Vegetarian/Vegan Questions?

[yagami]

I agree with that but I dont think you have to go that far. Vegetarians eat plants. Why is it morally acceptable to eat a plant that is a living creature but not an animal. I mean what's the point of debating anything else if you cant answer that question? The only reason I pointed out how it's the non initiation of force is because of how often the you guys were saying the word aggression towards animals. Just wanted to be clear on that.

[J. D. Stembal]

Yagumi,

 

Richard_V responded a few posts ago:

 

 

 

Anyone worried about plants 'having feelings' (one of the more hilarious arguments brought up when people feel morally inferior to vegans) should go ahead and become vegan. If the entire human population switched to a plant based diet, many many more plants would be saved due to the sheer quantities used in animal agriculture to feed livestock.

 

He was attempting to straw man my question posed to Jolle de Jong, which was:

 

 

 

Why don't plants also benefit from your universal empathy?

 

Richard also invoked the environmental reasoning behind veganism, which boils down to forcing (or strongly suggesting, as in this thread) everyone to eat plants because eating animals is bad for the environment. This is not a well reasoned argument. In fact, it is false. Corn, soy, and wheat crops, in the form of state-subsidized industrial agriculture, are killing off endangered species, washing away topsoil, draining aquifers for irrigation, polluting the water system with fertilizers, and destroying whole ecosystems. Animal husbandry, without the perversion of modern agriculture and the state, doesn't have any of these environmentally damaging effects.

[corbyco]

I think the issue here is using the word aggression. Although it's called the NAP it's actually just the non initiation of force. Aggression isn't morally evil. You can be agressive towards and attacker or anyone else that threatens you so if we think about it in that sense I dont see anything wrong with initiating force to consume living animals. We do it to living plants all the time. I really wanna know what the difference is.

 

That is a good point.  I agree that NAP is mostly about non initiation of force.

 

I suppose that I am not saying that eating meat is immoral but that, because it is unnecessary, then the suffering and death of the animals is by personal choice and so demonstrating an aggressive nature.

 

If we are to develop a society who lives by non-aggression then it would be much easier if all aggression against living things were considered at least 'wrong'.

 

This discussion has clarified to me that although I am a vegan, I dont have a problem with other people eating meat as long as the animal didnt suffer.  If the animal suffered then it means someone caused that suffering and if they can stand by while an animal suffers then they are more likely to be aggressive towards people too.

I feel the same about people who are happy for the intensive meat industry to be causing the suffering on their behalf. 

 

Again, although I believe there are health issues with meat and will not eat it myself, I am OK with others eating it if the animals were treated humanely.  I would not be against hunting for example, where the animal has had a free life and is killed quickly.

[yagami]

Im sorry but I have to call you out on that. You said you dont see how the NAP doesn't apply to animals. Which means you are trying to make a moral argument for the non suffering of animals. The NAP is the non initiation of force it is not the non initiation of force unless that force doesn't include suffering. The NAP is a moral framework and unless you are willing to make a moral argument then you are just stating your preferences. Your argument seems to be akin to the well who will pick the cotton without the slaves. You are saying if people do this then they may end up like that. That is an argument from practicality and not a moral argument. Even if the killing of animals int eh most brutal way lead to the most evil of people the consequence of the killing of the animal has no baring on the morality of the question at hand. You have to decide if you are making a moral argument or are you just stating what you prefer. If the latter if true then that is your answer to your question as to why the NAP does not apply to animals or animal suffering. The NAP is a universal and preferences have no place there. You will have to prove why the NAP applies to animal without using the argument from effect.

Yagumi,

 

Richard_V responded a few posts ago:

 

Ah sorry I didn't read everything. I kinda just came in towards the end.

[corbyco]

If we say that NAP doesnt apply to animals then would you be OK with a child holding down a cat, say, and gradually cutting of its legs and watching it cry out and bleed to death?

 

Would you not consider that child to be mentally disturbed?

 

I assume you would not want the cat to suffer and would stop the child hurting it - and so why would you if aggression against animals is OK?

[yagami]

You can tell by your language you dont get what im saying. Would I be "OK" doesnt matter I do not decide morality so what I prefer doesn't matter. If I saw a child doing that I would probably stop them. In this case I would be violating the NAP but that is my choice to violate it. I dont change a universal theory by my decision. You need to prove why the NAP does apply to animals and not tell us how you feel that it will lead to bad things or makes you feel uncomfortable. If you cant do that then this is not an argument at all just you stating you preferences and not at all stating why the NAP does apply to animals.

[luxfelix]

To add to your point yagami, it makes me think of the scenario where a hungry homeless child steals bread from a vendor. Sure the vendor can pursue and reclaim the stolen bread, but he doesn't have to (and his preference would not change the universal theory/NAP). 

 

I wonder if a possible solution to this dietary controversy might be settled with ownership:

 

If a vegetarian does not want an animal to be eaten, they could purchase that animal and/or pool resources with other like-minded individuals to establish and maintain wildlife refuges/zoos etc. for peace of mind/sustainability and a means for visitor fees and/or donations to pay for their preferences.

 

If carnivores and omnivores want to purchase from farms/markets, or hunt on privately owned hunting grounds to respect the integrity of the animals habitat/obtain nutrition as close to as nature as possible etc., then that is another valid option.

 

If someone wants to purchase meat the way it is conventionally produced today that is also an option, though, I imagine as more people become aware of the inefficiencies and nutritional deficiencies of this current model, this option may become obsolete.

 

Oh, and on the matter of not needing to eat meat for health: did different groups of humans evolve with different dietary needs?

 

I ask because I've come across stories of healthy vegetarians and healthy carnivores/omnivores. Provided their all telling the truth, is their some specific biology that supports, say... this person being better suited to a vegetarian diet, while this other person has the body of a carnivore/omnivore?

 

If someone does need meat, then it's not really a question of morals since we can't be born immoral, right?

 

These are important questions just in case I throw a dinner party for Freedomain Radio folks... what should I put on the menu? 

[Richard_V]

 

 

Richard also invoked the environmental reasoning behind veganism, which boils down to forcing (or strongly suggesting, as in this thread) everyone to eat plants because eating animals is bad for the environment. This is not a well reasoned argument. In fact, it is false. Corn, soy, and wheat crops, in the form of state-subsidized industrial agriculture, are killing off endangered species, washing away topsoil, draining aquifers for irrigation, polluting the water system with fertilizers, and destroying whole ecosystems. Animal husbandry, without the perversion of modern agriculture and the state, doesn't have any of these environmentally damaging effects.

 

 

 

I think perhaps you have a very romantic vision of 'animal husbandry'. Even the phrase sounds benevolent. Unfortunately, the truth is as far from benevolent as it gets: 

http://www.meat.org

 

Please post some concrete evidence that the animal agriculture industry (as it exists today) is not single-handedly the most polluting, destructive and unsustainable form of farming in existence.

I recently watched a documentary called 'Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret'. It opened my eyes to just how devastating the animal agriculture business is to the environment. It is literally killing the planet - and not very slowly either. For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend it. 

http://cowspiracy.com

[corbyco]

You can tell by your language you dont get what im saying. Would I be "OK" doesnt matter I do not decide morality so what I prefer doesn't matter. If I saw a child doing that I would probably stop them. In this case I would be violating the NAP but that is my choice to violate it. I dont change a universal theory by my decision. You need to prove why the NAP does apply to animals and not tell us how you feel that it will lead to bad things or makes you feel uncomfortable. If you cant do that then this is not an argument at all just you stating you preferences and not at all stating why the NAP does apply to animals.

 

Where I am going with this is that its not just about the suffering caused to the animal but also the effect its having on the child.

 

It is obvious that you are a much more accomplished in philosophy and I will try and learn from your use of the terms.

 

Am I right in saying that NAP is a universal preferable behaviour?

 

If so, then would you agree that not cutting off the legs of a live cat would be a universal preferable behaviour for any sane person?

 

You state that you would stop the child causing unnecessary suffering to an animal then could it be that every sane person would also stop the child - as so perhaps we all already accept that it is a UPB and that NAP extends to animals?

By the way, I see some people trying to extend my definition out to plants.

I dont accept this because:

 

1.  There is no evidence they have any consciousness or feel pain

2.  Eating plants IS necessary for our survival (so even if we proved they did feel pain I would still eat them - perhaps a little more reluctantly).

[yagami]

To add to your point yagami, it makes me think of the scenario where a hungry homeless child steals bread from a vendor. Sure the vendor can pursue and reclaim the stolen bread, but he doesn't have to (and his preference would not change the universal theory/NAP). 

 

I wonder if a possible solution to this dietary controversy might be settled with ownership:

 

If a vegetarian does not want an animal to be eaten, they could purchase that animal and/or pool resources with other like-minded individuals to establish and maintain wildlife refuges/zoos etc. for peace of mind/sustainability and a means for visitor fees and/or donations to pay for their preferences.

 

If carnivores and omnivores want to purchase from farms/markets, or hunt on privately owned hunting grounds to respect the integrity of the animals habitat/obtain nutrition as close to as nature as possible etc., then that is another valid option.

 

If someone wants to purchase meat the way it is conventionally produced today that is also an option, though, I imagine as more people become aware of the inefficiencies and nutritional deficiencies of this current model, this option may become obsolete.

 

Oh, and on the matter of not needing to eat meat for health: did different groups of humans evolve with different dietary needs?

 

I ask because I've come across stories of healthy vegetarians and healthy carnivores/omnivores. Provided their all telling the truth, is their some specific biology that supports, say... this person being better suited to a vegetarian diet, while this other person has the body of a carnivore/omnivore?

 

If someone does need meat, then it's not really a question of morals since we can't be born immoral, right?

 

These are important questions just in case I throw a dinner party for Freedomain Radio folks... what should I put on the menu? 

Im not sure if you saw my first post on this thread but you should read my thoughts on diets. In there I explain why both diets work and neither is correct. You do not need meat you need amino acids which you get from protein. You can get amino acids outside of meat. You also need saturated fat which you can get from milk. Eating protein is just a more efficient way of getting amino acids rather than getting amino acids through other means

Where I am going with this is that its not just about the suffering caused to the animal but also the effect its having on the child.

 

It is obvious that you are a much more accomplished in philosophy and I will try and learn from your use of the terms.

 

Am I right in saying that NAP is a universal preferable behaviour?

 

If so, then would you agree that not cutting off the legs of a live cat would be a universal preferable behaviour for any sane person?

 

You state that you would stop the child causing unnecessary suffering to an animal then could it be that every sane person would also stop the child - as so perhaps we all already accept that it is a UPB and that NAP extends to animals?

By the way, I see some people trying to extend my definition out to plants.

I dont accept this because:

 

1.  There is no evidence they have any consciousness or feel pain

2.  Eating plants IS necessary for our survival (so even if we proved they did feel pain I would still eat them - perhaps a little more reluctantly).

Again you are using the argument from effect. I cant say slavery is great because the consequences of not having slavery will be disaster. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying if we dont change the universal theory to include animals the consequences could be disaster. 

 

Arguement from effect podcast:

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1645/the-religion-of-the-argument-from-effect

 

You cant claim that everyone not doing horrible things to animals is UPB because the child is preforming that action. Therefore it cant  be universal. I also find it hard to believe that in a world where there is a child doing such horrible things there is only one child in existence that is doing such things. This just adds to my argument about how the action of stopping the child cant be UPB. Also sanity has nothing to do with UPB. UPB applies to sane people and insane people equally.

 

No we dont all accept the UPB extends to animals. If you wish to dispute UPB you must find the logical inconsistency in the argument. You must say UPB is wrong because it doesn't apply to animals and here is why it should apply to animals. So far all you have said is doing horrible things to animals will lead to negative consequences in the future. I really want you to understand why that argument is the exact same thing as saying who will pick the cotton if we dont have slaves. It doesn't matter how bad things would be without slaves it's still immoral.

 

If UPB is false please explain why it is false. Murder is immoral. Murdering someone slowly is immoral as well. The amount of suffering doesn't matter. If murdering someone brings great joy to others that doesn't make murder moral (Killing in self defense is different). But as you can see if you replace animal suffering with murder you can see that you dont judge the morality of an action based on how much suffering is involved, how much you get out of the action or what everyone else things about the action. At one point everyone thought slavery was good except that tiny group called the slaves. You cant just exclude them and slap the label on them of insanity (Not that you are calling slaves insane I know you aren't). But you basically said only sane people would do such a thing. As if someone's sanity determines an arguments validity. You would be considered insane for trying to come up with a system of agriculture that didn't involve slaves. OK END OF RANT!! XD

[corbyco]

@yagami

 

I dont understand how it is the same as your 'slavery' example.

I would be grateful if you could explain that in simpler terms for me. (I am new here).

 

Is it not correct that we promote peaceful parenting because it will produce peaceful children and then peaceful adults.

 

We are promoting a behaviour because it will produce the result that is preferable for everyone.

 

I put it to you that promoting a behaviour of not being aggressive to animals is preferable because it is also teaching children that aggression is wrong except in self defense.  If the cat goes crazy and attacks you it is OK to kill the cat - but if it is sitting next to you purring then it is sadistic to hurt the cat unprovoked.

 

A child that is happy causing suffering to an animal is, in my opinion, much more likely going to cause suffering to a human being.

I certainly have heard of the inverse where an abused child is more likely the one who would put a cat in the microwave.

 

If I am still off track, I would be very grateful for you to take a little time to teach me where I am wrong and perhaps point me to where I can learn the correct method of interaction in these discussions.

[yagami]

First off you should listen to the podcast I pointed out in my last post. Im not saying what you are advocating is like slavery im saying you are taking an argument that is the same argument that was put forth when people said we shouldn't have slaves. The rebuttal was we needed have slavery because without slaves XYZ will happen. What im trying to say is you are telling me that morality is determined by consequences. If morality is determined by consequences then we should still have slaves because it was completely impossible to tell what benefits we would get from not having slavery. This relates to your argument in this way. You are saying if we way it is moral to allow people to do cruel things to animals then the consequences of that action will be XYZ. Even if the consequences of allowing such action were good that would have zero baring on whether the action is moral or not. When it came to slavery it just so happen that by freeing the slaves gave us a great benefit. But we didn't free the slaves because we thought the benefit would be so great. We free the slaves because we believed that to be the moral thing to do. If you want to extend UPB to animals or anything aliens rocks whatever you need o explain first what is the logical inconsistency in UPB. 

 

Also you shouldnt be teaching children "good behavior". You should be teaching them how to think. If you start teaching them this is good and this is bad they will look to you for answers and not be able to think for themselves. The question should be what do you think about this. Raising children with conclusions about what is good and what is bad is what religion does. Now children will naturally latch onto the beliefs their parents have but teaching them that what you think is right is not the best way to go about parenting in my opinion.

 

Also a child raised with empathy will have no desire to do anything cruel to animals. You dont need to teach children murder is bad stealing is wrong ect. These things come naturally when the child has empathy. When the child has empathy they can place themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how an action would make them feel. Steph has said his daughter is very very kind to animals and I guarantee you he never taught her to be kind and animals. Promote peaceful parenting by being a peaceful parent. Teach other parents how to be peaceful. Dont tell parents or children conclusions only how to think.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

 

So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients.

 

Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food. Most of these animals sing love songs to each other, until we inhumanely mass-slaughter them.

 

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

[corbyco]

@yagami  - I just listened to the podcast.  I have learnt something today - thank you for pointing me to it. 

I will no longer ague from the effect.

 

I am struggling still with how initiation of aggression can be right in any circumstances.  Has being aggressive ever been the right thing to do (other than in self defense)?

 

I see aggression towards animals as possibly a reflection that someone doesnt really believe in the NAP.

Can someone really believe the NAP is a UPB if, when they feel they want to hit their wife, they kick the dog instead?

 

Does applying the NAP to animals too, really require a revision of UPB or is it not a simple logical extension?  

Ordering the vegetarian meal? There’s more animal blood on your hands

 

So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients.

 

Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food. Most of these animals sing love songs to each other, until we inhumanely mass-slaughter them.

 

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

 

 

I have just in this last half hour learnt not to argue from effect.

 

If NAP does apply to animals then the effect is irrelevant, we must stop being aggressive to animals.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

"Don't be cruel to your children!" Sally Fallon Blasts Vegan Children's Book

 

short video... only 1:11 "Key Principals of Traditional Diet"

[shirgall]

Gotta love a video that has a "no true carnivore" argument.

[yagami]

It is never morally correct to initiate violence against others but we must distinguished between humans animals and non living things. It would be rediculous for anyone to say it is morally wrong to initiate violence against a punching bag but why would we say that? There has to be some kind of test that distinguishes a punching bag from a human. UPB says that distinction comes from the ability to comprehend morality or under normal circumstances would eventually become capable of understand morality in the future. That covers children and those born with little to no ability to comprehend such things. Animals can not comprehend morality so they cant act as moral agents. Animals cant be moral or immoral so morality does not apply to them. If you which to apply the UPB ( a moral framework) to animals then you are at the same time saying that animals should act morally. But since animals cant act morally UPB doesn't apply.

[corbyco]

It is never morally correct to initiate violence against others but we must distinguished between humans animals and non living things. It would be rediculous for anyone to say it is morally wrong to initiate violence against a punching bag but why would we say that? There has to be some kind of test that distinguishes a punching bag from a human. UPB says that distinction comes from the ability to comprehend morality or under normal circumstances would eventually become capable of understand morality in the future. That covers children and those born with little to no ability to comprehend such things. Animals can not comprehend morality so they cant act as moral agents. Animals cant be moral or immoral so morality does not apply to them. If you which to apply the UPB ( a moral framework) to animals then you are at the same time saying that animals should act morally. But since animals cant act morally UPB doesn't apply.

 

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding.

 

I am not trying apply UPB to animals in the sense of expecting them to act morally.

 

I am asking if we can make an extension to human morality to include non aggression against animals.

[luxfelix]

Im not sure if you saw my first post on this thread but you should read my thoughts on diets. In there I explain why both diets work and neither is correct. You do not need meat you need amino acids which you get from protein. You can get amino acids outside of meat. You also need saturated fat which you can get from milk. Eating protein is just a more efficient way of getting amino acids rather than getting amino acids through other means

 

I did, and your points seem to line up nicely with the evidence presented in Nathan H. Hoffner's previous post with links to Sally Fallon and traditional diets.

 

I've heard of artificial/synthetic meat that can be grown in a lab. It may meet vegetarian's goal of protecting animals, but it's not clear whether or not the product is safe for consumption (as far as I know), or at least as efficient and/or compatible with the human body in terms of nutrient/mineral utilization.

 

I posted the video about "How Wolves Change Rivers" to provide another example of how carnivores can promote life; this is similar to Nathan H. Hoffner's other post about how agriculture may cause more environmental damage and animal endangerment.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we're all in some sort of agreement that contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods, and that likewise methods of contemporary mono-culture/chemical methods of agriculture are not preferable to traditional soil-replenishing/crop rotational methods; the implication here is that the non-preferable options are likely the result of state subsidies and that our dietary choices are not meant to validate the current food production methods anymore than using roads indicates our support of the state. 

 

If both diets promote health, and it's not a moral question, than both diets are valid and we're free to choose from the menu as we like, right?

 

(Maybe it's to our ultimate benefit to have different dietary cultures to fulfill different niches of their choosing?) 

[powder]

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding.

 

I am not trying apply UPB to animals in the sense of expecting them to act morally.

 

I am asking if we can make an extension to human morality to include non aggression against animals.

some of your posts show that you are not making the proper distinction between the NAP and UPB.  when making an argument you must first establish that your definitions match that of the people your are discussing them with.  Yagami is trying to explain universal principles and you keep arguing from effect and ignoring or misunderstanding the word 'universal' in UPB.  

[Richard_V]

I did, and your points seem to line up nicely with the evidence presented in Nathan H. Hoffner's previous post with links to Sally Fallon and traditional diets.

 

I've heard of artificial/synthetic meat that can be grown in a lab. It may meet vegetarian's goal of protecting animals, but it's not clear whether or not the product is safe for consumption (as far as I know), or at least as efficient and/or compatible with the human body in terms of nutrient/mineral utilization.

 

I posted the video about "How Wolves Change Rivers" to provide another example of how carnivores can promote life; this is similar to Nathan H. Hoffner's other post about how agriculture may cause more environmental damage and animal endangerment.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we're all in some sort of agreement that contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods, and that likewise methods of contemporary mono-culture/chemical methods of agriculture are not preferable to traditional soil-replenishing/crop rotational methods; the implication here is that the non-preferable options are likely the result of state subsidies and that our dietary choices are not meant to validate the current food production methods anymore than using roads indicates our support of the state. 

 

If both diets promote health, and it's not a moral question, than both diets are valid and we're free to choose from the menu as we like, right?

 

(Maybe it's to our ultimate benefit to have different dietary cultures to fulfill different niches of their choosing?) 

 

But here are some hard facts: 

The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming you mention is mostly for feeding animals in the animal agriculture business. Look at the statistics - it's shocking. 60% of corn grown in the US is used for animal feed. The percentage of worldwide soy production used for animal feed is off the charts. The Amazon rain forests - the lungs of this planet - are being chopped down so more farmers can plant soy in order to feed cattle bound for consumption in the west.

It's all completely upside down. Some would say insane. 

Add onto that the methane and excrement produced by these billions of animals every year and it's a ticking time bomb. 

Because of insane government subsidies given to farmers in the west and all of the environmental issues, the true cost of meat is simply hidden... people who choose to eat meat should be paying far more for it. Far more. Instead, everyone is forced to pay for meat-eaters choices indirectly through taxation.

 

So yes, consuming animal products is a choice... just not a very fair one. "I support animal cruelty and the destruction of the environment" is not a choice I believe people would make if they were educated about the facts. 

 

Alas, so many people simply do not want to hear facts. Otherwise sane and rational people will bring out the "lions do it" and "plants have feelings tho"  arguments. I mean, bacon tastes good... but not THAT good :-)

[luxfelix]

But here are some hard facts: 

The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming you mention is mostly for feeding animals in the animal agriculture business. Look at the statistics - it's shocking. 60% of corn grown in the US is used for animal feed. The percentage of worldwide soy production used for animal feed is off the charts. The Amazon rain forests - the lungs of this planet - are being chopped down so more farmers can plant soy in order to feed cattle bound for consumption in the west.

It's all completely upside down. Some would say insane. 

Add onto that the methane and excrement produced by these billions of animals every year and it's a ticking time bomb. 

Because of insane government subsidies given to farmers in the west and all of the environmental issues, the true cost of meat is simply hidden... people who choose to eat meat should be paying far more for it. Far more. Instead, everyone is forced to pay for meat-eaters choices indirectly through taxation.

 

So yes, consuming animal products is a choice... just not a very fair one. "I support animal cruelty and the destruction of the environment" is not a choice I believe people would make if they were educated about the facts. 

 

Alas, so many people simply do not want to hear facts. Otherwise sane and rational people will bring out the "lions do it" and "plants have feelings tho"  arguments. I mean, bacon tastes good... but not THAT good :-)

 

Thank you for the hard facts:

 

(I'm not the very model of a modern Major-General; I've not information vegetable, animal, and mineral.  ​ )

 

I appreciate the empirical support (as that is not my strong suit), yet I am trying my best to emphasize that we share a disgust for the current food production model and the hidden costs/exploitation, as well as to suggest that it doesn't have to be that way.

 

I am neither suggesting that one diet is superior to another (as I've read much evidence to support both sides... and am admittedly confused by how they can conflict so), nor am I advocating the continuance of contemporary agribusiness and coercive corporate/state collusion (is anyone here advocating that?).

 

I mention it, but I don't agree with "The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming" (if that was the source of misunderstanding?).

 

If data on food waste is any indication, it's not even clear that the current model's efficiency is even necessary (or at least finding its market efficiently enough...).

 

Where does the controversy from this topic come from if, (1) we agree that government/agribusiness is harmful, (2) humans are biologically suited to digest many things nature has to offer (be it animal, vegetable, or mineral), and (3) dietary decisions are a matter of individual preference and do not violate the NAP? 

 

Also, I get a sense that we all want each other to be healthy while doing the least amount of harm to animals, vegetables, and minerals, so we have shared information in this topic (though maybe one size does not fit all because some of us are herbivores or carnivores/omnivores etc.?).

 

Perhaps we could be more productive if we get to the heart of the matter here?

 

(How does one prepare a dinner party for FDR folks!?  )

[OGMizen]

Two great channels on youtube for evidence based nutrition science (both happen to advocate plant based diets)'nutritionfacts.org' -Some really good videos backed up by the best science available.'Plant positive' -A complete debunking of several paleo/low carb 'authorities' and myths.Both are very heavy on science and factual info (and nothing else) -Check em out.Ive been vegan for nearly two years, never have cravings for junk or animal foods. The key is to eat carbohydrates. 80-90%carbs 10%fat 10%protein -eat plenty of fruit, rice, pasta, potatoes etc. until you are stuffed every meal and youll be fine. Take your B12 supps cuz if you dont you will feel thrashed in no time! Hope that helps!

[square4]

So Lions are evil?

And are animals just free to treat us like they want to?

Letting animals be what they are, what about animals which have been breed to be food?

Whether a particular lion is evil is to be decided the same as for humans: Has the lion the ability to understand morality, if so, does it deviate systematically from the portions of morality it understands? If so, then it’s evil. Animals are not free to treat us like they want. NAP does not forbid that you defend yourself against aggressive animals. Letting animals be what they are: I mean things like letting the young calf stay with its mother cow, not that nature is perfect, or that we should reverse breed.

They can't poses property, they can't be reasoned with, they can't be responsible, they don't look like humans, they don't act like humans, they don't think like humans, they are physiological different. Sure there are similarities because of our shared animal past, but they still are not human and not close to being so.

I agree that animals are very different from us, I also agree that they are below us, but would you argue that animals are mere biological machines, having no consciousness whatsoever? If you could show that to me, that would convince me.

1) Unlike infant humans, animals generally cannot adhere to the non-aggression principle, nor can they learn it when they reach adulthood.

Do you think there exist humans that cannot and never will be able to understand the non-aggression principle, for example, children that die very young, or adults that are severely mentally disabled? If so, how would you view aggression directed against them? If NAP can be applied to newborns, and even to adults who are bent on breaking it, why not to animals?

 

My argument regarding pain in humans and animals was for the purpose of establishing consciousness; that there exists a person that is affected by possible acts of aggression. It was not intended to establish that they are moral agents (although I do think that many of them are to some degree).

(I am also a little confused by your language. Can you define dominion and enslavement as it applies to human treatment of animals? I'm not sure how animal husbandry or meat eating can be defined as such.)

Treating animals as property.

[Richard_V]

Thank you for the hard facts:

 

(I'm not the very model of a modern Major-General; I've not information vegetable, animal, and mineral.  ​ )

 

I appreciate the empirical support (as that is not my strong suit), yet I am trying my best to emphasize that we share a disgust for the current food production model and the hidden costs/exploitation, as well as to suggest that it doesn't have to be that way.

 

I am neither suggesting that one diet is superior to another (as I've read much evidence to support both sides... and am admittedly confused by how they can conflict so), nor am I advocating the continuance of contemporary agribusiness and coercive corporate/state collusion (is anyone here advocating that?).

 

I mention it, but I don't agree with "The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming" (if that was the source of misunderstanding?).

 

If data on food waste is any indication, it's not even clear that the current model's efficiency is even necessary (or at least finding its market efficiently enough...).

 

Where does the controversy from this topic come from if, (1) we agree that government/agribusiness is harmful, (2) humans are biologically suited to digest many things nature has to offer (be it animal, vegetable, or mineral), and (3) dietary decisions are a matter of individual preference and do not violate the NAP? 

 

Also, I get a sense that we all want each other to be healthy while doing the least amount of harm to animals, vegetables, and minerals, so we have shared information in this topic (though maybe one size does not fit all because some of us are herbivores or carnivores/omnivores etc.?).

 

Perhaps we could be more productive if we get to the heart of the matter here?

 

(How does one prepare a dinner party for FDR folks!?  )

 

I guess the two biggest questions which divide us are: 

1. Is it necessary for human beings to consume animal flesh and secretions in order to live a healthy, happy life? 

AND

2. Do non-human animals have the same fundamental right as human beings to live free from exploitation, enslavement, torture and murder? 

 

Until these fundamental (and clearly linked) points can be agreed upon, there will be no end to the debate.

 

Regarding dinner, it might be a tough one!  Screw the food, let's just have cocktails! 

[Psychophant]

I guess the two biggest questions which divide us are: 

1. Is it necessary for human beings to consume animal flesh and secretions in order to live a healthy, happy life? 

AND

2. Do non-human animals have the same fundamental right as human beings to live free from exploitation, enslavement, torture and murder? 

 

 

No 1 is irrelevant cuz neccessity is not a moral category, otherwise anything that isn´t strictly necessary would be considered immoral by default. "Take that bag of gummi bears away little fellow, cuz it is not necessesary and therefore immoral." You could also make the same case for plants, cuz being sentient doesn´t constitute for being a moral entity. You can neither argue with animals nor with plants. They cannot respect or even recognize your selfownership, thus selfownership cannot apply to them.

 

Murder is a legal term and has no meaning outside of a statist realm, although murder is an emotional charged term animal rights ideologues denounce omnivores with. No selfownership means no enslavement but you use those categories which indicates an implicit question. Torture is a different category. Wasn´t it the Non Torture Principle or something? It is not in the best interest of farmers to torture animals, cuz it ruins the meat quality due to cortisol.

[luxfelix]

Regarding dinner, it might be a tough one!  Screw the food, let's just have cocktails! 

 

That's an option. 

 

No 1 is irrelevant cuz neccessity is not a moral category, otherwise anything that isn´t strictly necessary would be considered immoral by default. "Take that bag of gummi bears away little fellow, cuz it is not necessesary and therefore immoral." You could also make the same case for plants, cuz being sentient doesn´t constitute for being a moral entity. You can neither argue with animals nor with plants. They cannot respect or even recognize your selfownership, thus selfownership cannot apply to them.

 

Murder is a legal term and has no meaning outside of a statist realm, although murder is an emotional charged term animal rights ideologues denounce omnivores with. No selfownership means no enslavement but you use those categories which indicates an implicit question. Torture is a different category. Wasn´t it the Non Torture Principle or something? It is not in the best interest of farmers to torture animals, cuz it ruins the meat quality due to cortisol.

 

Good point about torture ruining the meat quality, it reminds me of this pattern whereby general preferences also have added benefits when followed; for example, not only is courteousness generally preferable, but acting in such a way also accrues social capital for future dealings.

 

If number 1 is irrelevant and number 2 does not apply to animals, then the two biggest questions which divide us are solved, right?

 

(The rest is just differences in personal taste?)

[J. D. Stembal]

But here are some hard facts: 

The type of exhaustive and unnatural corn / grain / soy etc. farming you mention is mostly for feeding animals in the animal agriculture business. Look at the statistics - it's shocking. 60% of corn grown in the US is used for animal feed. The percentage of worldwide soy production used for animal feed is off the charts. The Amazon rain forests - the lungs of this planet - are being chopped down so more farmers can plant soy in order to feed cattle bound for consumption in the west.

It's all completely upside down. Some would say insane. 

Add onto that the methane and excrement produced by these billions of animals every year and it's a ticking time bomb. 

Because of insane government subsidies given to farmers in the west and all of the environmental issues, the true cost of meat is simply hidden... people who choose to eat meat should be paying far more for it. Far more. Instead, everyone is forced to pay for meat-eaters choices indirectly through taxation.

 

So yes, consuming animal products is a choice... just not a very fair one. "I support animal cruelty and the destruction of the environment" is not a choice I believe people would make if they were educated about the facts. 

 

Alas, so many people simply do not want to hear facts. Otherwise sane and rational people will bring out the "lions do it" and "plants have feelings tho"  arguments. I mean, bacon tastes good... but not THAT good :-)

 

You do know that cows are ruminants, right? They are perfectly happy eating grasses. In fact, feeding them a steady diet of corn turns their stomachs septic and eventually kills them. Deer, antelope, and sheep are also ruminants. How does feeding animals grass devastate the environment? It's the perversion of state subsidized agriculture that makes meat eating bad for the environment. If you buy from local, sustainable sources (grass-fed and pasture-raised), you aren't feeding the state machine of industrialized food practices.

 

Grass-fed, pasture-raised beef is far more expensive than corn-fed beef, so there are no hidden costs paid for by taxes in this instance. It is the industrial ag that is subsidized. Every time you drink soy milk, someone else is paying for it.

 

What percentage of the corn grown goes into gas tanks? Do you have a choice to buy ethanol free gas? Did you mention methane specifically because of climate change?

 

You are too focused on the meat-eating as the cause of an environmental problem, and not the state. This is a multi-tiered environmental problem and it all begins with faulty science and governmental authority. Since this is FDR, I am quite surprised that some members do not treat their facts with as much care as a rational empiricist would.

[yagami]

Oh I think we have a misunderstanding.

 

I am not trying apply UPB to animals in the sense of expecting them to act morally.

 

I am asking if we can make an extension to human morality to include non aggression against animals.

First off I apologize for taking so long to reply to your post. Second UPB cant apply to animals because what you are advocating is that animals be protected by UPB but have no moral responsibility. UPB only applies to humans because we can act both morally and morally. Because of this we are also responsible for our actions. This cant apply to animals because they cant act as moral agents. Also you never explained the difference between a rock a plant an animal and a human. Why are all four of these treated differently to you given your moral framework?

I did, and your points seem to line up nicely with the evidence presented in Nathan H. Hoffner's previous post with links to Sally Fallon and traditional diets.

 

I've heard of artificial/synthetic meat that can be grown in a lab. It may meet vegetarian's goal of protecting animals, but it's not clear whether or not the product is safe for consumption (as far as I know), or at least as efficient and/or compatible with the human body in terms of nutrient/mineral utilization.

 

I posted the video about "How Wolves Change Rivers" to provide another example of how carnivores can promote life; this is similar to Nathan H. Hoffner's other post about how agriculture may cause more environmental damage and animal endangerment.

 

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we're all in some sort of agreement that contemporary cattle confinement methods are not preferable to traditional free-range methods, and that likewise methods of contemporary mono-culture/chemical methods of agriculture are not preferable to traditional soil-replenishing/crop rotational methods; the implication here is that the non-preferable options are likely the result of state subsidies and that our dietary choices are not meant to validate the current food production methods anymore than using roads indicates our support of the state. 

 

If both diets promote health, and it's not a moral question, than both diets are valid and we're free to choose from the menu as we like, right?

 

(Maybe it's to our ultimate benefit to have different dietary cultures to fulfill different niches of their choosing?) 

Im going to have to disagree with you on the point about contemporary cattle. The thing is none of that really matters. Not to sound condescending but you might want to read my post again. We dont need meat and if we do eat meat we only need the amino acids and saturated fat from the meat. That isnt effected by the way the cow is raised. The only thing that matters in your diet is how much nutrition you get. That's it. It is impossible to get all your nutrition from your food. If you eat meat from a cow grown in a lab as long as that cow is giving you all your nutrients nothing else really matters (assuming the cow isn't so toxic you die from the first bit).

 

One of the fundemental misconceptions people have about the human body is when it breaks you are screwed. The human body has an amazing copacity to heal itself from all chronic disease. The only reason it doesn't do so in most cases is because the body doesn't have all its' tools available to fix the problem. (I feel a rant coming on)

 

People go to their doctor assuming their doctor will help them but have no idea that most doctors in the US are MD doctors. The term MD is misleading and almost no one realizes what MD really means. MD should be renamed to AD for alopathic doctor. These types of doctors specialize in trauma surgery and a few infectious diseases. Most of the time people go to the doctor they dont have any of these issues. So what's the best way to work with surgery and trauma? DRUGS!! This is why every solution an MD will give you will be drugs or surgery. When they go to medical school that is what they learn. But what everyone else believes and MD is is a medical doctor who goes to school for years and years and learns something about everything. Then if he doesn't know he sends you to another doctor who is a "specialist". The term specialist only means he is an expert in the aplopathic treatment of a disease. That doesn't mean he is an all around expert on everything to do with that disease. Of course alopathic medicine is far far more profitable than the other schools of medicine so of course while they are the dominant force in medicine. People believe that MD's are a better bet for health because they are everywhere.

 

Natural medicines are seen as risky largely because of the reasons I mentioned in my first post. When a person's body breaks down and they try using vitamins to fix the problem they may only get slightly better if at all. The body needs a comprehensive set of nutrition and then all chronic disease goes away because chronic disease can ONLY exist in the face of a lack of nutrition. If you suffer from a chronic disease and aren't getting better from the nutritional approach you A aren't taking enough according to body weight or B you aren't taking the correct stuff. 

 

Now that doesn't mean that MD's are all bad doctors. All it means is people need to get the idea out of their head that MDs went to school for year and years and learned all about chronic disease. If they know anything about chronic disease then it came from their own personal study of the subject. MD doctors read papers on alopathic treatment of chronic disease and that is what they bring to the table. Not a comprehensive understanding of what's going on.  Almost all known chronic diseases were already cured in animals but there is this myth that animal medicine and human medicine is somehow vastly different.

 

One last thing the vitamin companies are out their to make money also. If you cant read chemical names (which most people cant) then you can be easily fooled into thinking you are getting a good product but are getting almost nothing. An example of this is calcium carbonate. This supplement is very popular but because of the way calcium carbonate is bonded you need to take usually a very large bottle of this stuff every day to get the daily value your body really needs. OK END OF RANT XD.

 

Im very passionate about this stuff as you can probably tell and most people have no idea how medicine really works behind the scenes. 

[Richard_V]

You do know that cows are ruminants, right? They are perfectly happy eating grasses. In fact, feeding them a steady diet of corn turns their stomachs septic and eventually kills them. Deer, antelope, and sheep are also ruminants. How does feeding animals grass devastate the environment? It's the perversion of state subsidized agriculture that makes meat eating bad for the environment. If you buy from local, sustainable sources (grass-fed and pasture-raised), you aren't feeding the state machine of industrialized food practices. Grass-fed, pasture-raised beef is far more expensive than corn-fed beef, so there are no hidden costs paid for by taxes in this instance. It is the industrial ag that is subsidized. Every time you drink soy milk, someone else is paying for it. What percentage of the corn grown goes into gas tanks? Do you have a choice to buy ethanol free gas? Did you mention methane specifically because of climate change? You are too focused on the meat-eating as the cause of an environmental problem, and not the state. This is a multi-tiered environmental problem and it all begins with faulty science and governmental authority. Since this is FDR, I am quite surprised that some members do not treat their facts with as much care as a rational empiricist would.

If the soy bean industry is government subsidised, it's only because of the demand for meat. The percentage of worldwide soy bean produce used for human consumption is minuscule. The rest is for feeding factory farmed animasls. I try to avoid soy when possible anyway - almond milk is way nicer. If every man woman and child on this planet wants to eat meat, where are these grass fed pasture cows going to graze? Another planet? Have you any idea what kind of space is needed for what you are talking about? Factory farming is a solution for the demand for meat. Were it not for factory farming, meat would cost 10 times what it does now. Grass fed beef (or any other animal) for everybody is impossible.

[shirgall]

We had soybeans in our rotation in order to get more nitrogen into the ground, but we certainly got more per bushel for it than corn, wheat, or oats. Yield was lower, though, but not much. This was back in the 70s and 80s, though, so perhaps things have changed since I was a farmer's grandkid.

[corbyco]

yagami: "First off I apologize for taking so long to reply to your post. Second UPB cant apply to animals because what you are advocating is that animals be protected by UPB but have no moral responsibility. UPB only applies to humans because we can act both morally and morally. Because of this we are also responsible for our actions. This cant apply to animals because they cant act as moral agents. Also you never explained the difference between a rock a plant an animal and a human. Why are all four of these treated differently to you given your moral framework?"

 

We seem to keep going round in a circle and I dont understand why.

 

You say that UPB cant apply to animals becuase they cant act as moral agents - but I am not asking anything of the animals at all.  I only ask that humans act morally and put it to you that it is possible to extend our moral requirement to not cause animals to suffer.   Surely the difference between a rock and animals is that animals can suffer and a rock cannot.

A baby is protected by UPB but does not have moral responsibility - so why not animals?

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Rant: As I understand it, pre-humans started eating animals (especially organ meats, sea food, etc.) in increasing amounts and thus became humans. Humans wouldn't have evolved without the neccesary raw materials (mainly the essential fats and other key vitamins).  Life seems to evolve as allowable by the resources it can obtain.  There's a reason our human brain developed as it has and it has everything to due with the extreme nutrient density of animal based foods.  You can look at the processes of the human body, the nutrients required in these processes, and then examine the foods have that have these key nutrients. You'll find animal based foods (from healthy animals) are critical to proper developement, especially brain developement.  Veggies are good, but not even close to things like organ meats, bone broths, various sea foods, etc. in terms of critical nutrients that are the building blocks of humans (saturated fats, cholesterol, vitamins A, D, K, B6, B12, etc.).  Sacred foods in traditional cultures were always animal based, fatty, and nutrient dense. Some cultures even hunted sharks for the shark livers at great risk to their safety.  When asked why, they said "In order to have healthy babies".  And now people want to feed their babies soy based vegan diets and think they are doing something good.  It's child abuse to deny proper nutrition to your baby.  Below is a pretty great interview about how to raise healthy babies. The book is called "Nourishing Traditions of Baby and Child Care"

 

Nourishing Traditions of Baby and Child Care with Dr. Thomas Cowan 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWygAbLu0OE

A good short video.....

 

Traditional Fats and Sacred Foods

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9A-30Twp1k

[corbyco]

Seriously PhilosopherKing Hoffner?

 

A rant of made up facts qualified with " ..as I understand it...seems to be..."

 

rice and beans gives you all the proteins you need then add nuts and oats and quinoa etc for variation- it is unnecessary to eat meat or any animal products save for B12 which we probably used to get naturally on our food and in our water and so have to add in occasionally.

 

Also I think you will find that most vegans avoid soy and certainly dont feed it to their babies as its mostly GM and too heavily processed.  Rice milk, coconut, almond, cashew, hazelnut, oat etc milks are excellent alternatives.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Two great channels on youtube for evidence based nutrition science (both happen to advocate plant based diets)'nutritionfacts.org' -Some really good videos backed up by the best science available.'Plant positive' -A complete debunking of several paleo/low carb 'authorities' and myths.Both are very heavy on science and factual info (and nothing else) -Check em out.Ive been vegan for nearly two years, never have cravings for junk or animal foods. The key is to eat carbohydrates. 80-90%carbs 10%fat 10%protein -eat plenty of fruit, rice, pasta, potatoes etc. until you are stuffed every meal and youll be fine. Take your B12 supps cuz if you dont you will feel thrashed in no time! Hope that helps!

You think we would have ever survived as a species eating 80-90% carbs?   Carbs were VERY RARE back then. Dont' be a slave to your blood sugar.  Switch that to 80 to 90% fats and you'll be great. Research ketogenic diet or nutritional ketosis. This type of eating is key in reversing all modern day "diseases" and it is very liberating. No cravings, no blood sugar dips, balances hormones, improved sleep, improved moods, steady energy all day long, increased muscle mass, lower body fat, etc. etc. (all the good things). It's true, i've done it and it was the best thing I've ever discovered (that and philosophy).  Watch this for some real logical ideas on nutrition. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9A-30Twp1k

Seriously PhilosopherKing Hoffner?

 

A rant of made up facts qualified with " ..as I understand it...seems to be..."

 

rice and beans gives you all the proteins you need then add nuts and oats and quinoa etc for variation- it is unnecessary to eat meat or any animal products save for B12 which we probably used to get naturally on our food and in our water and so have to add in occasionally.

 

 

I would say what about saturated fats, cholesterol, omega's 3 fatty acids, vitamins A, D, and K?   These are the building blocks of the body.  These are found in massive amounts in healthy animal based foods, especialy organ meats, sea food, cream, butter, egg yolks, etc.   As wel've gone away from these foods disease has sky rocketed and our rulers have profited greatly. There's a reason these traditional foods are smeared.  Beans, oats, nuts, and grains can't compete with nutrient dense foods that we evolved eating. In fact, grains are toxic.  It's a built-in survival strategy that they have. Traditional cultures that ate grains ALWAYS when through lengthy preparation process to get rid of the toxins first. I recommend you do more research on these topics if you want to avoid health problems in the future, if you're not already having issues... I know I was when I was eating like you recommend.   Also, it would be good to be able to spread the truth to more people.  We need strong minds and bodies, and nutrition is critical to both, since they are in fact one in the same. Also, are you sure you aren't suffering from confirmation bias? I aks myself that question, so I thought I'd ask you as well. What emotionals come up when presented with facts that contradict your beliefs around nutrition? Did you watch this one at least? I highly recommend it as a starting point (there is tons more evidence out there )  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9A-30Twp1k... and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-WKkCIpNxQ?