The Immorality Of Eating Meat When There Are Vegi Alternatives Do People Care?

originally posted by: My_Reality
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Your whole basis for this argument is that killing animals for food(and other products) is immoral.



I believe humans can and should use animal products to survive and thrive. There is no moral issue here. None at all.



You seem to forget that all the awesome veggie food is a product of this industrial age we live in. You would not have these options if the infrastructure was not in place to support it. Your veggie food is nothing more than a product designed to rid consumers of their(your) money.



Meat has been a staple food in the diet of man, throughout history, for a reason. Please don't ask what reason; the answer is obvious if you consider the subject logically instead of morally.

That has nothing to do with the morality or lack of it when killing animals when we dont need to is concerned. Your saying there is no moral issue because you believe it should be done, or that it was done in the past so we need to keep on doing it. This premise is flawed and has nothing to do with need, its simply I want to do it so its ok. Newsflash killing anything even plants isnt ok, we should be looking to better methods to survive.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Simple question I have asked yes or no.

a reply to: boymonkey74

You must be very young or simple minded.

Anyway i agree that we are part of the biggger picture. And because it is not important what we do on earth make some of us choose a harder path.

a reply to: saadad

Oh must I?.
Maybe you can answer the question then.
Seeing the op will not answer a very simple question.

Just a quick question to the OP. You've ignored all my posts, oh well I can live with that.

But can I ask after 36 pages, you must have come to some conclusions about your original question. Do you feel you've had enough input? Surely the only conclusion you can come up with would be that we all choose our own personal lines of morality, so in a way we are all right I guess. But what have you learned?

Silly over sensitive humans.

The Universe is a violent place. Stars exploding, comets crashing, micro organisms eating each other alive.
Coyotes know when cows are close to giving birth and will harass and attack the mother to get to the new born calf which they will eat alive and in front of the mother. Hyenas also eat their dinner while alive as do most fish.

Morality is a man-made concept that does not occur naturally in the Universe.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

But when your metabolism will begin to exibit "flaw" like when aging, eating carb will come back and bite you in the a*s for sure.

Human are semi-obligate carnivore like it or not! Adaptation to carb is just since end of last glacial period. Before that, human, or shall I say proto-human where on a meat diet for at least 1 million years...

originally posted by: Qumulys
Just a quick question to the OP. You've ignored all my posts, oh well I can live with that.



But can I ask after 36 pages, you must have come to some conclusions about your original question. Do you feel you've had enough input? Surely the only conclusion you can come up with would be that we all choose our own personal lines of morality, so in a way we are all right I guess. But what have you learned?

People are saying morals are what they want them to be, there is no bad if you dont think its bad, and if you think its good then its good. I have learned that many people just dont care and consider whatever they do to be moral because they want to do it and for no other reason than that. Even if a better way was invented many wouldnt want a better way, because they dont see what they are doing as bad. Alot of answers are just excuses as to why people think its totally fine to kill when there is no need, and they justify it by basically saying because we like eating meat and nothing more than that:

Human are semi-obligate carnivore like it or not!
Morality is a man-made concept that does not occur naturally in the Universe.
I believe humans can and should use animal products to survive and thrive. There is no moral issue here. None at all.

a reply to: Qumulys

Doubtful.
Seems he's here to preach.

It probably was written in one of the previous pages, but why is it moral to eat living organisms that have NO CHANCE to escape your hunger compared to those who CAN?

I'm not talking industrial production here.

If you go in the wood, try catching a squirrel and berries, and let me know which one escaped, or had the best chance to flee?

And lot's of animals eat other animals too... are they also immoral?

Finally, what do you say about plants that eat animals? There is your delicious tomato, potato and all the other types of carnivorous plants. Are they also showing immorality?

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Newsflash killing anything even plants isnt ok, we should be looking to better methods to survive.

Perhaps GMO will save us, or eating food made, literally from our own crap.

Good for you, to be so sure of your position, even if I, as an obligate omnivore, consider it to be flawed.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Lots of peeps making lots of jokes and being on the defense of eating meat. To me it is bullying and violence there is no need for most people to eat meat. They do so because they can. Most people have been far too desensitised by modern day life to understand this..

purp..

a reply to: MrNeo

The Universe is a violent place. Stars exploding, comets crashing, micro organisms eating each other alive.

The universe is what we see it to be...

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

omnivore
An omnivore is an animal that eats both plants and animals for their main food. Pigs are omnivores, so they would be just as happy eating an apple, or the worm inside the apple.
Omnivore comes from the Latin words omni, meaning "all, everything," and vorare, meaning "to devour." So an omnivore will eat pretty much eat anything in sight. Humans are genetically designed to be omnivores, but some people choose to limit their diets. When a person is described as an omnivore, it usually means he's willing to eat all kinds of foods and is not a vegetarian or a vegan or on some other kind of special diet.

www.vocabulary.com...

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord
Ok I have been a healthy vegitarian my entire life and am still healthy at the age of 40, older folks in my family have been vegitarians for over 60 years and they are still healthy as ever.

No I am not on suppliments nor have I ever been.
Im not short im 6'1", nor am I skinny at all, if I dont diet and excercise I gain weight just like anyone else.

On to the point of the thread we dont need to eat meat to live a healthy life I am living proof of that.

There are various substitutes to eating meat would any of those stop you from eating meat?

What if they could make it taste the same or even 3d print meat for you would you eat it over the real thing then?

There are plenty of veggie meats that have fooled people into thinking they are real meat, would you eat these over real meat? I have tricked a few friends with vegi meat on multiple occasions just to see thier reactions.

I am guessing that most would still want real meat reguardless of how advanced fake meat is or how real it tastes because its not the real thing.

Is it moral to eat animals when you dont need to?

Do you even care at all about the possible immorality of eating animals when you dont need to as there are alternatives that can fool anyone?

Do we have the right to inflict suffering on creatures we consider ourselves more advanced than, then slaughter and eat them when there is no need to?

So what say you ATS will you always eat meat reguardless of how good the alternatives are? If so why or why not?

I think of this topic like I think about Christianity or global warming, if you're into it great for you, but don't come to my door like a Jahovas witness and cram it down my throat. The same goes for anything that is considered a social evil (smoking, porn, gas hog cars, saturated fats) feel good about yourself by being you not by trying to change others to fit your ideology.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Dubious at best..



purp..

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I think of this topic like I think about Christianity or global warming, if you're into it great for you, but don't come to my door like a Jahovas

For the environment and the world population it needs to happen..

l poverty and the worst impacts of climate change.” The report also points out that as the world’s population approaches over 9 billion people by 2050, it will not be possible to sustain the per capita consumption of meat and dairy products that we are currently eating

www.vegsource.com...

a reply to: purplemer

Wrong.

The following is an adapted excerpt of Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory, by Vaclav Smil. Wiley-Blackwell, May 2013.
There is no doubt that human evolution has been linked to meat in many fundamental ways. Our digestive tract is not one of obligatory herbivores; our enzymes evolved to digest meat whose consumption aided higher encephalization and better physical growth. Cooperative hunting promoted the development of language and socialization; the evolution of Old World societies was, to a significant extent, based on domestication of animals; in traditional societies, meat eating, more than the consumption of any other category of foodstuffs, has led to fascinating preferences, bans and diverse foodways; and modern Western agricultures are obviously heavily meat-oriented. In nutritional terms, the links range from satiety afforded by eating fatty megaherbivores to meat as a prestige food throughout the millennia of preindustrial history to high-quality protein supplied by mass-scale production of red meat and poultry in affluent economies.
But is it possible to come up with a comprehensive appraisal in order to contrast the positive effects of meat consumption with the negative consequences of meat production and to answer a simple question: are the benefits (health and otherwise) of eating meat greater than the undesirable cost, multitude of environmental burdens in particular, of producing it?
Killing animals and eating meat have been significant components of human evolution that had a synergistic relationship with other key attributes that have made us human, with larger brains, smaller guts, bipedalism and language. Larger brains benefited from consuming high-quality proteins in meat-containing diets, and, in turn, hunting and killing of large animals, butchering of carcasses and sharing of meat have inevitably contributed to the evolution of human intelligence in general and to the development of language and of capacities for planning, cooperation and socializing in particular. Even if the trade-off between smaller guts and larger brains has not been as strong as is claimed by the expensive-tissue hypothesis, there is no doubt that the human digestive tract has clearly evolved for omnivory, not for purely plant-based diets. And the role of scavenging, and later hunting, in the evolution of bipedalism and the mastery of endurance running cannot be underestimated, and neither can the impact of planned, coordinated hunting on non-verbal communication and the evolution of language.
Homo sapiens is thus a perfect example of an omnivorous species with a high degree of natural preferences for meat consumption, and only later environmental constraints (need to support relatively high densities of population by progressively more intensive versions of sedentary cropping) accompanied by cultural adaptations (meat-eating restrictions and taboos, usually embedded in religious commandments) have turned meat into a relatively rare foodstuff for majorities of populations (but not for their rulers) in traditional agricultural societies. Return to more frequent meat eating has been a key component of a worldwide dietary transition that began in Europe and North America with accelerating industrialization and urbanization during the latter half of the 19th century. In affluent economies, this transition was accomplished during the post-WW II decades, at a time when it began to unfold, often very rapidly, in modernizing countries of Asia and Latin America.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Fragments of a 1.5-million-year-old skull from a child recently found in Tanzania suggest early hominids weren't just occasional carnivores but regular meat eaters, researchers say.
The finding helps build the case that meat-eating helped the human lineage evolve large brains, scientists added.
"I know this will sound awful to vegetarians, but meat made us human," said researcher Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo, an archaeologist at Complutense University in Madrid.

m.livescience.com...

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Whats with the quote of about evolution and my distant ancestors.
Explain to me what why that if my distant ancestors where omnivores we should be.. SOme of my ancestors where worms. Does that mean I should live on eating earth...

purp..

a reply to: purplemer

Some people will never get it because they do not want to get it ... to some the life of another being is seen as less than theirs

It is true we do not need meat or animal products to survive as has been proved over and over ...

However it is about personal choice ...