Vegans cause animals to go extinct?

[mumblethrax]

As to how I "justify" my diet -- I do not feel any need to justify it. As foxholeatheist put it -- humans are omnivorous, not herbivorous.

Foxholeatheist is just reiterating the same error you made--description is not prescription.

Humans are predators, and that's what we do. By the way, here is an excerpt from my will:

This and a million dollars will make you an eccentric millionaire.

 

[Drachasor]

First show it is a fallacy.

Do you believe in Health Care?

 

[Drachasor]

"I invaded a world of underwater creatures by choice - if they retaliate against me for my invasion into their world, I chose this risk."

I assume you actually chose the risk whether or not they "retaliate." I know I am being pedantic and this is off-topic, but I feel the sentiment above could be a bit more elegantly expressed.

 

[Mark6]

Do you believe in Health Care?

What does that have to do with topic at hand?

I assume you actually chose the risk whether or not they "retaliate." I know I am being pedantic and this is off-topic, but I feel the sentiment above could be a bit more elegantly expressed.

Are you complaining about my use of tenses? Keep in mind, this is intended to be read after my death. I have no way of knowing how it will happen, and being killed by an aquatic animal is a very small (although non-zero) possibility. I omitted the rest of the paragraph as being irrelevant to this thread -- it mostly deals with absolving my buddies, dive boat operators, etc. of responsibility should I have a fatal equipment malfunction or something similar.

 

[Drachasor]

What does that have to do with topic at hand?

Health Care is violating the natural order. We violate the natural order all the time in thousands of ways (perhaps millions). Saying we should or should not do something because it is "natural" is ridiculous.

Edit: And a good thing too. The natural order is a pretty dang crappy place to live a lot of the time.

Are you complaining about my use of tenses? Keep in mind, this is intended to be read after my death. I have no way of knowing how it will happen, and being killed by an aquatic animal is a very small (although non-zero) possibility. I omitted the rest of the paragraph as being irrelevant to this thread -- it mostly deals with absolving my buddies, dive boat operators, etc. of responsibility should I have a fatal equipment malfunction or something similar.

It's about the conditional, not tense.

 

[Dessi]

As to how I "justify" my diet -- I do not feel any need to justify it.

In other words, your last 5 posts in this thread were random irrelevant interjections, not intended to add any new insight whatsoever.

As foxholeatheist put it -- humans are omnivorous, not herbivorous.

In other words, reiterating the naturalistic fallacy.

The statement "humans are omnivorous" is a brute fact, but that's it. Its a description, not a prescription of any particular behavior. It does not state whether humans should or should not kill other animals for food.

If you aren't actually implying that the statement "humans are omnivorous" has some sort of prescriptive implication, and you obviously aren't trying to justify your diet with irrelevant interjections (not that you'd have a need to, anyway), what was the point communicating that information?

For what its worth, your comment reminds me of this thread from about 3 years ago: Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive:

If you guys sincerely hold the opinions above [that evolution is a normative moral theory], by all means, contact the people at TalkOrigins and correct them on their error; tell them the creationists were right all along and evolution is a normative theory after all.

Seriously, people, this is a critical thinking messageboard. No one, apart from a few of the vegetarian members of this forum, corrected those posters on their uncritical comments. As skeptics, we need be aware that conclusions drawn from uncritical thinking are not always disagreeable (for example, Libertarianism might be good, even if someones particular arguments for the philosophy are appalling), and we should not excuse uncritical thinking just because it happens to agree with our prejudices. Uncritical thinking needs to be highlighted and corrected regardless of whether we approve or disapproves from the conclusions drawn from it.


Now, to reiterate more forcefully: evolution is not an argument for or against animal rights, its not an argument for or against laissez faire capitalism, its not an argument for or against any moral dilemma whatsoever. Yes, we all got a kick out of the Selfish Gene and how Dawkins describes how humanity gained success as "selfish replicators", but even Dawkins states in the first 2 pages of the book that he's describing how things happened under evolution, not endorsing them as morally good.

Evolution is not a moral theory of anything, and certain not a theory of human rights, because its perfectly consistent with natural selection to compete against members of your own species. Cooperation with neighbors can be defended under an evolution-derived moral theory, but so can slavery and ethnic nationalism. Fortunately, we don't have to take anyone seriously who tries to argue for slavery using those principles, because evolution is not a moral theory. Once more, with feeling:

Evolution is not a moral theory.

 

[Mark6]

In other words, your last 5 posts in this thread were random irrelevant interjections, not intended to add any new insight whatsoever

You can say that. I am not terribly invested in this topic.

 

[Dessi]

You can say that. I am not terribly invested in this topic.

Noted. Enjoy a doob and carry on.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, I am quite sure.

More earthworms and flies die through "habitat destruction, pollution, over harvest, and diesese" than from being eaten by birds and spiders? Really?

The quote in wiki.answers.com may be accurate if you change it to "main reason for species going extinct" -- not main reason for individual animal deaths.

No, not "really", just that the first link on the subject says you're wrong. Since you made the claim, I'm asking if you have any evidence of it. Yelling the same thing even louder isn't evidence. I'm simply not sure if your premise is true, but I'm willing to be educated.

 

[Mark6]

No, not "really", just that the first link on the subject says you're wrong. Since you made the claim, I'm asking if you have any evidence of it. Yelling the same thing even louder isn't evidence. I'm simply not sure if your premise is true, but I'm willing to be educated.

OK, I tried to find some figures on mortality rates of insects. Insects, because their numbers completely dwarf that of mammals and other large animals. (Or are you going to claim this is also a baseless statement?) Here are some samples I found:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2439852

the impact of egg predators accounted for 25–43% of the total generational mortality of Y. malinellus, more than any other known mortality factor. Percent parasitism varied from 18 to 30%, but the impact of parasitoids in relation to the total generational mortality of Y. malinellus from the life tables was remarkably constant at 11–14%. The loss of potential fecundity had an important influence on the generational mortality of Y. malinellus, but declined from 27% to 15% over the course of this study.

http://ag.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/insects/wf/horticultura0204.html

Predation and parasitism account for 17-73% of mortality among sweetpotato whiteflies, depending on what plant they live on.

 

[Unabogie]

OK, I tried to find some figures on mortality rates of insects. Insects, because their numbers completely dwarf that of mammals and other large animals. (Or are you going to claim this is also a baseless statement?) Here are some samples I found:

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2439852


http://ag.arizona.edu/crop/cotton/insects/wf/horticultura0204.html

Point of clarification. We're talking about all animals, aren't we?

You wrote:

Being killed and eaten is the single most common end for all wild animals

How did you get onto this just being about insects?

 

[foxholeatheist]

Una, the point is is that animals kill and eat each other. Most do. I think 'most' is a fairly safe statement though I believe impossible to substantiate in either direction. If you are attempting to make the point that most animals die and are not eaten than I believe you are mistaken.

Dessi, I am not claiming that because it's 'natural' that it is right. 'Right' and 'wrong' are human moral constructs. We are indeed making the same 'is' and 'ought' points.

However, humans are omnivores. I think we can agree on this. When I was a vegan I would have said 'Humans are omnivores however we have reached a point where we can make a moral choice between eating other living and feeling animals or not' and a part of me still feels that way. But there is no escaping the fact that we are an omnivorous species.

This is not a statement or right or wrong, it is what is. Using other animals as an energy source was here long before our human notions of right and wrong. This is not a justification, it is a fact.

I don't feel any need to justify my diet. I am an animal and I eat other animals for sustenance like many other animals. Death and decay are a natural part of the world and I accept that. I do not call it right or wrong. I am sure the farming machinery that went into the production of my Boca burger killed some rodents too.

As my favorite author would say, 'So it goes'.

However, there is much room for improvement with regards to animal welfare and I would like more meat-eaters to understand the process from which their food comes from.

Oh, and it was brought up about farm raised catfish: They are usually channel catfish and no different from wild channel catfish. Blue catfish require large rivers or lakes to live and have complicated spawning behavior and flathead catfish eat mostly other living fish and are difficult to raise on a large scale (but for my money taste better). Channel catfish are fed fish meal which is strange, you catch wild fish, process them and fed them to other fish. So in other words, turning one kind of fish into another.

Global fisheries require immediate action to save them from collapse. Fish farming carnivorous fish is not an answer.

 

[Drachasor]

Global fisheries require immediate action to save them from collapse. Fish farming carnivorous fish is not an answer.

You can farm carnivorous fish if you also farm other fish.

 

[foxholeatheist]

You can farm carnivorous fish if you also farm other fish.

Well there's ideas out there. For instance, the Bighead Carp which is an invasive fish in North America. They live in most medium/large rivers here in Missouri. They are filter feeders but require flowing water to spawn.

They're prolific and large (20 pounds on average, I believe they can get to 100 pounds). I dropped my phone in a river but I had a picture of one I shot with my bow that was about 30 pounds.

Problem is is that they are so freaking bony and unpalatable it's tough to get folks to eat them. I've never tried them but they do make excellent catfish bait, so I assume catfish food.

 

[Cain]

However, humans are omnivores. I think we can agree on this. When I was a vegan I would have said 'Humans are omnivores however we have reached a point where we can make a moral choice between eating other living and feeling animals or not' and a part of me still feels that way. But there is no escaping the fact that we are an omnivorous species.

This is not a statement or right or wrong, it is what is. Using other animals as an energy source was here long before our human notions of right and wrong. This is not a justification, it is a fact.

I don't feel any need to justify my diet. I am an animal and I eat other animals for sustenance like many other animals. Death and decay are a natural part of the world and I accept that. I do not call it right or wrong. I am sure the farming machinery that went into the production of my Boca burger killed some rodents too.

Cool. I'm applying this argument to killing other dudes (not that I feel the need to justify killing other humans). Male on male violence reaches back long before the human species, and probably predates life on the Blue Marble. Killing is, um, apart of life. This is not a justification; it is a fact.

And so it goes...

 

[foxholeatheist]

Neat. I would have gone with rape but murder is good too.

Edit: As Cain points out, I am inelegant in getting my point across. As he is pretending there is no moral distinction between killing and murder of another human (other "dudes") which I disagree with, I should have allowed for this strawman and explained my point better. Allow me to make my point more carefully and clearly (not a strength of mine but I'll give it a shot).

Cain, I can't help but think you have some awesome point to make and I wish you would instead of mocking my attempt.

Anyway...

He is correct, antiquity does not lend morality. I believe that morality, right and wrong, are human constructs.

I do not believe that a human, an omnivore by nature and genetic design, eating other animals is violating any basic moral rule in doing so generally. As I stated before, there is much gray area here. For instance I do not believe it is 'right' to mistreat an animal. Nor do I believe it is right to inflict undue suffering on an animal. That said, I am biologically an omnivore and certain animals are prey items (ultimately all prey are animals).

I do understand the moral conflict some may have with this however this relationship is much older than morality. Unlike say murder, which I define as killing another human without just cause, which is exclusive to humanity and thus is indeed a moral question. It is the opposite of a naturalistic fallacy.

Morality requires sentience and unless I am very much mistaken, only humanity is known to possess it. That is why I can state 'It is wrong for me to beat my dog' while I cannot say that on a moral level a cat is 'wrong' for torturing a baby bird. While myself and my cat would be inflicting suffering I have the capacity for empathy (I am aware that some other mammals may experience empathy, painting with a broad brush here) while the animal does not.

Am I 'Speciesist'? I suppose that I am because I value the life and well being of a human far above that of any animal.

I believe that certain issues such as 'factory' farming and inhumane treatment of animals are moral questions. Eating another animal is not a moral question.

 

[Cain]

Neat. I would have gone with rape but murder is good too.

That's the more common move, but I took it another direction, which is why I get paid the big bucks.

I do not believe that a human, an omnivore by nature and genetic design, eating other animals is violating any basic moral rule in doing so generally. As I stated before, there is much gray area here. For instance I do not believe it is 'right' to mistreat an animal. Nor do I believe it is right to inflict undue suffering on an animal. That said, I am biologically an omnivore and certain animals are prey items (ultimately all prey are animals).

All of this is incredibly loaded. Almost everyone agrees that animals should not be mistreated, that we should not inflict undue suffering. All of us also believe in killing when necessary. The question is what constitutes mistreatment and undue suffering? When is killing necessary?

I do understand the moral conflict some may have with this however this relationship is much older than morality. Unlike say murder, which I define as killing another human without just cause, which is exclusive to humanity and thus is indeed a moral question. It is the opposite of a naturalistic fallacy.

Let's get rid of the word "murder" since it needlessly complicates matters. Here it sounds as though you're saying the unjustified killing of another human being does violate a "basic moral rule," despite the fact killing predates these moral rules by billions of years.

Morality requires sentience and unless I am very much mistaken, only humanity is known to possess it. That is why I can state 'It is wrong for me to beat my dog' while I cannot say that on a moral level a cat is 'wrong' for torturing a baby bird. While myself and my cat would be inflicting suffering I have the capacity for empathy (I am aware that some other mammals may experience empathy, painting with a broad brush here) while the animal does not.

In other words, humans, at least normal adult humans, are moral agents. Not many will argue against you on that one. We vegans are only going to insist that non-human animals are moral patients -- meaning, we have to take their interests into account.

Am I 'Speciesist'? I suppose that I am because I value the life and well being of a human far above that of any animal.

Do you have any "pets"? How much time, money, and energy do you commit to caring for those animals versus other human beings in dire need?

Violence is observed throughout the animal kingdom. Male-on-male violence, male-on-female violence, predator-on-prey violence -- anything that promotes survival of an organism and replication of its genes.

I believe that certain issues such as 'factory' farming and inhumane treatment of animals are moral questions. Eating another animal is not a moral question.

So what about eating animals raised on factory farms? That may sound like an obtuse question, but it's actually quite brilliant. Morality necessarily involves circumstances where there is a conflict of interests.

I do not think my analogy is a straw man because it seems evident you do not have a rational basis for discriminating between killing humans and killing animals. That's not to say there is no rational basis, just that your "constructs" based argument does not look too promising.

 

[Mark6]

Point of clarification. We're talking about all animals, aren't we?

How did you get onto this just being about insects?

Because there are more insects than any other animals. There are probably more aphids alone (individuals, not species) than all vertebrates put together. If something is true for majority of insects, it holds true for majority of animals.

 

[Unabogie]

Because there are more insects than any other animals. There are probably more aphids alone (individuals, not species) than all vertebrates put together. If something is true for majority of insects, it holds true for majority of animals.

I thought was where you were going with this. And Bill Gates and his neighbor have $50 billion between them. We're talking about the most common cause of death for animals in terms of what would happen to food animals if they weren't killed by us and eaten. Does it really matter what happens to bacteria? Can't we leave them out of this?

ETA: You originally used the term "wild animals". I'm not aware of that phrase being used for insects. That seems odd to me.

 

[Unabogie]

Una, the point is is that animals kill and eat each other. Most do. I think 'most' is a fairly safe statement though I believe impossible to substantiate in either direction. If you are attempting to make the point that most animals die and are not eaten than I believe you are mistaken.

I was merely reacting to Mark6's very dubious claim that the most common cause of death for animals in the wild was being eaten. I wanted some evidence of this. After all, this is the JREF, not the JGUESS.