Humans kill animals then they eat them(true story)

reply to post by gosseyn


I'd say that some of our terrestrial beings feel the same way.
If members of peta had any say in things.

good post though I might have to steal that

reply to post by gosseyn


I understand this is an international forum and the subtleties of different languages often escape people but that said, the total lack of understanding sarcasm gets at times boggles the mind. The first few replies to this thread ...whew.

Oh, and as to the original post, the creatures humans eat aren't supposed to be "sentient"... that's the issue I guess.

Can we justify living by destroying other forms of life, plant or animal? If the fringies who found plants scream when hurt are correct, we should all just die right now... and this might be a form of "original sin" and why this universe is corrupt, etc.

But if eating stupid things is okay, then we're all probably just fine... and could even justify cannibalism ...in certain cases.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
reply to post by ottobot

 

I agree with much you say, I've struggled with many of the things you point out or still do I should say.

What is causing the struggle? Are you struggling because you are getting information from other people that makes you feel bad, or are you struggling because this issue is something that genuinely bothers you?

I don't believe that some have to eat meat though, you just have to get same nutrients you get from meat. The body doesn't really care for the source of the nutrients except in the sense of how difficult it is to extract, in the form of digestion.

Well, what I meant is that each body is different than the next and so each person needs a different set of nutrients than the next. Indeed, some people can survive well without eating animal products. However, this doesn't mean that all people could so exist for the entire course of their lifetimes.

I will use myself as an example: I was raised and currently live as an omnivore, with preferences for fish and poultry. Sometimes, I get into modes where just the idea of eating meat repulses me. My body starts to crave copious amounts of vegetable matter, and that is all I want to eat. I have existed successfully as a vegetarian for varied lengths of time. My (female) body is muscular and strong, made for hard work and bearing children. I have a very fast metabolism and so must eat balanced (protein + plant matter) every couple of hours to avoid discomfort in the form of fatigue and weakness.

When I enter a "vegetarian" phase, I must eat almost constantly to keep up with my body's demands for fuel. Eventually, I become weak and lethargic and start to suffer from various maladies that my body has become more susceptible to as my immune system has weakened. Essentially, I cannot get enough energy from eating only plant matter and foraged animal matter (eggs & milk) in the time I am awake, so my body starts cannibalizing. When I eat as an omnivore (essentially, a paleolithic diet), my nut/fruit snacks every couple of hours are fine because I eat a large meal including some type of meat at the end of the day that my body uses as fuel for much of the next day.

My body does not work well without animal matter.

I have known people who exist fine as vegetarians, because their bodies do not consume/need as much energy as my own. I have never met a truly healthy vegan, though. They are generally "skinny fat", which means their muscle has been cannibalized and the majority of their body weight is hydrated fat. This is most likely because the "vegan ideal" of the west has most people relying upon processed foods for most of their sustenance.

The trauma to the earth caused by these processing factories is significant, yet largely ignored for the sake of political correctness.

The reason for not eating certain animals seem to stem from sharing a certain bond of understanding with the animal, like we in the west don't eat dogs as we see them as friends. So I wonder what really goes on in a cows head when they observe...

The cow doesn't really understand what is going on. They become afraid because their instincts tell them a predator is nearby. They have this instinct because they are, quite literally, prey.

Mostly I'm disgusted with the meat industry. If I actually had to make the kill myself I think I would have a lot more appreciation for the animal which literally transfers his life force into me, then it seems at least a bit more justified.

No argument there. I plan to be a small farmer; I do not like depending on other humans for my sustenance. I have always been one who thanks plants and animals for their lives when I consume them. It is just my nature.

I'm struggling a bit with the part of growing space for vegetables if everyone, hypothetically, were vegetarians. Would it be possible with modern technology or have already been to irresponsible and overcrowded the planet in that sense?

There is plenty of space left on the planet. Humans, though, try to claim it as their own and only help others when a profit can be made. As with all things in the western society, money is the driving force behind the diet of the majority.

Or is it because we don't want to assume the responsibility? Maybe it's not that we are superior in any way that makes us believe that but we just have the choice if we want to be nice.

We have assumed responsibility since the agrarian society became the norm. There are still plenty of humans who live from and give to the earth.

It's only as a result of the corporate-run food industry that we see these gross exhibitions of unnatural behaviors and gratuitous dietary preferences.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Okay, now lets be reasonable and sensible here. Unlike many who come and go and particularly some folks coming on here lately, I know you're a reasonable person. Your posts show it. I'd hope you'd know me to be a reasonable person.

Yes Wrabbit - we are both very reasonable people :-)

I am reasonably certain that we can both proceed from here - reasonably

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts and basis of logic for saying there is a scale of sentience where all life on Earth is concerned.

You need to keep up with the science is all - read my post above - about birds. There is so much more out there...Although - much as I respect Science - and scientists - I'm a little amused at how long it's taken it and them to recognize something people have been observing all along...we is all of us animals - every one

We could argue about what sentience is - or isn't. But - whether we want to go after that definition or not - you're missing my point :-)

Which is - what point is there in having a scale? If you fall below a 3 on the scale (let's just pretend there is one) it's OK to incarcerate you, abuse you then eat you? See? Anything above a 7 - hands off?

Compassion is for all living creatures - you've decided dolphins and whales deserve not to be killed and eaten. It's arbitrary - based on your scale of warm and fuzzy - and smartness. Cows - not so much. Thing is - they're discovering more and more that the dumb animals are not so dumb after all - which still has nothing to do with my point

Since I'm on the defensive here in many ways....I'll leave that on the table for you to define and we can go from there.

Don't feel defensive - this entire thread has been a very interesting read - and I'm not on the offense. We've been eating critters (and at times each other) since the dawn of our existence. Hundreds of thousands of years of existence - millions depending on how you want to look at it - these things don't turn on a dime

But - what are we - ultimately? Where are we going? Who do we want to be?

BigFatFurry said some very interesting things up above - this is the part of the argument that interests me. Do we have to be what we've always been? The answer to that is obvious - we are moving further and further away from our roots - who knows where we'll end up?

(I'd note...this would make an interesting formal debate topic, Spiramirabilis. I've never participated in a proper one at ATS. Interested?)

I've never been in the debates myself - I kinda think of the threads as a sort of free-form debate. Let me think on it :-)

P.S. Wrabbit - about your map and all that up there about bread baskets, drought, growin' stuff - starvation...and meat?

There will come a time when the growing of food will become prioritized in such a way that land and resources won't be available for livestock - the demand for meat now has already created the situations that some of us in this thread are protesting. Things change - circumstances change. But - we'll adapt

I can't believe a thread became popular on this OP. I'm gonna go grill some bacon and continue reading the other posts.

mmmmm, bacon

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis


But - what are we - ultimately? Where are we going? Who do we want to be?

BigFatFurry said some very interesting things up above - this is the part of the argument that interests me. Do we have to be what we've always been? The answer to that is obvious - we are moving further and further away from our roots - who knows where we'll end up?

That is what I find interesting too. Maybe you have missed what I have posted earlier :

The question is : do we have to continue doing something we did in the past, just because we did it in the past ? Is that reason enough ? What is the reasoning behind that ? Should we follow nature in everything that nature did ? And haven't we freed ourselves from some of nature's rules until now ? Are we destined for the stars for example ? Or are we destined to stay on that blue marble just because we have been here for thousands of years now ?

We are animals, but we have a specificity, like ants have their own specificity or dolphins or lizards etc., we are not better but different. Our specificity lies in our capacity to anticipate, to reflect, to chose, to be conscious of consequences to a certain extent. Should we harvest those possibilities or should we just ignore them and keep doing business as usual ?

Ultimately, I think it is a debate about culture/nature.

Originally posted by gosseyn
The question is : do we have to continue doing something we did in the past, just because we did it in the past ? Is that reason enough ? What is the reasoning behind that ? Should we follow nature in everything that nature did ? And haven't we freed ourselves from some of nature's rules until now ? Are we destined for the stars for example ? Or are we destined to stay on that blue marble just because we have been here for thousands of years now ?

We cannot escape our nature.

One interesting thing about the current western culture: it emphasizes/celebrates the carnal side of our nature, but degrades the spiritual side as "outdated". The balance that we achieved as a species has been lost by this culture because all behaviors are driven by materialism.

We have always wanted to go to the stars. Some of us do. Yet, the rest of us are limited by one specific part of our own nature as a species: greed. Only the "best" get to go to space, because they are the only ones who "deserve" to go to space. They are no different than the rest of us, except they were born in a position to be considered "best". (One movie that explores this phenomena and almost in the same context is GATTACA.)

Even so, we cannot escape our nature, even in space. If I existed in space, I would still want to grow plants. I would do whatever it took to successfully grow plants in space, even though that is not the nature of earth plants in space. This is in my nature. If I landed on a planet, I would learn the vegetation and animals and begin to cultivate these things to produce a sustainable food source for myself and my comrades. This is my nature. I can choose to deny this nature, but I then begin to suffer because I've always (seriously, since about age 2) been driven to plant seeds and help them grow.

We are animals, but we have a specificity, like ants have their own specificity or dolphins or lizards etc., we are not better but different. Our specificity lies in our capacity to anticipate, to reflect, to chose, to be conscious of consequences to a certain extent. Should we harvest those possibilities or should we just ignore them and keep doing business as usual ?

Ahh, but that's the thing: Humans as a group do not care about consequences.

A Human sees the consequences of his/her actions because his/her life is affected by action or inaction. The Humans (as a group) are oblivious to the consequences of their actions. This is because, collectively, we believe that it's "someone else's problem" and we try to blame our errors on groups of humans we don't like. This is in our nature. This is not limited to one culture or set of humans. This is human nature.

Ultimately, I think it is a debate about culture/nature.

Indeed, but the key is to have a balance between one's culture and one's own nature. This is what we have lost.

You ask, "Who do we want to be?"

The answer, for many humans, is, "Who do they want us to be?"

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck

Also, I believe if we are responsible and kind, it's OK to kill and eat things. Treat your livestock and game animals with respect and help them thrive, that is morally good in my opinion. Sad that animals should die that we may live, but that's just the way it is.

Thank you. My issue with meat has never been the killing or ingesting of another lifeform. It's the fact that in industrial farming the animals are treated so poorly.

Killing something so that you may life is both acceptable and necessary. Making it suffer is neither.

reply to post by gosseyn

I read all your posts :-)
I love this thread - I loved your OP

The question is : do we have to continue doing something we did in the past, just because we did it in the past ? Is that reason enough ? What is the reasoning behind that ? Should we follow nature in everything that nature did ? And haven't we freed ourselves from some of nature's rules until now ? Are we destined for the stars for example ? Or are we destined to stay on that blue marble just because we have been here for thousands of years now ?

This is how I see it too - exactly. And not just for this topic - for all of it
What kind of people do we want to be - ultimately?
Here you go gosseyn - there were some other quotes earlier - but I love this one too:

Socrates: Would this habit of eating animals not require that we slaughter animals that we knew as individuals, and in whose eyes we could gaze and see ourselves reflected, only a few hours before our meal?

Glaucon: This habit would require that of us.

Socrates: Wouldn't this [knowledge of our role in turning a being into a thing] hinder us in achieving happiness?

Glaucon: It could so hinder us in our quest for happiness.

Why Animals Matter: A Religious and Philosophical Perspective

The thing about factory farming: we don't ever - any of us - look into their eyes

They're just a product

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Give me some time to think on this for a reply. I'll freely admit that I have not kept up on research for the field we're discussing and obviously, we're moving we'll beyond the "oogah oogah..me eat meat! vs. ewwww! Veggies only!" level that the topic normally brings. To discuss this on a perfectly serious and in-depth level, I'm sure not going to go much further without doing my due diligence in reading more about it.

I love the occasion when I do have my thinking changed by learning other points of view or facts...but not by stating the flat wrong side, in pure ignorance because it sounds good. I'm afraid I could head there as easily as not without more reading on the matter.

Do consider the invitation on the debate forum. I am serious. I've been meaning to get involved with the more formal side of ATS and the structured things that happen here but I've been at a loss for what or how. A random topic doesn't make sense...and what's the point in a topic I know so well personally, I could teach some of them. That defeats the whole point, right? This is actually one, when put in terms of looking at the life taken to produce our food, I would stand to learn a great deal on and honestly? I'm not SURE I would come out the winner on the debate. Especially how the formal side works. So.... It sounds perfect! (I'm sure a few would love to see this bunny get his tail handed to him that way too. lol...)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Do you think you could promise to at no point during the debate ever resort to saying: mmmmmmm......bacon?

:-)

I'm thinking

and - take your time

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

resort to saying: mmmmmmm......bacon?

Unlikely based on almost everyone else in this thread.

I very much agree there is a 'scale of sentience'. Which was the bulk of my posts. My position was actually that everyone does think that.

There was a fairly comprehensive 'scientific' sentience definition posted by Les on page 10.

^I had been arguing from the perspective of general perception of people. i.e People see more sentience in a dog than a broccoli plant, regardless of not knowing the exact science of their extent of feeling.

We are certainly not the only animal who kills and eats other animals.

Plus if we weren't meant to eat meat why is it sooooo tasty?

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

To answer your question regardless. I myself would not eat this hypothetical creature if it exhibited the same level of sentience it did when it was a real cow, chicken, other animal.

Are you using the word sentience just to refer to all animals? I thought to be sentient one had to be intellectually aware of one's own existence?

Yes , why yes i did.

Well then Two can play at this game. She is a vegan. The strictest of vegetarian.

It was not so much attractiveness but aging more then the other , my point

Right because there are no other factors to consider.

Like genetics! Sun exposure. Lack of sun screen use. genetics.....

It couldn't have been that the meat-eater chef you used in the example being a celebrity chef had a professional photographer take the photo.

Nope. None of that. Vegetarian diet will make you look like a "grim reaper".

I just find it lulzy how vegans always try to take the moral high ground instead of making the case scientifically.

If you think science has never been used when debating either the moral or health angle then you simply have not looked.

We are carnivores,

Are we? I have read posts from other members to the contrary.

The body needs meat as much as it needs the vegetable category. To deprive yourself is not healthy imho

Opinions are great like that. We can all have them. Yours is wrong however. You said the body needs both. So name some specific essential nutrition exclusive to meat.

reply to post by jiggerj

Are you using the word sentience just to refer to all animals? I thought to be sentient one had to be intellectually aware of one's own existence?

I find myself to be more intellectually aware of my own existence then many other humans I meet What about others who make a religion or practice out of self-awareness. Is it fair to say you have or you don't in humans without giving credence to those more mindful?

I am using it to mean consciousness and the ability to feel/suffer, with the understanding it's not equal in all inhabitants of Earth. From rocks, to carrots, to elephants, to humans. That there is clearly, according to our subjective perception of it, greater sentience amongst some. Subsequently less in others.

So no definitely not 'sentience to refer to all animals' without appreciating a 'scale'. Again, the inner worlds of the 'lesser' might later definitively be shown by science to have been 'equal' all along. My point is it's clearly demonstrable that people perceive these differences today. So when the meat-eater poses the "why do you murder plants" question to the vegetarian I can't help but be baffled when I know they themselves don't truly view it that way.

reply to post by gosseyn


Humans are omnivores....You don't like it hop on a UFO to mars.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

Compassion is for all living creatures - you've decided dolphins and whales deserve not to be killed and eaten. It's arbitrary - based on your scale of warm and fuzzy - and smartness. Cows - not so much. Thing is - they're discovering more and more that the dumb animals are not so dumb after all - which still has nothing to do with my point

So I definitely agree with you. Arbitrary.

Hmmmm... you're saying you don't view it along a scale? You had just said compassion is for all living creatures. Plants are living. Yet you harvest them for food. Isn't a scale intrinsic here on your part? Aren't you viewing plants under some critical threshold of sentience?

I see that critical threshold at plants. Meaning to say I do not perceive sentience. Well maybe after shamanistic experience lol

Something wrong with you or what???? I am not a bible freak but I believe that we have dominion over the beasts. I have tearing teeth in my mouth for eating meat. I have grinders for grain. And cutters for both. We are animals and as far as I know most animals eat other animals. Get real. Better yet get an honest to goodness real gripe and bring it here. This is nonsense. Pure and simple.

reply to post by gosseyn


One could wish for you to be out of words but it seems you're only out of your mind. Going out for a nice juicy burger now. MMMmmmmmm. Can I get you anything. Hay? Grass? a bucket of oats perhaps. Hey all of those things are living too. Guess you better start liking rocks and dirt because thats what you will be eating.