Vegetarianism versus Veganism versus Meat Eating

[RenaissanceBiker]

Whew! I just read this thread and have a few comments.

If you eat meat you probably eat too much of it (based on the latest health recommendations). How many years of health would you be willing to trade for your excessive meat habit?

I ride motorcycles knowing all the remaining years of my life could be traded in by one left-turning car. I don't know how many years I give up by living my life the way I do, but it's the life I want and can afford. That would not be a good excuse to rob banks but it is sufficient to eat a steak.

Not sure if this is a very good argument for eating meat, not least of which because there are plenty of healthy vegans out there. The argument seems to be that your personal convenience matters more than any concievable harm caused to animals in the process of raising them for slaughter. I'm actually reminded of a brief thought experience I ran across a number of years ago, The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle:

The excerpt above has nothing to do with vegetarianism, but the underlying principles of the moral dilemma are the same: do you sacrifice a small amount of convenience and comfort on behalf of another person's life, or do you pay no attention?

I generally think the scenario is comparable to vegetarianism: namely that you are fully aware that you *could* be a vegan, probably without a tremendous amount of effort, but it's inconvenient. I'm not denying that your argument might be factually correct, but I'd be personally interested if you yourself feel that its "good" argument, one that you'd feel comfortable defending if the same principle were extended to the treatment of humans?

It's not a good arguement. Saving the life of a child is not the same as ordering a salad. I would save the life of a child if it cost me my job. If a stray cat was hungry and wet I would keep walking.

As I said previously, the physiology of animals (especially mammals) is very close to humans. If I stick a knife into a live animal I can be fairly safe in assuming that animal feels pain. Though they are incapable of telling us what they are experiencing, animals act similarly to humans when they react to pain, fear and death.

Therefore it is easier to emphasize with the plight and suffering of an animal and less so for a carrot, which no matter how much you threaten it, no matter how many times you plunge a knife into it, just lies there.

Of course it is. When I shoot a deer I try to take the most humane shot possible to minimize its suffering. I still want to put it in my freezer.

I really just think these kinds of arguments are so ridiculous. We shouldn't care about trying to at least raise and kill animals humanely because lions wouldn't do the same to us? That's the yard stick by which you measure your expectation of humanity? Lions? When a new male lion takes over a pride, the first thing he does is kill all the cubs. I certainly hope to obtain a higher level of behavior than lions. But hey, if you think killing your stepkids is a cool way to live, then by all means, tell me how you base your morality by the lion standard.

And actually, a factory farm raised animal is given a far crueler life than the prey of a lion, because lions don't capture their prey, hold it in captivity for years in filthy conditions so small they can't even turn around, overfeed them with crappy food that gives them horrible digestive problems, and inject their prey with hormones. So really, what you're arguing is that we should be far worse than lions in terms of how we treat our food.

And as far as "lions wouldn't give us the same consideration and ensure a humane death!" No, they wouldn't, because they lack the mental capacity to ensure a humane death for its prey, or to even contemplate the morality of such a thing. We have the mental capacity to give our food a good life before we eat it. By your logic, if I see a kitten drowning in a pool and I could easily save it, I shouldn't do so, because the kitten wouldn't save me. Veterinarians should all quit their jobs because there are no animal doctors which treat humans.

Actually, if you're talking about our capacity for empathy and our ability to reduce suffering, we absolutely do have the capability to be better than other animals, and many, many people are.

Finally, your argument is made even more nonsensible because we typically do not eat predator animals, we eat herbivore animals which wouldn't rip our throats out if given the opportunity. So the "they'd do it to me!" doesn't work because actually no, no they would not.

One of the reasons I hunt deer is because they are wild and free. It reduces the amount of farm raised meat I would normally consume. I respect your position and think you have made some great posts in this thread. But I want to point out that it is possible to eat meat and still be empathetic towards your prey. I respect the work of Temple Grandin to make slaughter houses more humane to the animals processed while making the operation of such facilities more efficient. We shouldn't be cruel to our food.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

SC pointed out that most people answer my previous question assuming doing X will knock Y years off their life, but up to death they'll have a high quality of life. Unfortunately life is rarely that kind. More typically doing X will knock Y years off your life and result in Z years of reduced quality of life before death finally comes.

What health risks would get you to eat less meat?

E.g., if eating your current amount of meat resulted in a tenfold increase in developing dementia by age 60, would you reduce the amount of meat you consume?

 

[tesscaline]

Even more strange (although in my experience not particularly sanctimonious) are raw foodists who are NOT vegetarians. Raw meat and veggies diet...

[Edited] And raw eggs. Yes, I know someone who actually mixes raw eggs and raw hamburger and eats that. At least they are farm-raised.

You mean, they eat steak tartare? How is that strange? Normal (non-raw foodists) people have been doing that for a very very long time.

The japanese eat a lot of raw fish, and have for centuries. Is that strange too?

The Inuit also eat raw organ meat to ensure their nutritional stability. Are they strange?

What about body-builders who would drink raw eggs straight? And people who eat carpaccio?

Look, I'm not a raw foodist, but really. I've eaten raw meat and eggs and not thought about it twice. Heck, I regularly enjoy eating raw fish, and would eat more raw steak if I could justify the costs. There's nothing wrong with eating these things raw (as long as proper food safety guidelines are followed). And I don't know why it should be considered strange when various societies have been doing it for centuries, if not millennia.

I'll agree that it's "strange" to think that cooking food is "bad" and to exist ONLY by eating raw foods. But it's only strange because it's pushing the idea to the extreme. If the decision is made because "hey, I just like how it tastes uncooked" then I have no issue. It's when it becomes some woo-ish statement about health or about morality that it really becomes "odd" to me.

 

[Mark6]

I'll agree that it's "strange" to think that cooking food is "bad" and to exist ONLY by eating raw foods. But it's only strange because it's pushing the idea to the extreme.

Yes, that's what I meant. I eat sushi too.

 

[tesscaline]

What health risks would get you to eat less meat?

E.g., if eating your current amount of meat resulted in a tenfold increase in developing dementia by age 60, would you reduce the amount of meat you consume?

Lets turn this around:

What health risks would get you to eat more meat?

If eating your current amount of meat resulted in a tenfold increase in you developing a serious B vitamin deficiency by age 60, would you increase the amount of meat you consume?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

What health risks would get you to eat less meat?

I don't rightly know. There's too many unknowns to make a clear statement of personal policy. If there's a rattlesnake coiled around a plate of prime rib, I might avoid that. If I was real hungry I might eat them both. I'm not a cannibal but if you and I were standed on a deserted island, you would be in serious trouble when the rest of the food ran out.

 

[Belz...]

Seems to me the point was Furcifer somehow knows how many vegetarians and meat-eaters discuss an issue and the inherent quality of their rationality.

In order to know these things, Furcifer most possess knowledge or mental capabilities that are God-like.

No, that's your twisted nonsensical interpretation of his post. I didn't read it that way at all.

 

[Belz...]

What health risks would get you to eat less meat?

Who cares ?

 

[citizenzen]

No, that's your twisted nonsensical interpretation of his post. I didn't read it that way at all.

Really?

Well, I'll always admit that it's possible I did misinterpret his post.

Let's take a look ...

Vegetarians are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Meat eaters, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the vegetarian reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.

The problem that I have with his post is that he assumes to know what vegetarians think and say.

Let's play a little game here. Tell me if any of these examples raise a skeptical alarm ...

Skeptics are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Mystics, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Skeptics' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Men are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Women, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Mens' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Republicans are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Democrats, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Republicans' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

...​

Muslims are much more to tell you why you shouldn't do something. Christians, if they are being preachy tend to tell you why you should do something.

It's the inherent negativity in the Muslims' reasoning and explanation that tends to come off more like preaching and less like encouragement.​

I think that when you apply Furcifer's same line of reasoning across other groups it becomes more apparent why it qualifies as a fallacious, over-broad generalization.

But again, I'm open to hearing why I'm wrong.

Please explain.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Lets turn this around:

What health risks would get you to eat more meat?

If eating your current amount of meat resulted in a tenfold increase in you developing a serious B vitamin deficiency by age 60, would you increase the amount of meat you consume?

Probably.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21674008

Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies.

BACKGROUND:
The evidence that red and processed meat influences colorectal carcinogenesis was judged convincing in the 2007 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research report. Since then, ten prospective studies have published new results. Here we update the evidence from prospective studies and explore whether there is a non-linear association of red and processed meats with colorectal cancer risk.

METHODS AND FINDINGS:
Relevant prospective studies were identified in PubMed until March 2011. For each study, relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled with a random-effects model, weighting for the inverse of the variance, in highest versus lowest intake comparison, and dose-response meta-analyses. Red and processed meats intake was associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. The summary relative risk (RR) of colorectal cancer for the highest versus the lowest intake was 1.22 (95% CI  =  1.11-1.34) and the RR for every 100 g/day increase was 1.14 (95% CI  =  1.04-1.24). Non-linear dose-response meta-analyses revealed that colorectal cancer risk increases approximately linearly with increasing intake of red and processed meats up to approximately 140 g/day, where the curve approaches its plateau. The associations were similar for colon and rectal cancer risk. When analyzed separately, colorectal cancer risk was related to intake of fresh red meat (RR(for 100 g/day increase)  =  1.17, 95% CI  =  1.05-1.31) and processed meat (RR (for 50 g/day increase)  =  1.18, 95% CI  =  1.10-1.28). Similar results were observed for colon cancer, but for rectal cancer, no significant associations were observed.

CONCLUSIONS:
High intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Who cares ?

Quite a few people in hindsight.

 

[Belz...]

I think that when you apply Furcifer's same line of reasoning across other groups it becomes more apparent why it qualifies as a fallacious, over-broad generalization.

But again, I'm open to hearing why I'm wrong.

Please explain.

Nice try, Citizenzen, but I don't buy it. The original point you made was this:

So you were the one or two gifted vegetarians who didn't give in to their inherently negative reasoning.

His post and your reply to it had nothing to do with knowing what vegetarians think and say, but merely that preachy vegetarians tend to tell you what not to do, and that he tried to avoid doing that.

 

[Belz...]

Quite a few people in hindsight.

That something is not harmful to yourself is not reason enough to do that thing. In fact, that something is harmful to yourself is often not reason enough not to do that thing.

 

[tesscaline]

Probably.

Really? Even though the baseline risk hasn't been provided, and numbers about how much meat you'd have to start eating hasn't been defined?

Because my answer to your question is "no". Vague probabilities are not enough to convince me to drastically change my lifestyle.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You mean, they eat steak tartare? How is that strange? Normal (non-raw foodists) people have been doing that for a very very long time.

<snip>

They've also been parasitized and getting food poisoning for a very long time as well.

It's also possible humans cannot survive on raw food alone. Cooking makes extracting nutrients much easier and our guts appear to have gotten smaller since we started cooking food.

 

[epepke]

I'm not sure where you live, but is it normal there for everyone to carry a sign listing their dietary preferences?

It's normal when you, you know, like, meet someone to do things like have meals with them.

 

[IDB87]

High intake of red and processed meat is associated with significant increased risk of colorectal, colon and rectal cancers. The overall evidence of prospective studies supports limiting red and processed meat consumption as one of the dietary recommendations for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Doesn't that have something to do with a type of sodium that is used in processing the meat?

 

[tesscaline]

They've also been parasitized and getting food poisoning for a very long time as well.

Irrelevant. That happens even with cooked food. Will you stop trying to demonize everything you don't agree with by posting extreme examples of what might, possibly, go wrong with it?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Really? Even though the baseline risk hasn't been provided, and numbers about how much meat you'd have to start eating hasn't been defined?

Yes. Assuming the level of meat consumption required to reduce the risk of developing a serious condition in the future did not increase the risk of something else as or more severe, I'd consider introducing meat into my diet.

Because my answer to your question is "no". Vague probabilities are not enough to convince me to drastically change my lifestyle.

Would increasing the risk of years of chronic illness be something that would convince you to drastically change your diet? Why?