Why are some Animals worthy of love and affection, while others are sent to slaughterhouses for our consumption? — chatterbears

Just because an animal is worthy of love and affection doesn't necessarily stop us from sending it to a slaughterhouse with "ethical" justifications in tow. We send young men to die in wars quite frequently (veritable slaughter-houses) and sometimes we deem it moral to slaughter one-another outside of war theatres (eg: self-defense).

The reason why people send animals to slaughterhouses for their consumption is because it is beneficial to their survival and happiness. I reckon many-a-farmer has had to slaughter an animal that they cared for (maybe even loved) in order to feed themselves and their families.

2. Do you think that all Animals should have equal moral value, in the way we treat them and care for them? — chatterbears

Not possible. By building dwellings we displace and destroy multitudes of critters and creatures. Our roads disrupt, our fires and excrement pollutes; we cause harm and it's just a matter of choosing who or what will pay the price for our existence.

However, if there is a spectrum of sentience (that is to say, if a beetle feels less than a dolphin) then given the choice to save only one of them, I would certainly choose the dolphin barring extraneous circumstances. The more sentient (and perhaps by extension, intelligent) a thing is, the more I tend to extend moral consideration toward that thing.

Does every Animal deserve the basic right to life and freedoms that we desire for ourselves? (Such as freedom from slavery, fear, etc. — chatterbears

Rights are given or agreed upon; they are not inherent (though want itself seems to be). Earth's natural environment actually is the most terrible kind of place to hope that every creature might have a right to freedom from subservience, fear, suffering, or unjust death. By its own evolution it has come to be a place filled with competition, consumption, opposition, selection and death. Almost ironically, the very thing which gives life its relative stability is the massive payment in blood made to it by all the non-ancestors of a given thing, which by unhappy circumstance were not capable of producing a next generation (i.e: suffered and died).

Modern civilization has allowed us to stabilize the average life-cycle of humans beyond anything else in nature (no other animals are as free from unpredictable death as modern humans) and from our very comfortable pedestal it makes sense to extend our own security and comforts to other animals (if through empathy alone) but we simply cannot afford it. The farm animals we raise would need to be euthanized because we cannot afford to raise and care for them if they do not contribute to our own survival needs. The rest of nature finds balances that emerge naturally out of chaotic forces, and interference there is too costly and would likely cause more harm than it prevents (though we do have many small scale initiatives which seek to do so, for example, culling deer can actually be in the interest of many animal species, including deer themselves).

No animal, human or otherwise, has the right to be free from fear. The one-way contract that farm animals have with us is the only thing that causes farm animals to even exist in the first place, and so it becomes a decision between annihilation (and never having existed) vs living for a time and eventually being slaughtered.

It is not clear that inevitably being slaughtered makes a life not worth living.

Do you think Animal cruelty is wrong? — chatterbears

Yes.

Do you think we need to eat animals to survive? — chatterbears

Yep. The world cannot go vegan (at least not yet). In other words, some people must eat meat to survive.

We're not yet fully emancipated apes, and even among first world nations there may still be some individuals whose health will suffer on the available meat-free diet. When we have the agricultural and logistic capacity to provide adequate nutrition to all humans with animal-free practices, then we will be morally obligated to do so

The reason why people send animals to slaughterhouses for their consumption is because it is beneficial to their survival and happiness. — VagabondSpectre

95% of people on this planet do not need to eat animals to survive. We have plant-based alternatives, and many of the poorest countries survive on things like grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, etc... Meat is typically more expensive in other countries compared to the US, because we mass produce it here and it gets fueld by subsidies.

Not possible. By building dwellings we displace and destroy multitudes of critters and creatures. Our roads disrupt, our fires and excrement pollutes; we cause harm and it's just a matter of choosing who or what will pay the price for our existence. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed. We are a selfish species in which we cause destruction when we build roads and homes for ourselves. But this desctruction comes as an indirect result, rather than a direct result when we kill animals for food.

The more sentient (and perhaps by extension, intelligent) a thing is, the more I tend to extend moral consideration toward that thing. — VagabondSpectre

Agreed. So if we acknowledge that a pig, cow and chicken has similar sentience to us and dogs, why do we slaughter them by the billions every year?

The farm animals we raise would need to be euthanized because we cannot afford to raise and care for them if they do not contribute to our own survival needs. — VagabondSpectre

Or we could stop breeding them into existence and let them die off naturally, since the farm animals we bred do not even exist in the wild.

No animal, human or otherwise, has the right to be free from fear. — VagabondSpectre

You are taking "right" in a too literal sense, as if there's a contract or document that comes with it. I can rephrase this simply to mean, does every sentient being deserve to live in a state of comfort, rather than a state of fear? Of course this isn't possible for every sentient being, because even some humans are born into slavery in some countries. But generally speaking, if we had the choice, as Humans, to strike fear or provide comfort, should we not provide comfort instead?

Yep. The world cannot go vegan (at least not yet). In other words, some people must eat meat to survive. — VagabondSpectre

What are you basing this on? The amount of people that need to rely on meat to survive, is incredibly trivial. But also, these questions are directed at you as well, but you seemed to have answered for the group, instead of for yourself. Do you, Vagabond, need to eat meat to survive?

Agreed. So if we acknowledge that a pig, cow and chicken has similar sentience to us and dogs, why do we slaughter them by the billions every year? — chatterbears

I don't acknowledge that at all.

Niether cows, nor chickens nor dogs are similar to us in term of sentience. Other great apes, dolphins, elephants, and perhaps many others have high degrees of sentience and intelligence, but they are still not on the level of homo-sapiens.

Or we could stop breeding them into existence and let them die off naturally, since the farm animals we bred do not even exist in the wild. — chatterbears

We can't even afford to let them die off naturally as if we're to go vegan we need all available resources to ensure the success of that endeavor. (setting them loose would be much more cruel than euthanasia)

You are taking "right" in a too literal sense, as if there's a contract or document that comes with it. I can rephrase this simply to mean, does every sentient being deserve to live in a state of comfort, rather than a state of fear? Of course this isn't possible for every sentient being, because even some humans are born into slavery in some countries. But generally speaking, if we had the choice, as Humans, to strike fear or provide comfort, should we not provide comfort instead? — chatterbears

Yes, unless we have sufficient cause not to, such as self-defense.

Striking fear into farm animals is counter-productive though, and is not the same moral question as whether or not we're ethically justified to slaughter them.

What are you basing this on? The amount of people that need to rely on meat to survive, is incredibly trivial. But also, these questions are directed at you as well, but you seemed to have answered for the group, instead of for yourself. Do you, Vagabond, need to eat meat to survive? — chatterbears

I suspect that I need to eat meat to have optimum health (and not because I like the taste). I am very tall (6'4) and thin, and for whatever reason despite the large (and well rounded) volume of food that I consume I have a very difficult time gaining weight (I've only ever managed to gain weight by over-eating meat). The fact is that I already eat a lot, and if I stop eating meat I'm going to have to increase the volume even higher as non-meat alternatives are not as protein/fat dense.

I don't need to eat meat to survive, just to maintain adequate health.

Niether cows, nor chickens nor dogs are similar to us in term of sentience. Other great apes, dolphins, elephants, and perhaps many others have high degrees of sentience and intelligence, but they are still not on the level of homo-sapiens. — VagabondSpectre

The simple fact is, cows, chickens and pigs have sentience. Of course they do not have the same intelligence level as us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they do in fact have sentience. They can experience pain and pleasure, which is all you need when deciding whether or not an animal deserves moral consideration. Cows, chickens and pigs are deserving of moral consideration, at the most basic level. Which is, do they deserve to live and not be exploited? I think the clear answer here is yes.

We can't even afford to let them die off naturally as if we're to go vegan we need all available resources to ensure the success of that endeavor. (setting them loose would be much more cruel than euthanasia) — VagabondSpectre

It would be a slow gradual change. Breeding animals would decrease over time, while plant based foods would increase. It's not like farm animal would disappear overnight, but a gradual replacement of farm animals with plants, would be the most practical and logical option. For example, the more that the consumer demands Vegan foods, the more a company will supply them. As more and more consumers demand Vegan options, restaurants/stores will start replacing regular meats with Vegan 'meats'. Less farm animals would be bred and slaughtered, and animal farms would start to evolve into plant farms. Farmers would be able to keep their same job and land, but replacing it with vegetables/fruits/grains/etc.

Striking fear into farm animals is counter-productive though, and is not the same moral question as whether or not we're ethically justified to slaughter them. — VagabondSpectre

Are you ethically justified in slaughtering farm animals?

I suspect that I need to eat meat to have optimum health (and not because I like the taste). — VagabondSpectre

This is just scientifically false.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/
- https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179
- https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

Those are just a few studies (there are many more out there), that showcase a plant-based diet having more benefits to your health.

The fact is that I already eat a lot, and if I stop eating meat I'm going to have to increase the volume even higher as non-meat alternatives are not as protein/fat dense. — VagabondSpectre

Why are you trying to gain weight to begin with? Are you underweight? But even so, all this can be resolved with plant-based proteins. Tofu, tempeh, edamama, lentils, chickpeas, nuts, quinoa, chia seeds, beans, potatoes, etc... People who avoid animal products can eat balanced diets that support a healthy body and reduce the risks of some diseases.

And if you worried you aren't getting enough protein, you can use 100% Hemp Protein, which gives you around 15g of protein per 3 tbsp. I make smoothies with Hemp, that taste great. If you're worried about fat intake, eat 1 cup of Avocado, which can supply you with 21g of fat by itself. Other things that have high fats are things like walnuts and almonds. There are plenty of ways to supply yourself with the necessary fats and protein you need, but I think you haven't even tried to do the research. Correct me if I am wrong.

What is so wrong in accepting that we as humans are omnivores?

What is wrong in the idea that the human species, however advanced it has become and superior to other species, is still a species of and thus eats other fauna?

What is wrong in the fact that life exists because one type of animals eat others and not only fauna eating flora?

Why the idea that veganism is found to be so morally superior?

Humans being meat eaters isn't what is wrong. It is that we actively impose on Nature the nightmare that is industrialized mass breeding and slaughter.

And while industrialized breeding comes with its horrible share of end-product waste (the butcher plants are actually really good at not producing waste), you cannot either deny that its historical rise has coincided with a massive reduction in the number of famines we have had to endure. We used to have one every decade or so, now we worry about a 5% increase on the cost at the market. So we might want to hold of on judgements that it doesnt contribute to our survival.

Humans being meat eaters isn't what is wrong. It is that we actively impose on Nature the nightmare that is industrialized mass breeding and slaughter. — Akanthinos

Likely an animal of prey is slaughtered far more violently and suffers more long when it is killed by a pack of wolves than how their domesticated relatives meet their death in the industrialized slaughter house. And the reason for us to farm animals is quite logical: there is so many of us.

Yet really, how does this industrialization differ from what we have done to the flora?

That is and has been for ages a likely far more "industrialized nightmare" that has changed the landscape of our planet totally and has changed plants from the way how plants would grow in the wild. Rye, which is found growing wild in Turkey, likely wouldn't be so common and would not be growing as it grows now, just to give one example.

What is so wrong in accepting that we as humans are omnivores? — ssu

We no longer need to eat animals to survive. And we really never did, as even our closest ancestors (gorillas, chimpanzees, etc) are 95% vegetarians (plants and fruits). Chimpanzees rely heavily on fruits and plants, but sometimes eat insects and smaller mammals. Similarly, we do not need meat at all to survive and thrive. Matter of fact, it is healthy for us and the environment, if we adopted a plant-based diet.

What is wrong in the idea that the human species, however advanced it has become and superior to other species, is still a species of and thus eats other fauna? — ssu

If we are 'superior' to other species, why do we cause so much harm and desctruction to each other, as well as the planet and animal life? A superior species would be more responsible and initiate actions that would benefit the planet, not diminish the life of it. I am superior to a dog, but that doesn't mean I am morally justified in torturing that dog, just because i can. Might does not make right.

What is wrong in the fact that life exists because one type of animals eat others and not only fauna eating flora? — ssu

Yes, animals eat other animals out of necessity. They are obligate carnivores who NEED to eat meat to survive. We are not obligate carnivores (or obligate omnivores) who need to eat meat to survive. As I said before, it is actually healthier for us and the planet if we stopped eating meat.

Why the idea that veganism is found to be so morally superior? — ssu

Because causing unnecessary pain and suffering is better than causing it, would you not agree? Read the last part of my initial post, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Or I will paste it here again:

- Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival?
- Do you think unnecessary actions that cause pain and/or suffering are wrong?
- Do you think Animal cruelty is wrong?
- Do you think we need to eat animals to survive?

Likely an animal of prey is slaughtered far more violently and suffers more long when it is killed by a pack of wolves than how their domesticated relatives meet their death in the industrialized slaughter house. — ssu

Actually no. At birth, female chickens are de-beaked (with no anesthetic). Male pigs get their testicles removed (with no anesthetic). Pigs get their teeth clipped (with no anesthetic). And those are just a few things. Most of these animals have horrible living conditions on a daily basis. Crammed in very small areas, where they eat and defecate in the same spot.

Not to mention, an animal of prey dies in the wild, naturally. Because other predators eat meat out of necessity, while we eat meat out of pleasure (for the taste). Also, these farm animals wouldn't even exist in the wild, as we have genetically modified them to be bigger and grow faster, so we can have more bang for our buck.

And the reason for us to farm animals is quite logical: there is so many of us. — ssu

It seems you haven't done much research on this topic. The amount of grain we grow for animals could feed hundreds of millions of people. We killed 50+ Billion animals every year, and a single cow eats far more grain every day than a human would. If we stopped animal agriculture, all the grain that is currently being used to feed these animals, could be used for us. We could wipe out most of world hunger.

The simple fact is, cows, chickens and pigs have sentience. Of course they do not have the same intelligence level as us, but that is irrelevant to whether or not they do in fact have sentience. They can experience pain and pleasure, which is all you need when deciding whether or not an animal deserves moral consideration. Cows, chickens and pigs are deserving of moral consideration, at the most basic level. Which is, do they deserve to live and not be exploited? I think the clear answer here is yes. — chatterbears

As I've pointed out to you seemingly hundreds of times, we cannot afford to let chickens and cows live unless we exploit them; for them it's either live and be exploited or never live at all. Is it better to live and be exploited than to never live at all?

I think the clear answer is yes.

Farmers would be able to keep their same job and land, but replacing it with vegetables/fruits/grains/etc — chatterbears

Not in the least. The kind of forage that many free-range cattle live off is ground that no crops can be grown upon. Field corn (which is what the U.S uses to feed its numerous amount of grain fed cows and chickens) is largely grown on land that is not high enough quality to grow vegan foods like sweet corn or other veg/fruit. The economics and logistics of all-produce agriculture are radically different from what we currently have (In terms of available/suitable ground, fertilization capacities, processing and distribution infrastructure, etc...). We already import tons of fruit in North America, and many farmers with suitable land and infrastructure have already switched over to fruit and veg production for economic reasons, but if it made economic sense for every farmer to do so then they already would have. Many farmers continue to raise livestock because it makes the most economic sense for them to do so, and some farms and ranches, by their very nature, can never be profitable without livestock.

We can gradually shift away from livestock production, but we cannot increase our fruit and veg production at arbitrarily fast rates (in order to grow and store enough of our own produce to be nutritionally self-sufficient, we would need massive innovations in indoor growing and refrigerated infrastructure out the wazoo).

Aside from being much more expensive, another problem with eliminating animal husbandry entirely is that planning vegan diets (especially a nutritionally adequate national supply) is more difficult than planning diets with some meat (because you need to consume a greater volume of vegan foods to gain the same levels of nutrition, meaning you need to plan what you eat more carefully to have well rounded nutrition).

Animal free agriculture is actually much less efficient than some animal husbandry for a lot of farms, while being logistically more complex in almost every way.

A lot of people will buy whatever food stuffs have the best balance between affordability and tastiness (evidenced by present-day average diets). If super-healthy and tasty vegan diets weren't so damn expensive, more people would be vegan; demand can eventually impact supply, but increased demand doesn't always guarantee increasing supplies (in our case it guarantees increased prices because most or all of all the land suitable for fruit and veg is already being used as such). If you want to put an avocado on every plate and a juicer in every pantry you've really got a lot of work to do. For starters, where are you going to get all the fertilizer once we no longer breed cows? (you will need more fertilizer than ever but have less of the ingredients than ever before (same story for oil based synthetics)). Opening up new land to use for growing fruit and vegetables has got to be hellishly expensive. Have we been holding off on doing so because we just don't like the taste?

Agriculture and the food market are complex systems, and by that I mean they are interconnected in many complicated and messy ways which makes outcomes hard to or impossible to foresee. I mean to say that treating the entire industry/enterprise as a single and simple system which can be planned centrally from the top by one individual with a bunch of bright ideas is beyond foolish. The many autonomous parts of the industry (the insurers, the subsidizers, the seed providers, the farm owners, the farm workers, food processors, transportation/distribution agents, grocers, and buyers) who each follow their own interest and overcome the individual problems and inefficiencies they face is what allows the food industry to operate with the stability that it does. The logistic hurtles, safety concerns, and engineering problems that the food industry overcomes on a daily basis are so numerous that I strain to believe a single person can comprehend even most of them. As it stands, more people are becoming vegan, and vegan foods are already more expensive. Farmers presently have incentive to grow more produce and I reckon they are doing so at whatever rate is most efficient.

How does the national vegan diet get enacted? Gradually by consumer demand? Or by legislation?

If it's gradual and by consumer demand (assuming that's your view) you should be prepared for food to become much more expensive than it is right now, for the reasons I've mentioned, and for many more reasons which we'll never get into.

Are you ethically justified in slaughtering farm animals? — chatterbears

If the farm animal was bred and raised for slaughter, and if that's the only way it ever could have existed in the first place, then yes.

Those are just a few studies (there are many more out there), that showcase a plant-based diet having more benefits to your health. — chatterbears

What if different people benefit differently from different diets?

On average vegans might be more healthy (especially as North America is over-weight on the whole) but I don't see evidence that vegan diets would benefit me. (I'm worried about losing weight, which is what I fear a vegan diet would cause).

- Likely an animal of prey is slaughtered far more violently and suffers more long when it is killed by a pack of wolves than how their domesticated relatives meet their death in the industrialized slaughter house

That is questionnable, but also largely irrelevant. It would depend on the prey, the slaughtering methods used and the level of care. When I was on the kill floor, we used a gas chamber, electrical rods and then would bleed the hog from the jugular. The eletrical rods would paralyse the hog if it came out alive of the chamber, but sometimes even that wouldnt be enough. So the hog would have his ankle pierced and hooked to a chain, get lifted, have his jugular sliced, then sent into a room where he would be dunked in boiling water and then brazed by flamethrowers (so as to give it the rosy look and burn all hairs and parasites). Not exactly a great end.

As for care, the plant I worked at had received a lot of negative feedback concerning cruelty, so the government had actually forced the company to accept having an permanent inspection officer on location to prevent abuse. Even that didnt stop much, in my opinion.

We no longer need to eat animals to survive. And we really never did, as even our closest ancestors (gorillas, chimpanzees, etc) are 95% vegetarians (plants and fruits). Chimpanzees rely heavily on fruits and plants, but sometimes eat insects and smaller mammals. — chatterbears

And would they eat more meat, if they would be better hunters? It's absolutely logical for an omnivore to eat meat than things like grass.

Read the last part of my initial post, and you'll come to the same conclusion. Or I will paste it here again: — chatterbears

OK, I'll answer. But why assume I'll come to your conclusion?

- Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival? — chatterbears

Of course not! If I live in a city, it's still quite good to know basic survival skills like which berries or mushrooms you can pick and eat from the forest. I really don't need the skills for survival as I can buy everything from the supermarket (and be rather confident that nothing there is poisonous to me). I really like to go with my children to the forest, pick up mushrooms and make great food.

- Do you think unnecessary actions that cause pain and/or suffering are wrong?
Yes.

- Do you think Animal cruelty is wrong?
Yes.

And do you think that domesticated animals cannot have a good life? Or that they don't deserve a life? (Basically that's the end result with your thought)

Not to mention, an animal of prey dies in the wild, naturally. — chatterbears

And this brings us to the philosophically important question: why do you think that we basically aren't part of nature?

Because it seems like obviously what we do is unnatural (kill animals) for you, but what other animals do (kill other animals) is natural.

As for care, the plant I worked at had received a lot of negative feedback concerning cruelty, so the government had actually forced the company to accept having an permanent inspection officer on location to prevent abuse. Even that didnt stop much, in my opinion. — Akanthinos

I still think that animal cruelty is a different question than veganism. Or to think that being against animal cruelty means that you have to be a vegan is simply illogical.

It's absolutely logical for an omnivore to eat meat than things like grass. — ssu

I hope you realize that being an omnivore (as humans) is a choice. You do know that right? We choose to live in an omnivorous way, when we don't have to do that in order to survive. We can also choose to live on plant-based diets. And as far as logic goes, the science supports plant-based diets being healthier for our bodies and the environment. So wouldn't the logical conclusion be to adopt a plant-based diet?

Also, if you really think we have evolved to eat meat. Try killing an animal with your bare hands, with no tools or cooking utensils. And when you eat it, make sure it is uncooked and raw, just like an actual omnivore in nature would do.

Of course not! If I live in a city, it's still quite good to know basic survival skills like which berries or mushrooms you can pick and eat from the forest. I really don't need the skills for survival as I can buy everything from the supermarket (and be rather confident that nothing there is poisonous to me). I really like to go with my children to the forest, pick up mushrooms and make great food. — ssu

Did you read the question fully? The idea of survival is real, meaning someone would die without their needs being met. This includes things like food, water, and shelter. A want, is one step up in the order from needs and is simply something that people desire to have, that they may, or may not, be able to obtain. There is no NEED to know which berries or mushrooms you can pick and eat when you have the option of a supermarket. So again, learning about which berries you can pick is not necessary for your survival. Unless you are trying to appeal to some rare situation that will probably never happen. At that point, you could say that learning how to fly an airplane is necessary for your survival, because one day you may get stuck in a situation where the only way to survive is to fly away in an airplane. This is sort of nonsensical and I think you should re-answer that first question. And I'll type it again.

Do you think actions become unnecessary when they are not required for our survival?

And you never answered the last question, which was, " Do you think we need to eat animals to survive? "

And this brings us to the philosophically important question: why do you think that we basically aren't part of nature?

Because it seems like obviously what we do is unnatural (kill animals) for you, but what other animals do (kill other animals) is natural. — ssu

When did I ever say we are not part of nature? What even gave you that impression. Humans are animals, just as dogs, sheep, cows and chickens are animals. We are all a part of nature. But breeding animals into existence, while torturing and slaughtering them on a mass scale, is not natural. Factory farms are not part of 'nature'.

As I've pointed out to you seemingly hundreds of times, we cannot afford to let chickens and cows live unless we exploit them; for them it's either live and be exploited or never live at all. Is it better to live and be exploited than to never live at all? — VagabondSpectre

This is a false dichotomy. When black people were enslaved, were the only two options these:

1. Live and be exploited
2. Never live at all

Absolutely not. We can allow these animals to live and die naturally, but also STOP the breeding.

Not in the least. The kind of forage that many free-range cattle live off is ground that no crops can be grown upon. Field corn (which is what the U.S uses to feed its numerous amount of grain fed cows and chickens) is largely grown on land that is not high enough quality to grow vegan foods like sweet corn or other veg/fruit. — VagabondSpectre

47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being is being consumed by livestock. Feed this to humans instead of livestock, and the amount can drastically decrease (or kept the same and be fed to millions of people who starve).

Many farmers continue to raise livestock because it makes the most economic sense for them to do so, and some farms and ranches, by their very nature, can never be profitable without livestock. — VagabondSpectre

Which is why the public would demand plant-based products, in which I can almost guarantee you that these farmers (and the government) would figure out how to become profitable with plant-based products. They continue to profit from livestock, because there is a demand for it. And the government provides substantial subsidies for it.

We can gradually shift away from livestock production, but we cannot increase our fruit and veg production at arbitrarily fast rates (in order to grow and store enough of our own produce to be nutritionally self-sufficient, we would need massive innovations in indoor growing and refrigerated infrastructure out the wazoo). — VagabondSpectre

Why is this a problem? Figuring out the technicalities is the least of our problems. Actually putting in the effort to make the change is our worst problem.

Aside from being much more expensive, another problem with eliminating animal husbandry entirely is that planning vegan diets (especially a nutritionally adequate national supply) is more difficult than planning diets with some meat (because you need to consume a greater volume of vegan foods to gain the same levels of nutrition, meaning you need to plan what you eat more carefully to have well rounded nutrition). — VagabondSpectre

This is not true. Every diet needs planning, and a vast majority of people have a poor planned diet. You can be Vegan and eat french fries and oreos all day, but that doesn't mean you're healthy. It's just as easy to plan for a Vegan diet, as it would for any other diet. Saying you need to be more careful is an exaggeration. Have you seen the health of the US population?

Animal free agriculture is actually much less efficient than some animal husbandry for a lot of farms, while being logistically more complex in almost every way. — VagabondSpectre

Less efficient how? But even if that were the case, I am sure we could figure it out just fine. For how technologically advanced we are, you really don't think we could figure out how to change animal farms into plant farms efficiently?

If super-healthy and tasty vegan diets weren't so damn expensive, more people would be vegan; — VagabondSpectre

So people's taste pleasure of 5 minutes is worth more than the life of an innocent animal? Even if the food isn't as tasty right now, would you not rather eat a less tasty food, than contribute to animal torture and slaughter?

For starters, where are you going to get all the fertilizer once we no longer breed cows? — VagabondSpectre

There are plant-based fertilizers already. But again, I am sure we could figure this out. You're naming a bunch of technicalities that won't matter in the long run. We, as humans, are smart enough to figure out things. It's just a matter of how bad we want it, and how selfish we are willing to be.

If it's gradual and by consumer demand (assuming that's your view) you should be prepared for food to become much more expensive than it is right now, for the reasons I've mentioned, and for many more reasons which we'll never get into. — VagabondSpectre

Why would food be more expensive? Some of the cheapest food on the planet is plant-based. Grains, beans, vegetables, etc... But even if it were more expensive to become Vegan (which it is not), I would still pay MORE per meal, rather than pay less and contribute to unnecessary animal torture and slaughter.

If the farm animal was bred and raised for slaughter, and if that's the only way it ever could have existed in the first place, then yes. — VagabondSpectre

And white people thought the same thing about black people. People used God/Bible to condone slavery, and said things like "Black people were bred and raised to become slaves." - Basing your moral decisions on "if that's the only way it ever could have existed", is a very poor way to come to a conclusion. How about, causing any unnecessary pain and suffering, regardless of whether it could have existed in another way or not, is wrong. Just because farm animals were bred and raised for slaughter, doesn't mean they should be. And just because black people were raised for slavery for hundreds of years, doesn't mean they should have been.

On average vegans might be more healthy (especially as North America is over-weight on the whole) but I don't see evidence that vegan diets would benefit me. (I'm worried about losing weight, which is what I fear a vegan diet would cause). — VagabondSpectre

I gave you plenty of sources and real life examples (nuts / soy) that you can start with. If you actually did the research yourself, the evidence is clear. If you want to deny the evidence and demonstrable studies, that's up to you. But you might as well deny most of scientific peer reviewed study at that point.

That sounds terrible. Do you still work there?

Arbitrary speciesism. It mews, or it's warm 'n furry, or it has pups, or it makes eye contact...so I won't/cant eat it. Pity the poor plant which cannot give its consent (apparently) and so is fair...ummm...game.

Isn't ALL life imbued with the same value, all things which can self-replicate? Why do we kill and eat plants. Shame on us.

Life in massively industrialised breeding farm causes the animals to suffer a form of 'systematic' cruelty, tho. Hogs are raised in cages that do not allow them to move or stand. They are mutilated so as to not hurt themselves to death. And then, after a year of being fattened, they are piled one over the other and then fed into the grinder.

'Cruelty' is the best term to describe the overall tone of their existence.



No. I spent a few months working there, and then at some point I counted the number of hogs I had seen going in. 2 millions. My dad had told me, when he sent me working there, to work hard at it, but to always be looking for a reason to quit and get myself a better job. That I had a (shared) killcount of anything in the millions was a good enough reason for me.

When did I ever say we are not part of nature? What even gave you that impression. Humans are animals, just as dogs, sheep, cows and chickens are animals. We are all a part of nature. But breeding animals into existence, while torturing and slaughtering them on a mass scale, is not natural. Factory farms are not part of 'nature'. — chatterbears

Seems you don't have any idea what is the philosophical question about humans being part of nature. OK, I'll try to explain my point better.

Is it part of 'nature' that beavers build dams? They do it for their protection and to get food more easily especially during winter. Yet what the beavers as quite smart mammals (and herbivores) have done is that they have altered their environment in their favour. And the fact is that we aren't the only species that can farm. Ants can farm fungus and even herd other insects for food.

Now I assume that this kind of alteration of the environment or 'farming' by a species you deem 'natural', but when it comes to our species, suddenly everything we do becomes so 'unnatural'. The judgement is solely based on your own views on morality, what is deemed 'good' and what is 'bad' and that is totally understandable to me. Yet you try justify it by reason and above all, by science. As that if we can survive on a vegan diet, then it is by 'reason' and 'science' that we should be vegans.

And you still didn't answer to the following question:

Do you think that domesticated animals cannot have a good life?

Or that they don't deserve a life?

Apparently they don't deserve one. From what you answered to VagabondSpectre it seems like that. You propose as your 'humane' final solution be to gradually stop breeding the domesticated animals. Yet what you are promoting is still the extinction of what you apparently think as 'unnatural' animals as they have been produced 'unnaturally'.

Somehow for you the solution cannot be that cruelty (that Akanthintos gives examples of) would be reduced by simply improving living standards of domesticated animals. No. Your 'benevolent' answer is the mass extinction of this kind of life. Because it's not 'natural', even if you admit that we are one natural species just like others in the World altering our environment to fit our desires.

Just like the beavers do with their dams.

Isn't ALL life imbued with the same value, all things which can self-replicate? Why do we kill and eat plants. Shame on us. — gloaming

Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I will address your statement. We have a higher moral consideration to life that is sentient, since that life can experience pain and suffering. Which means, our actions toward that life can cause pain that may be unnecessary. And if it is unnecessary, it is our responsibility to stop it. Plants are not sentient, as they don't have a brain or nervous system to process things like pain and/or pleasure.

No. I spent a few months working there, and then at some point I counted the number of hogs I had seen going in. 2 millions. My dad had told me, when he sent me working there, to work hard at it, but to always be looking for a reason to quit and get myself a better job. That I had a (shared) killcount of anything in the millions was a good enough reason for me. — Akanthinos

It's good you don't work there anymore. Did you become vegetarian/vegan because of that experience? Or do you still eat animals? If so, why.

Now I assume that this kind of alteration of the environment or 'farming' by a species you deem 'natural', but when it comes to our species, suddenly everything we do becomes so 'unnatural' — ssu

When did I say that everything we do becomes unnatural? I was referring to one specific thing, which is breeding animals into existence (rather than letting them exist/evolve/breed on their own), and then torturing them, followed by slicing their throats. A beaver builds a damn out of necessity to survive, while we have built torture chambers for animals out of pleasure, because we prefer the taste. If you're going to claim that factory farming is natural, was slavery also natural? The word 'natural' is defined as: " existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. " - So maybe you should define what you think the word 'natural' even means. You seem to be confused.

The judgement is solely based on your own views on morality, what is deemed 'good' and what is 'bad' and that is totally understandable to me. Yet you try justify it by reason and above all, by science. As that if we can survive on a vegan diet, then it is by 'reason' and 'science' that we should be vegans. — ssu

This is false. The judgment that I make on what is or isn't natural, is based on the actual definition of natural. It has nothing to do with my moral outlook, so I don't even know where you got that from. Also, science supports a Vegan lifestyle being healthier for the planet and for ourselves. And I can reference peer reviewed studies to backup my claims. Are you denying the science behind adopting a plant-based diet?

Do you think that domesticated animals cannot have a good life? — ssu

I believe domesticated animals can have a good life.

Or that they don't deserve a life? — ssu

All sentient life deserves to have a life. Free from unnecessary torture and slaughter.

You propose as your 'humane' final solution be to gradually stop breeding the domesticated animals. Yet what you are promoting is still the extinction of what you apparently think as 'unnatural' animals as they have been produced 'unnaturally'. — ssu

They don't need to go extinct. Many of these farm animals would be put in farm sanctuaries, while the rest would die naturally, as they lived their full natural lives. This still aligns with my answers to your two questions. Cows could have a good life, while deserving a long and torture free one, in which they die of natural causes, just as a human would.

Somehow for you the solution cannot be that cruelty (that Akanthintos gives examples of) would be reduced by simply improving living standards of domesticated animals. No. Your 'benevolent' answer is the mass extinction of this kind of life. Because it's not 'natural', even if you admit that we are one natural species just like others in the World altering our environment to fit our desires. — ssu

Improving living standards of farm animals, while still ending their lives abruptly and not allowing them to live out their natural lives? When a life is in constant pain, it is actually more benevolent to end it, rather than slightly improve it (which wouldn't even happen). There's no way to regulate all these farms 24/7, so it is better to end the suffering all together, and only keep a small amount in animal sanctuaries. This also has nothing to do with what I think is natural. It has everything to do with causing unnecessary pain and torture, when we absolutely do not need to. Not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to understand. If you are causing unnecessary pain to a sentient creature, and there's an easy/practical way to end that pain, you should do so. Otherwise, you're acting immorally.

This is a false dichotomy. When black people were enslaved, were the only two options these:

1. Live and be exploited
2. Never live at all

Absolutely not. We can allow these animals to live and die naturally, but also STOP the breeding. — chatterbears

Black people are people, they aren't farm animals. If left alone, black people can take care of themselves and survive. If left alone, farm animals cannot survive (they'll starve during the first winter or be killed by predators). There are so many farm animals that if we decided to keep feeding and caring for them without harvesting their meat then every meat farmer would go into debt.

47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being is being consumed by livestock. Feed this to humans instead of livestock, and the amount can drastically decrease (or kept the same and be fed to millions of people who starve). — chatterbears

Do you know the difference between field corn and sweet corn?

This is the kind of statement that makes me think you have no sweet clue how farming works.

Which is why the public would demand plant-based products, in which I can almost guarantee you that these farmers (and the government) would figure out how to become profitable with plant-based products. They continue to profit from livestock, because there is a demand for it. And the government provides substantial subsidies for it. — chatterbears

There already is substantial demand for fruits and vegetables, which is why we import a shit ton for human consumption. Given the added cost of importing, one would think that if farmers could cheaply grow their own equivalents there would be economic incentive to do so (the price and the demand are already high, but the supply isn't magically expanding). If there was no demand for meat then everything else would suddenly become more expensive while meat farmers go out of business.

The fact is that 90% of the land used to grow field corn isn't suitable for human quality produce (unless high fructose corn syrup is healthy). It's simply not more efficient to stop farming animals.

Why is this a problem? Figuring out the technicalities is the least of our problems. Actually putting in the effort to make the change is our worst problem. — chatterbears

It's a problem because we don't have the technology science or infrastructure to make the switch yet.

Less efficient how? But even if that were the case, I am sure we could figure it out just fine. For how technologically advanced we are, you really don't think we could figure out how to change animal farms into plant farms efficiently? — chatterbears

Not unless you know some kind of alchemy that can magically fertilize fields and turn feed corn into sweet corn.

So people's taste pleasure of 5 minutes is worth more than the life of an innocent animal? Even if the food isn't as tasty right now, would you not rather eat a less tasty food, than contribute to animal torture and slaughter? — chatterbears

Even if we burned off all our taste buds it's still more expensive.

There are plant-based fertilizers already. But again, I am sure we could figure this out. You're naming a bunch of technicalities that won't matter in the long run. We, as humans, are smart enough to figure out things. It's just a matter of how bad we want it, and how selfish we are willing to be. — chatterbears

So you're going to use plant-based fertilizers to fertilize other plants? What will you use to fertilize your plant based fertilizers?

Eventually we may figure out how to adequately nourish the entire planet without the use of animals, but we havn't yet figured that out.

And white people thought the same thing about black people. People used God/Bible to condone slavery, and said things like "Black people were bred and raised to become slaves." - Basing your moral decisions on "if that's the only way it ever could have existed", is a very poor way to come to a conclusion. — chatterbears

Humans are much more sentient than farm animals, which is my first objection to this comparison. Secondly, if I was a slave who could only ever have existed if I am eventually slaughtered, I would still rather have existed than never have existed at all.

I gave you plenty of sources and real life examples (nuts / soy) that you can start with. If you actually did the research yourself, the evidence is clear. If you want to deny the evidence and demonstrable studies, that's up to you. But you might as well deny most of scientific peer reviewed study at that point. — chatterbears

You don't know me, the research I've done, or the diets I've tried. Copy/pasting the studies you find is the laziest kind of research possible (it's not even a citation, you might as well just start dropping book titles), and you have given me utterly zero reasons to take your assertions with any grains of authority.

You're presumptive in the extreme about the science of nutrition, and ignorant in the extreme about the realities of agriculture.

Black people are people, they aren't farm animals. If left alone, black people can take care of themselves and survive. If left alone, farm animals cannot survive (they'll starve during the first winter or be killed by predators). There are so many farm animals that if we decided to keep feeding and caring for them without harvesting their meat then every meat farmer would go into debt. — VagabondSpectre

Why are people deserving of living a life without exploitation, but animals are not? Also, of course the farm animals that we genetically modified into existence by altering their DNA, could not survive in the wild. Because we made them to be that way. Their specific purpose is for our consumption, not sustaining a long life.

If there was no demand for meat then everything else would suddenly become more expensive while meat farmers go out of business. — VagabondSpectre

Meat would get replaced by lab-grown meats, or soy based 'meats'. Farmers wouldn't go out of business. Their business would just evolve into something else.

The fact is that 90% of the land used to grow field corn isn't suitable for human quality produce (unless high fructose corn syrup is healthy). It's simply not more efficient to stop farming animals. — VagabondSpectre

Meat, in and of itself, is not even of 'human quality'. Most people do not care about what is actually healthy, they care about what tastes good. You really think McDonalds provides 'human quality' food? People will devour anything, as long as it tastes good. And as I said before, is taste preference more important than the life of an animal?

It's a problem because we don't have the technology science or infrastructure to make the switch yet. — VagabondSpectre

Based on what? As I said previously, the problem is our lack of effort to initiate.

Not unless you know some kind of alchemy that can magically fertilize fields and turn feed corn into sweet corn. — VagabondSpectre

Which I am sure they can do. But also, it doesn't necessarily have to be corn that we grow. It can be something else, that isn't based on torturing and slaughtering sentient beings.

Even if we burned off all our taste buds it's still more expensive. — VagabondSpectre

So is the price of an item more important than the life of an animal? It's like saying. Abolishing slavery will cost too much, because we get cheap/free labor when owning slaves. Nobody would say this, because a small price increase is worth the money if it results in abolishing slavery. Same with animals. I would pay more to end the suffering of these animals, and that shouldn't even be a question.

Eventually we may figure out how to adequately nourish the entire planet without the use of animals, but we havn't yet figured that out. — VagabondSpectre

Do you think that we might have already figured this out, if humans actually took this seriously and made it our priority? Imagine a world of all minds thinking together and trying to figure out a solution to this problem. We probably would have had this figured out decades ago already.

Humans are much more sentient than farm animals, which is my first objection to this comparison. Secondly, if I was a slave who could only ever have existed if I am eventually slaughtered, I would still rather have existed than never have existed at all. — VagabondSpectre

And a severely mentally handicapped person has about the same sentience as a cow. Does that mean we should group up all the mentally ill people and exploit them? Also, would you rather live as a factory farmed animal, where you're mutilated at birth, while being kept in a small confined area your entire existence, until you were eventually sent off to get your throat slit? Or would you rather not live at all. To say you would rather be a factory farmed animal, than to not live at all, is a bit dishonest. No logical and caring person would ever say this.

You don't know me, the research I've done, or the diets I've tried. Copy/pasting the studies you find is the laziest kind of research possible (it's not even a citation, you might as well just start dropping book titles), and you have given me utterly zero reasons to take your assertions with any grains of authority.

You're presumptive in the extreme about the science of nutrition, and ignorant in the extreme about the realities of agriculture. — VagabondSpectre

And why don't you show me the research you have done that apparently contradicts the mounds of research in favor of plant-based diets? I am the only one who has provided any type of scientific research, yet you think you're more credible in your assertions than I am with actual studies I present to you?

Also, if showing you scientific studies is considered lazy, what do you consider someone who shows you nothing? Such as what you have done. Which is provided me with nothing to counter any of these studies, other than saying, "You don't know me. You're a lazy research paster. You're ignorant about agriculture."

I'm also curious how one should provide information to another person, regarding scientific studies. I'd love for you to provide me with some research that isn't lazy. Also, one of the studies I linked, did have a citation.

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/

Cited by other articles in PMC
Recommending plant-based diets [Canadian Family Physician. 2017]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5729135/

Why are people deserving of living a life without exploitation, but animals are not? Also, of course the farm animals that we genetically modified into existence by altering their DNA, could not survive in the wild. Because we made them to be that way. Their specific purpose is for our consumption, not sustaining a long life. — chatterbears

It's not about who deserves what, it's about what is thermodynamically viable and necessary to sustain our existence, and the existence of farmed animals. Life exploits life, and as I have tried to explain, we're not yet fully emancipated from nature. In other words, unless we keep eating meat in the immediate and short term, some people will be malnourished and die.

Meat would get replaced by lab-grown meats, or soy based 'meats'. Farmers wouldn't go out of business. Their business would just evolve into something else. — chatterbears

Can you imagine the initial cost of switching from a cattle farm to a synthetic meat farm?

Based on what? As I said previously, the problem is our lack of effort to initiate. — chatterbears

But we are trying, and you seem to ignore that entirely. Why do you think there are so many vegans? Why do you think they're inventing lab grown meat?

Which I am sure they can do. But also, it doesn't necessarily have to be corn that we grow. It can be something else, that isn't based on torturing and slaughtering sentient beings. — chatterbears

The problem is field corn is an extraordinarily robust crop that can grow where other food-stuffs cannot. You could say that the reason we grow so much is to feed the livestock, but on the other hand the fields where livestock feed is grown aren't usable for much or anything else. At the end of the day we would need to recoup these lost calories and nutrients elsewhere which may very well cost us more money despite the existence of subsidies for meat and dairy farmers.

So is the price of an item more important than the life of an animal? It's like saying. Abolishing slavery will cost too much, because we get cheap/free labor when owning slaves. Nobody would say this, because a small price increase is worth the money if it results in abolishing slavery. Same with animals. I would pay more to end the suffering of these animals, and that shouldn't even be a question. — chatterbears

This is a question about relative wealth and security. How much extra expense can we afford incurring unacceptable losses to our security or quality of life?

If to live in balance and harmony with nature we actually needed to depopulate the planet to around half a billion, would we be obligated to do so to avoid causing the suffering of other animals?

Do you think that we might have already figured this out, if humans actually took this seriously and made it our priority? Imagine a world of all minds thinking together and trying to figure out a solution to this problem. We probably would have had this figured out decades ago already. — chatterbears

We just have bigger problems, and it's not been long since we have become enlightened enough (by and large) to actually extend moral consideration to animals where possible.

And a severely mentally handicapped person has about the same sentience as a cow. Does that mean we should group up all the mentally ill people and exploit them? Also, would you rather live as a factory farmed animal, where you're mutilated at birth, while being kept in a small confined area your entire existence, until you were eventually sent off to get your throat slit? Or would you rather not live at all. To say you would rather be a factory farmed animal, than to not live at all, is a bit dishonest. No logical and caring person would ever say this. — chatterbears

There's an interesting dilemma here I think.

How expensive is it for us to care for the severely mentally handicapped?

If it is true that farming some meat is economical, is exploiting an animal justified if it is required to care for the severely mentally handicapped?

I'm not in favor of setting them loose in the wild, that's for sure; I would rather farm animals.

I'm also curious how one should provide information to another person, regarding scientific studies. I'd love for you to provide me with some research that isn't lazy. Also, one of the studies I linked, did have a citation. — chatterbears

"Citation" is more than just a link to a study. In order to facilitate good communication, etiquette demands that you somehow process the source you're referencing and show directly how and where it makes your point. You're supposed to paraphrase or quote verbatim (with explanation ideally). Pasting links is asking me to read the entire articles and to pick out which points I think best make your argument for you (do you think asking me to surmise your argument and evidence from a haystack of links is fair, or persuasive?). This is what I meant by "it's not even a citation". It's your evidence and you need to explain the relevant bits yourself in the context of our discussion.

If you would like me to reintroduce the sources and arguments I've expressed in the other thread, I will happily do so. They will show that there would be short term nutritional deficits, even under ideal circumstances if everybody stopped eating meat in a short period of time (hence it is ethical for some people to eat meat at present) and that the engineering problems, logistics, and economic hurtles associated with such a total and rapid switch are insurmountable.

We're heading toward more ethical and animal free agriculture, but it will take time. Are you saying we're unethical because we should be there already? (should we fall on our pitch-forks?) Are you saying we're unethical because we're not presently heading there fast enough? How quickly do we need to stop eating animals for you to cease your ethical rebukes?

It's not about who deserves what, it's about what is thermodynamically viable and necessary to sustain our existence, and the existence of farmed animals. Life exploits life, and as I have tried to explain, we're not yet fully emancipated from nature. In other words, unless we keep eating meat in the immediate and short term, some people will be malnourished and die. — VagabondSpectre

Life exploits life? What are you talking about. Also, majority of the US and many other parts of the world are obese, if not at least overweight. And as I said before, all the crops being grown to feed farm animals, could be used to feed the people who are currently malnourished. You're appealing to a very small amount of people, while ignoring the excess of food we currently produce.

Can you imagine the initial cost of switching from a cattle farm to a synthetic meat farm? — VagabondSpectre

There you go again with price/cost. I get it. You value the cost reduction over a cow's quality of life. But I'd assume you wouldn't say the same thing if we were farming humans, would you.

But we are trying, and you seem to ignore that entirely. Why do you think there are so many vegans? Why do you think they're inventing lab grown meat? — VagabondSpectre

So many Vegans? We are an overwhelming minority. Not to mention, the Vegan movement has barely started to grow in the past few years. I was stating, if our species wasn't such selfish assholes, we would have started this movement years ago, while already have been creating replacements for everything.

At the end of the day we would need to recoup these lost calories and nutrients elsewhere which may very well cost us more money despite the existence of subsidies for meat and dairy farmers. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, back to cost again. Instead of constantly telling me that you don't want to pay more to help another species live peacefully, tell me why they don't deserve to live peacefully? Tell me why an innocent animal, who we bred into existence, doesn't deserve to NOT be torture and exploited unnecessarily for our selfish benefit of taste pleasure?

If to live in balance and harmony with nature we actually needed to depopulate the planet to around half a billion, would we be obligated to do so to avoid causing the suffering of other animals? — VagabondSpectre

At the very least, we would be obligated to come up with other alternatives that do not harm the planet and everything living inside of it. Which is a step that Veganism takes in the right direction.

We just have bigger problems, and it's not been long since we have become enlightened enough (by and large) to actually extend moral consideration to animals where possible. — VagabondSpectre

What bigger problems are you referring to? This is a big problem. If you don't care about the animals, the environmental detriments alone are enough to take it seriously. Not to mention the negative health impacts on our bodies.

How expensive is it for us to care for the severely mentally handicapped? — VagabondSpectre

Not sure. Do you have the numbers for this?

If it is true that farming some meat is economical, is exploiting an animal justified if it is required to care for the severely mentally handicapped?

I'm not in favor of setting them loose in the wild, that's for sure; I would rather farm animals. — VagabondSpectre

A severely mentally handicapped person does not need animal products to survive. To claim that they need the exploitation of an animal is already a false premise.

It's your evidence and you need to explain the relevant bits yourself in the context of our discussion. — VagabondSpectre

I will happily do so. But just to recap what happened, you first stated, "I suspect that I need to eat meat to have optimum health (and not because I like the taste)." - In which I replied and stated, "This is just scientifically false." - And I proceeded to show you studies by pasting some links. Here they are one-by-one to make my point.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5638464/

- We humans do not need meat. In fact, we are healthier without it, or at least with less of it in our diets. The Adventist Health Studies provide solid evidence that vegan, vegetarian, and low-meat diets are associated with statistically significant increases in quality of life and modest increases in longevity.1 The world that we inhabit would also be healthier without the commercial meat industry. Factory farms are a waste of resources, environmentally damaging, and ethically indefensible.2 It is time to accept that a plant-predominant diet is best for us individually, as a race, and as a planet.

https://www.bda.uk.com/news/view?id=179

- The document states the BDA and The Vegan Society will work together “to show that it is possible to follow a well-planned, plant-based, vegan-friendly diet that supports healthy living in people of all ages”. The organisations will also “promote reliable, evidence-based advice on a healthy vegan diet to members of the public, services users and medical professionals”.

https://www.eatrightpro.org/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets

- It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood and for athletes.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

- Healthy eating may be best achieved with a plant-based diet, which we define as a regimen that encourages whole, plant-based foods and discourages meats, dairy products, and eggs as well as all refined and processed foods.

If you would like me to reintroduce the sources and arguments I've expressed in the other thread, I will happily do so. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, please do.

We're heading toward more ethical and animal free agriculture, but it will take time. Are you saying we're unethical because we should be there already? (should we fall on our pitch-forks?) Are you saying we're unethical because we're not presently heading there fast enough? How quickly do we need to stop eating animals for you to cease your ethical rebukes? — VagabondSpectre

We are unethical because we continue to support these industries that torture and slaughter innocent sentient life. Each individual person can make the greatest impact themselves, by simply choosing to incorporate other foods into their diet. While at the grocery store, go down a different isle, it's really that simple. We are the most selfish and destructive species on the planet, and I am not surprised this is happening. We barely even care about each other, let alone other species of animals. We are an extreme disappointment of a species, but I hope we will wake up one day. People look back on slavery, and think about how ridiculous it was that it took so long to abolish it. The same is true for the animal holocaust, but people are just as selfish today as slave owners were back then. Everyone turns a blind eye, until they are the ones in the gas chamber. Everybody talks about how great and superior the human race is, yet we are the least compassionate and most destructive. To use the word 'superior' to describe us, is laughably ignorant and dangerously illogical. I bet the white man justified his actions by thinking he was superior to the black man, while we justify our actions by thinking we are superior to cows and chickens. Might makes right, right?

. And as I said before, all the crops being grown to feed farm animals, could be used to feed the people who are currently malnourished — chatterbears

None of the articles you just cited focused on the elimination of meat entirely. Americans eat too much meat and there can be some health benefits statistically associated with vegan diets, but this does not show that moderated meat consumption doesn't confer the same benefits or that there may be statistical outliers who do not benefit from the elimination of animal products.

Here's a quote from one of my posts in another thread, which is related to economics (cost)

Granted, America consumes too much beef, I'm not denying that. The fact that they have to mass farm cattle feed to sustain their ultra-massive cattle farms is a waste of water at the extreme end. But it would be a waste of water not to graze animals on pastureland. The delusion that this 56 million acres suddenly start producing veg is silly to anyone who understands how farms work.

Here's an article that touches on some of the facts: http://www.cast-science.org/download.cfm?PublicationID=278268&File=1e30d1bf7a7156ce24b3154cc313b587d97bTR

a few quotes from the abstract:

• Global animal agriculture provides safe, affordable, nutrient-dense foodstuffs that support human health and well-being as part of a balanced diet in addition to manifold by-products that have significant contributions to society. These include but are not limited to edible and inedible components, medicines, lubricants, manufactured goods, and other industrial uses. By-product utilization also enhances sustainable practices while lowering the industry’s environmental footprint.
• Livestock production is important in the economic and social sustainability of developed and developing countries, and it supplies considerable draft power within smallholder operations that make up the majority of global food production.
• Large areas of land are incapable of supporting the production of human food crops. Terrain, soil type, and climate render the majority of land currently used for grazing unsuitable for cultivation for the production of vegetable-based foods for human consumption, yet forages can be sustainably converted by ruminant animals into meat and milk products.
• The gains made by “recycling” safe, yet otherwise valueless, by-products from human food and fiber production lessen competition between humans and animals for crops that can equally be used for feed or food, maximize land use efficiency, and decrease the environmental impact of food production.
• Improved communication is required between livestock production stakeholders and the consumer to further a better understanding of the economic, environmental, nutritional, and social advantages conferred by animal agriculture on a regional and global basis.

There's a reason animal husbandry is a part of our agricultural traditions, and it's not just because we like the taste of meat. Free range chickens lead happy lives eating insects and such; they give us eggs, meat, and nitrogen rich fertilizer ingredient. Free range cows lead happy lives chewing grass, and they give us quite a bit of milk and meat along with more fertilizer ingredient. Pigs basically turn waste into meat, and while I personally would not farm pigs to eat them, on certain kinds of farms they can be useful (Permaculture).

Having too many animals just for extra meat is inefficient. Having no animals is also quite inefficient though, and I don't think we can afford it.

Here is another quote examining the nutritional impact of a switch to animal free food production:

None of the discussions or studies linked in this thread address the net economic and nutritional costs of western societies such as America removing animals from agriculture overall. Studies which do examine comprehensively the ramifications of eliminating animals from agriculture find that there would not be sufficient availability of variety to provide adequate nutrition for the entire population. As I've alluded to before, there wouldn't be enough well-planned diets on the shelves; not enough kale.

Here's a study that examines the ramifications of removing animals from agriculture entirely with interest in greenhouse gas emissions and the nutritional requirements and impacts of and on populations

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/48/E10301

It considers what sorts of foods can be grown on the land currently used for animals and projects what our basic diets would look like in a plants only system compared to one which includes animals. It concludes that a plants-only agricultural system would increase deficiencies in certain nutriments while over-providing in calories and bio-mass.Nobody has presented me with any kind of economic or nutritional feasibility study such as this yet. You do claim to need scientific evidence for belief right?

Everybody talks about how great and superior the human race is, yet we are the least compassionate and most destructive — chatterbears

And somehow we're also the most compassionate and most creative...

We're a lot of things, but perfect is not yet one of them. We're not so compassionate to endure any cost to spare the other animals we compete with (sometimes this includes each-other). We'll get there one day, just not today...

Humans being meat eaters isn't what is wrong. It is that we actively impose on Nature the nightmare that is industrialized mass breeding and slaughter. — Akanthinos

Yes, although I would go farther. :up: I'm not so opposed to us being carnivores, as so many other species are. The mass breeding and slaughter is bad, but I'm more worried about the less necessary (to humans) things, such as how we treat (just one example) horses. We enslave them, break them, and force them to carry the weights we choose not to. If we ate them, I could live with that, but this is just slavery. I thought we abolished slavery some time ago. :fear: We use animals (plants and fungi too), we don't respect them or live with them.

We treat other living creatures with the moral respect we extend to concrete.... :chin:

"Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I will address your statement. We have a higher moral consideration to life that is sentient,.."


Arbitrary. How do you feel about tadpoles? Or algae? What's the difference between them? Can either carry on a conversation with me, and can they object to how I decide to treat them if my intent is 'injurious' to them? How about that nice roan in yon pasture....would it (notice my choice of pronouns) object, or is it your opinion that it would object if it could? How about that hapless tadpole; would it not object if it could?

"... And if it is unnecessary, it is our responsibility to stop it..."

Who decides what is and what isn't 'necessary?' Are each of us exempt from finding out and enduring what we must in order to survive? Is that all there is to homo sapiens, that he/she ekes out a living on plants? Is the digital device you are using to read my response really 'necessary', or is it something we enjoy to our advantage because we ARE homo sapiens? Shouldn't every life form be entitled to maximization in any number of ways? Why do plants get the short end of the stick on this one, or why do horses get the beneficent nod that plants don't simply because we think we can interact with them on an exalted level? Or that our women like them? Or that children adore them? Or that they have cute young? It's arbitrary.



"... Plants are not sentient, as they don't have a brain or nervous system to process things like pain and/or pleasure..."

Yes, we tell ourselves that. It helps, doesn't it, while we masticate them with glee. If you are a plant and incapable of objecting to what we do with you, well....it just sux. But, if you're a horse, and every bit as incapable of objecting, you'll be anointed with beneficium humanae.

Its true that using animals as labour also carries its own ethical (and environmental) dilemmas. And in the case of horses, yes, a large portion of those used nowadays in tourism industries live a horrible life. But usage doesnt always correspond with abuse. If you have ever had the chance of doing some dogsledding, you'll know that the dogs can barely contain their excitement as you rope their harness in. Here, use correspond with something the animal wants and does naturally, which has simply been appropriated by the musher, structured and imposed back on the dog.

I dont know much about horses, must admit I cant stand being close to one, but I assume that it must be possible for one to live domesticated, doing some amount of labour,and still be a happy beast. I think Tiff here has a ranch, and has a few horses. She doesn't seem like the kind of person that would raise an animal to an unhappy life.