies and still produce organic, healthful, sustainably grown/raised meat and vegetables. True, I can hunt and gather (and even this can be enormously enhanced by modern technology), but farming and ranching is no less an intimate involvement with the food, it just produces it with much less effort and in much greater abundance.

2) Just because it requires some physical labor to harvest foods, this does not in itself eliminate gluttony or overeating (there have almost always been some overweight people, and even a few grossly obese people). In fact, those who must expend a lot of calories involved in gathering and processing foods, generally require a much higher calorie intake just to maintain health and the status quo.

 

[quarky]

Obesity is a luxury afforded by agriculture, animal husbandry and consolidation of power. Prior to such advancements, a fat human was as peculiar as a fat rat.

At any rate, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not conducive to obesity, in spite of the high caloric demand. Most meat (not sea mammals) was short on fat before grain feeding became the norm.

I have almost nothing to back up that claim, btw...but you're being gratuitously argumentative, no?

 

[Crundy]

I find that most vegetarians / vegans don't eat meat because of they way the animals are treated, which is fair enough. I don't eat fois gras, because of the horrible way the birds are force fed, but will happily eat a free range chicken that appears to have led a good life.

What I object to is people (usually vegans) who (as you say in your OP) claim that it is unhealthy for humans to eat meat, or that evolution denotes we should not eat meat, which is clearly b*llocks.

How about http://whatstheharm.net/vegetarianismveganism.html ?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I have personally never encountered a vegetarian who said that their reason is not wanting 'living creatures' being killed, unless by 'living creatures' they mean animals specifically
More likely because a match and a piece of plastic have no enviromental, social or aesthetic value. I assume you would feel something if you saw a famous work of art, or someone's home burning. Feeling more empathy towards animals that have a greater capacity for awareness and suffering is hardly irrational. If you believe that awareness and capacity for suffering depend on the brain, particularly cortical regions, then its a fair bet that animals with less developed brains or no cortex suffer less fear and less conscious awareness of pain.

I apologize for using the burning forest example, since I clearly made a mistake. I would indeed feel sad if I saw a great work of art burned down; and that's precisely what I'm talking about. The problem is about Empathy.

I can feel empathy towards a living creature or I can feel empathy towards a completely fictional non-existant thing (such as Wall E)

That's the reason I believe most people turn to vegetarianism. Empathy.

I don't smoke primarily because I know for a fact that it will trash my lungs. It will cause serious permanent damage to my organism in the long run. I haven't had any vegetarian give me serious scientific evidence that eating meat (while still eating a balance diet that includes vegetables as well) will cause a damage that's equally guaranteed as the damage from smoking.

The study on the food that's used for feeding animals that we eat and how that food could be used for our consumption as well; is not demonstrative of harm inherent in meat consumption. That's just going on another tangent on "why we shouldn't eat meat". What if we could find a way to equate the food that's used to feed these animals, or somehow (hipotetically speaking) normalize these numbers so that there's no such waste? Would these vegetarians start eating meat after that? I don't think so.

Many people feel different levels of empathy for a human embryo and a full-term human baby. Or even if they don't, they accept that killing one is more justifiable than the other. Why is that? Is it totally irrational? Both are living creatures, and even the same species.

I don't know. You tell me if it's totally irrational. I happen to think that being selective about these things shows a certain level of inconsistency in the argument: We choose based on what's convenient for our belief.

If we accept distinctions between human embryos and more developed humans, there is no reason to scoff at distinctions between animal species with very different levels of brain complexity.

Why should we accept these distinctions? I happen to think that a living creature is a living creature. I don't think that smaller levels of brain compleity justifies killing the animal.

That's my personal opinion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My only reasons for being vegetarian are moral/ethical. I'm proof that vegetarianism does not equate with a healthy diet. I'm a total junk food junky.

Most of the vegetarians I know (maybe even all of them) don't make health claims.

My point is: if the main reason we're deciding to become vegetarians is because we don't want living creatures getting killed, then we sure as hell don't think of plants as living creatures (I stress the if, because I'm not implying that everyone does that. But a lot of vegetarians I met seem to lean mostly on that aspect).

I start from the premise that unnecessarily causing suffering is wrong. (It is an axiom--I cannot prove it.) There is no evidence that cabbages suffer (in any realistic meaning of the word). The existence of vegetarians shows that it's not necessary to eat animals (regardless of how we evolved or what other animals eat).

The rebuttal to my position is to ask whether I'd still be vegetarian if all the food animals were guaranteed not to have been caused to suffer unnecessarily, and my answer is I don't know since I don't live in a world where that is possible. There are some 6.7 billion humans now, and if the majority of them eat meat with some regularity, our food animals will continue to be caused unnecessary suffering.

 

[quarky]

Belaboring my point, we humans evolved with a sane oral fixation...it was fairly safe to eat whatever you could, whenever you could. Hang-ups about this are a luxury of modern life.

My hunch about a lot of modern human neurosis is that it relates to a basic non-gratification of our innate oral fixation.

In urban life, going out to eat satisfies some of this; some are willing to wait in line for their nutrients. If we were able to swallow pills in the morning that would satisfy all our nutrient needs, we'd be starving in some other way.

Bacteria are probably the best and most efficient food we can raise these days...even more efficient than insects, yeast and algae...yet, we remain disgusted by the prospect.

We are some primitive beasts, at heart.
The only thing as dumb as how we do food, that I can think of, is the qwerty keyboard.

(what's up with that collective retardation?)

 

[Trakar]

Obesity is a luxury afforded by agriculture, animal husbandry and consolidation of power. Prior to such advancements, a fat human was as peculiar as a fat rat.

At any rate, a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is not conducive to obesity, in spite of the high caloric demand. Most meat (not sea mammals) was short on fat before grain feeding became the norm.

I have almost nothing to back up that claim, btw...but you're being gratuitously argumentative, no?

Not intentionally so, perhaps a bit defensively assertive, but not overly argumentive solely for the purpose of arguing.

I should have broken off the comment about calories into a separate point it doesn't really go with the issue concerning overeating and obesity (which, in many cases is actually often at least as much a genetic propensity issue, as a gluttony habit issue).

Regardless, I understand your concerns and issues and certainly find myself in agreement with some of the sentiments. I feel that those who choose a vegetarian lifestyle are welcome to it, but should not attempt to justify such choices in a manner that seems to attempt to impugn the morality or ethics of those who choose differently, at least not with blanket statements. I apologize if you perceived in gratuitous argumentation in my manner or words.

 

[CapelDodger]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'll confess to a somewhat provocative exegesis .

It's not that I see no difference between sheep and cabbage. My point is: if the main reason we're deciding to become vegetarians is because we don't want living creatures getting killed, then we sure as hell don't think of plants as living creatures (I stress the if, because I'm not implying that everyone does that. But a lot of vegetarians I met seem to lean mostly on that aspect).

(That's not my experience, for what it's worth.)

Elaedith has pretty much made the points that I would. Empathy is, indeed, an important element, and it's animals we most of us feel empathy with (if at all), not plants.

There's also the matter of how much we care about the subject - there are people who would agree that there's something a bit icky about meat but they've more pressing matters to worry about. As long as their meat doesn't come looking too much like the animal it came from they don't pay it much thought. For whatever reason, I do care about it.

You know, I get sad when I see an animal dying. I also get sad when I see a forest burning. Why is that? Why don't I feel hurt when I see a match burning or a piece of plastic burning? Could it be because plants are also living creatures?

I was greatly saddened when a lovely old house and garden that I knew were replaced by sixteen jerry-built dwelling-units for commuters. Would I have sacrificed an animal to stop it? I'm not sure. (Since the house in question was a vicarage, I doubt I'd have got much thanks for trying it .)

All the same, I didn't empathise with the house or the beautiful garden. I would have empathsied with the goat on the altar as I slit its throat.

 

[CapelDodger]

Belaboring my point, we humans evolved with a sane oral fixation...it was fairly safe to eat whatever you could, whenever you could. Hang-ups about this are a luxury of modern life.

My hunch about a lot of modern human neurosis is that it relates to a basic non-gratification of our innate oral fixation.

Our artifical modern environment leaves the oral fixation vulnerable to subversion. We naturally gorge on concentrated fats, salt and sugars because in our natural environment we didn't get the chance every day. Now we do, in most cases.

In urban life, going out to eat satisfies some of this; some are willing to wait in line for their nutrients.

I suspect we're also missing a social gratification when it comes to eating. It used to be a communal activity, but that's less and less the case. Personally, I enjoy nothing more than a four-hour dinner-party with good company. Or a barbecue, or toasting marshmallows around a bonfire. There's a basic, emotional satisfaction in it.

If we were able to swallow pills in the morning that would satisfy all our nutrient needs, we'd be starving in some other way.

We'd be deeply sad . As a good (vegetarian) friend of mine says, "Some people eat to live, I live to eat".

Bacteria are probably the best and most efficient food we can raise these days...even more efficient than insects, yeast and algae...yet, we remain disgusted by the prospect.

I'm not. Yet some people are disgusted by the idea that there might be an admixture of horse in their burger. Go figure.

We are some primitive beasts, at heart.

Absolutely. Rubes at large in the big city.

 

[volatile]

I start from the premise that unnecessarily causing suffering is wrong. (It is an axiom--I cannot prove it.)

As I said in my post (which no-one responded to! ), I don't think that that's an untenable or outlandish axiom. In fact, it follows from the broader ethics which has lead to the introduction of animal cruelty legislation, and the unwillingness of people to eat dogs whilst they're totally happy to eat pigs.

I think non-dogmatic vegetarianism (and I'd probably go as far as saying "non-dogmatic veganism") is the most rational diet for someone living in a developed economy in the 21st century...

 

[Terry]

I think non-dogmatic vegetarianism (and I'd probably go as far as saying "non-dogmatic veganism") is the most rational diet for someone living in a developed economy in the 21st century...

I dunno... I'm vegan, but I have a hard time justifying why I'm okay with spraying the house for invasive ants, but I won't eat lobster, other than on the basis that "I don't wanna". So I don't think my behavior is driven entirely by rationality, although I do think that eating lower down the food chain is likely a resource-saver.

 

[CapelDodger]

I should have broken off the comment about calories into a separate point it doesn't really go with the issue concerning overeating and obesity (which, in many cases is actually often at least as much a genetic propensity issue, as a gluttony habit issue).

Gluttony is such an ugly word, don't you think? The "genetic propensity" influence strikes me as doubtful; the poor used to be distinguished by thinness, whereas now it's more by obesity. Social mobility certainly doesn't explain that.

I tend towards the explanation that our natural response to fat, salt, and sugar has been subverted for commercial ends. All are now cheap to produce, and to process into the foods marketed to the masses, all on an industrial scale. You can now elect to have extra fat injected into your pizza pie-crust. I mean to say ...

One thing that can be said of all vegetarians is that they've given some thought to their diet, even if it goes no further (as with the Juggler ). When it comes to processed foods vegetarian options overlap with the "healthy eating" market-sector, which is far more important commercially. So, coincidentally if nothing else, vegetarians are less prone - in the modern world - to obesity.

If I'm right, we'll see it reflected in death-rates as obesity really starts to bite. So to speak .

 

[volatile]

I dunno... I'm vegan, but I have a hard time justifying why I'm okay with spraying the house for invasive ants, but I won't eat lobster, other than on the basis that "I don't wanna". So I don't think my behavior is driven entirely by rationality, although I do think that eating lower down the food chain is likely a resource-saver.

I think it can be justified if you take a utilitarian approach. Killing animals for food is unnecessary, as I can survive on plants. Killing ants invading my home is probably necessary if I want to carry on living my life in a reasonably comfortable manner. It's a cost/benefit thing.

I wouldn't randomly squish ants for fun, or kill them if they weren't doing me any harm, so I don't think that's an inconsistent stance.

It's this same logic that means I'm not 100% against animal testing for medical purposes, for example. Dogmatic veganism can be pretty irrational, as often it relies on some pretty ill-defined metaphysical principles, but that's not where I'm coming from at all.

 

[CapelDodger]

My only reasons for being vegetarian are moral/ethical. I'm proof that vegetarianism does not equate with a healthy diet. I'm a total junk food junky.

The only good things that have ever come out of the States are the Zippo lighter, the Les Paul guitar, and phone-in pizza .