Are meat taboos rational?

Condatis

Leaving aside the likes of despots and psychopaths; humans, like other animals, generally kill and eat other animals only to survive.

That they should do so is part of the natural order – yet a number of meat options have become taboo and their consumption frowned upon.

In Ireland that includes meat from horses, seals, dogs, some rodents and some birds. Horse is widely eaten in France and England but we baulk at it. Yet we will eat veal and lamb.

Conservation issues apart is there any good reason not to eat seals? They after all prey on species which we also like to eat. Some fishermen resort to illegally shooting them when they are perceived as a threat to fish stocks. Why not harvest them or farm them as we do salmon? Are they seen as too 'cute' to hunt here? They are part of the staple diet in other countries, they are nutritious and as butcherable as veal.

We do not eat dogs though they would be easier to farm than cattle and reach butchering viability while still quite young and are widely eaten in Asia. Coyotes and dingoes do not attract the same taboo.

There is an understandable taboo about eating primates yet pigs are genetically closer to humans than are many primates.

At the moment there are restrictions on cod fisheries because of the decline in numbers. When numbers recover restrictions will be lifted. Why should not this situation apply to whales when their numbers permit controlled harvesting? Is this a "Free Willy" syndrome?

So! Are we beset by irrational taboos when it comes to utilising animal food resources?

(Of course I accept that any harvesting of other species for our consumption should maintain the highest welfare standards.)

annascott

Condatis wrote: »

In Ireland that includes meat from horses, seals, dogs, some rodents and some birds. Horse is widely eaten in France and England but we baulk at it. Yet we will eat veal and lamb.

:eek:Horse meat is not widely eaten in England. I have heard that Janet Street-Porter and Gordon Ramsay are campaigning to get it in the shops, but (thankfully) so far have been unsuccessful.
As an animal lover, I find the rest of your post too distasteful to address.

Condatis

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I was uncertain whether to post here or in philosophy.

Morag

Some of those taboos are social mores/conditioning dogs/horses/frogs/hamsters and others are fairly reasonable as they are due to health risks, ie rats.

enda1

Interesting point OP.
Horse is not really widely eaten in France, and most certainly not in the UK.

I'd say that there is little need to eat the other species you mention. During times of difficultly famine, war, siege etc. humans have turned to eating all sorts of anything. So taboos are only as strong as need requires. We don't need to eat dog, so the taboo wont be lifted any time soon.

AhSureTisGrand

I too am posting as an animal lover — they are delicious, after all. I think a lot of this taboo is down to people empathising more with certain animals than others. We empathise with the cute ones (seals), the ones we see as intelligent (whales), the ones we see as similar to us (primates) and the ones we keep as pets (cats, dogs and sometimes horses).

It is clear that some of this is highly inconsistent. Lambs are adorable. Pigs are quite intelligent. Meanwhile, seals are vicious predators. I think there are many factors contributing to this inconsistency. Tradition seems to me one of the more obvious ones. Horses typically, were used for labour and for transport. Nowadays they are used for leisure and for racing. If we'd been eating horses from day one I don't think people would have been writing novels about them or riding them through fields, and it wouldn't seem so odd to eat one. We're used to eating cuddly little lambs, though, so we don't have any major hangups over them. Certain specific foods also seem to become taboo at times through tradition (as opposed to being ignored). Just read the Book of Leviticus.

Then I imagine some of these animals aren't that tasty.

But yeah, I think quite a lot of it's down to irrational taboo

Condatis

I keep dogs and have kept horses and am certainly an animal lover.
However, I am, like most of us, an omnivore and like meat. I would not countenance eating an animal which was not produced to the standards approved by, say, the Compassion in World Farming People.

Nevertheless I do not understand why a potentially useful resource such as seals – provided that the population can be sustained – are not part of our food chain – but lambs and calfs (veal) are.

By the way I don't think that seals are any more vicious than the sparrow after the worm – but I know what you mean – they are efficient predators.

srsly78

In Belgium I was taken aback to see the supermarket had a section for horse, alongside the usual beef and poultry sections.

Condatis

srsly78 wrote: »

In Belgium I was taken aback to see the supermarket had a section for horse, alongside the usual beef and poultry sections.

Where you tempted to experiment?

Corsendonk

Starvation and famine quickly changes people perspective on what animals you can eat. Just look at China and Russia and the wide and varied diet of animals they consume.

Truley

I know a lot of people in my area that would hunt fox and sell or give the carcass to the Chinese neighbours. They don't have a problem with actually killing the animal but for whatever reason they wont eat the meat. I think our disdain for certain types of meat stems from our culture and fashion rather than our views of the animal itself.

I worked in a Chinese restaurant for years and I remember discussing this with my boss who was a chef. He reckoned that Chinese people have a taste for unusual textures and grissly, stringy meat while Irish/English like their food smooth and consistent (for example we're obsessed with chicken breast in this country - which they find very boring!)

Condatis

I've had wolf and seal in Canada, camel, pigeon (dove) and crocodile in Egypt – when in Rome and all that.

Columbia

Yes, to apply moral standards to eating some animals and not others is completely irrational, however to apply a personal preference to same is perfectly understandable. Unfortunately people usually can't tell the difference between their personal preference and a moral stance.

I had bear in Estonia and it was a great experience. If I went to a country with dog or seal on the menu, I wouldn't have any qualms about digging in.

krissovo

I would eat almost anything that has a hart beat, any meat that provides nutritional value and not on the endangered list is fair game to me.

I have knowingly eaten Cat, Dog, small birds, Insects, whales and rodents in Aisa

In Canada I have eaten Prairie dogs, Pronghorn deer, Snake, wolf, seal, whale and bear

In Europe I have eaten horse, koi carp and even a swan (legally)

In Oz crocodile, snake, kangaroo to name a few was regularly on my menu

Closer to home fox, squirrel and pigeon

I am a animal lover as well but were are part of a food chain and luckily we sit at the top

Alopex

insects should be looked into. easy to breed and high protein

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I think it is down to habit rather than any kind of moral objection. As a life-long vegetarian (come back! I'm not going to preach!) I've always been fascinated by the way people will eat rashers, sausages, and even black pudding, but absolutely balk at the thought of eating heart or kidneys. And when you ask them why they reply with "oh it's gross/horrible", not "that simply isn't done around here". I'm not one of those vegetarians who thinks that all meat eaters would stop eating meat if they really thought about where it came from, but I do think in western societies there's a massive disconnect between us and our food, people walk into supermarkets and pick up meat without often pausing to think that it comes from an animal that was once alive and had a body with recognisable body parts like ours. So we're used to seeing certain body parts and certain species as "food" and certain of them as "animals", most people live lives where directly causing and witnessing the death of animal is not a matter of course and we've become squeamish about that.

I really don't understand why if eating one part of a dead animal isn't gross eating another part of it is, especially considering that in other cultures and times it was perfectly acceptable. Or rather, I do understand why it's seen as gross because it's just a kind of social conditioning, but I don't understand why people get all moral about it without appearing to have thought it through.

And extreme cases like endangered species or genetically engineered genius apes aside, I don't see that there's any moral difference between eating one species and eating another. I don't go off on one at people for eating a lamb and I wouldn't go off on one at someone for eating a dog, but people who do eat meat go mental at other people for eating a different type of meat, I don't know.

Just to reiterate: I don't care if you eat meat, I'm not trying to start a fight, just adding one vegetarian's perspective on the matter.

Condatis

Alopex wrote: »

insects should be looked into. easy to breed and high protein

I don't think that there are taboos there – phobias perhaps.

It's much the same with eels – I've seen coarse fishermen enraged when they catch an eel and stamp on the poor crature rather than return it live to the river. Eel is delicious and much prized in other countries.

twinQuins

I guess it depends on how you want to define rational.

Being descended from agrarian societies horses would have been used as beasts of burden; dogs for hunting so it wouldn't have made much sense to kill and eat the animal you use to gather a more reliable supply of food!

So while not rational today, I would say they are based upon sound reasoning that worked in the past.
Even then I'd say it's not that clear cut. It depends on how deeply you want to get into the nature of taboo and it's impact on how societies develop. Nowadays, we're finding new uses for dogs as rescue animals and aids for the disabled.

And then, I wonder how much is down to our anthropomorphising of various animals and maybe eating them is seen as eating our own (cannibalism, afaik, being one of the earliest taboos of human societies), not consciously of course.
I'm sure someone with a greater knowledge of anthropology would be able to offer more insight; I've a few ideas but nothing I'd put down here because I'm still not sure about them.

It wasn't me!

It's an interesting topic. Personally, I eat meat, and I've even eaten one or two of those some people would think ill of, like horse. I also hunt, and am totally at peace with killing animals for food. I also get that there are animals I'm attached to. I would hate to kill a dog, but I don't have a problem with shooting foxes. Now, there could be a perfectly good reason to kill both, but killing the dog is going to put me in a foul humour, and the thought that I like dogs isn't really sufficient reason to explain it, because I like foxes too, yet I'll happily shoot them. I personally don't see a moral distinction, and would eat dog if I were living in a culture where that was the done thing, so it's a curious element of our collective psyche.

jpm4

Horse meat is pretty bland to eat - why bother if you can have beef?

Condatis

jpm4 wrote: »

Horse meat is pretty bland to eat - why bother if you can have beef?

Not always, the quality varies. The quality of beef available also varies widely. It's another choice.

Magic Beans

Why not address the utimate meat taboo while we are at it? Human flesh.

Condatis

That's facile – the discussion is about animals which can be farmed or hunted.

Magic Beans

If you say so. A huge proportion of the world is starving and we bury tonnes of calories every day. I'm not suggesting kill to eat, just exploring the idea of eating the already dead. I'm not saying I could do it. But we live in an underfed world and we ignore a food source available from probably the only expanding species on Earth.

looksee

Magic Beans wrote: »

If you say so. A huge proportion of the world is starving and we bury tonnes of calories every day. I'm not suggesting kill to eat, just exploring the idea of eating the already dead. I'm not saying I could do it. But we live in an underfed world and we ignore a food source available from probably the only expanding species on Earth.

I rather think you would find disease would be a good reason not to eat each other.

Condatis

Magic Beans wrote: »

If you say so. A huge proportion of the world is starving and we bury tonnes of calories every day. I'm not suggesting kill to eat, just exploring the idea of eating the already dead. I'm not saying I could do it. But we live in an underfed world and we ignore a food source available from probably the only expanding species on Earth.

Indeed! Though it would take a radical shift in social attitudes. Some cultures have practiced cannibalism a weapon of war or as a religious rite. I don't know of any culture which did so as a matter of course with their own population. Perhaps the Innuit?

There are examples of cannibalism in extreme survival situations – the Andes plane crash for example.

The Corinthian

jpm4 wrote: »

Horse meat is pretty bland to eat - why bother if you can have beef?

I disagree, I'm quite partial to it myself and find it an interesting halfway house between beef and venison. Although, I would agree that the quality and flavour of meat varies from place to place; Irish beef is excellent, but I prefer German pork, for example.

But returning to horses, Foal stake is actually both tender and delicious.

If you've just shuddered at the thought of eating foal stake, then chances are your mother tongue is English. This is because this irrational empathy with 'cute' animals is largely an Anglo-Saxon cultural phenomenon. If you move to the continent, you'll still have animal rights supporters and vegetarians, but there's far less of this nonsense about not wanting to eat rabbit, simply because you once watched Watership Down as a kid. Indeed, one could almost argue that Disney has become the new Leviticus, in this respect.

There are evolutionary reasons for the taboo on cannibalism, but beyond that, if it's edible (and tastes good) it's fair game. After all, if God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food, would he?

goose2005

Condatis wrote: »

There is an understandable taboo about eating primates yet pigs are genetically closer to humans than are many primates.

No they aren't. But they would be more intelligent than some primates.

Memnoch

Posting as someone who isn't a vegetarian I do think that from a philosophical point of view, we should strive, as a species to become vegetarian.

1) There is no longer a dietery requirement to eat meat. We can be vegetarian, have a delicious and varied diet and still get all the nutrients we require and those few that might be available ONLY in meat (are there any such?) can easily be artificially manufactured.

2) It is more efficient this way because as you climb up the food chain you are wasting more and more energy. It costs a lot of energy to feed animals to the point where they are ready to be consumed by us, if that same energy was instead invested in agriculture for direct consumption it would feed more people.

3) I feel this is a moral issue. Do we feel it is okay to kill other living things for our pleasure? Because that is all meat eating is now, killing for pleasure because we LIKE the taste of meat, not because we need to eat it. Might be a cliche but I think it goes without saying that if some day some more powerful alien race decided we visit us we can only hope we don't seem as delicious to them as chickens do to us.

I'd like to be a vegetarian and I want to be a vegetarian but chicken just tastes too damn good. Makes me a bit of a hypocrite though.

The Corinthian

Memnoch wrote: »

1) There is no longer a dietery requirement to eat meat. We can be vegetarian, have a delicious and varied diet and still get all the nutrients we require and those few that might be available ONLY in meat (are there any such?) can easily be artificially manufactured.

Certainly modern, Western society eats too much meat - there are few who would deny that. But all meat?

Remove all meat and animal products from the menu and you actually have veganism, and there are serious question-marks over whether a vegan diet is viable for humans, without nutritional issues occurring. At the end of the day, we're omnivores and all the ethics in the World won't change that.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by artificially manufactured - polymer based food? Or did you mean 'processed' foods? If so, you need to examine how foods are processed, before presuming that to do so is in the common interest.

2) It is more efficient this way because as you climb up the food chain you are wasting more and more energy. It costs a lot of energy to feed animals to the point where they are ready to be consumed by us, if that same energy was instead invested in agriculture for direct consumption it would feed more people.

But you would still be feeding animals in a society where everyone is a vegetarian, as most forms of vegetarianism include animal produce, such as eggs and cheese.

Indeed, vegetarianism is a pretty loose term, in that many simply see it as abstention from eating 'red' meat - many self-identifying vegetarians have no problem eating fish, for example (because tuna is somehow not 'meat').

3) I feel this is a moral issue. Do we feel it is okay to kill other living things for our pleasure? Because that is all meat eating is now, killing for pleasure because we LIKE the taste of meat, not because we need to eat it. Might be a cliche but I think it goes without saying that if some day some more powerful alien race decided we visit us we can only hope we don't seem as delicious to them as chickens do to us.

Whether we eat meat or not is unlikely to make a difference to whether a more powerful alien race will use us as a food source or not.

An ethical consideration that you may not have considered though is what would happen to those animals we presently farm for their meat? The Sus scrofa domesticus (pig), being domesticated, would quickly become endangered species, or extinct. The gallus gallus domesticus (chicken) would still be farmed for its eggs and Bos primigenius (cow) for milk, presumably; unless we adopt a vegan approach to vegetarianism - in which case they to would die out.

Indeed, given that milk is related to bovine reproduction, cows would still have to have multiple births to keep production going in the long term, thus growing the population. Would we simply cull the excess offspring? Defeats the purpose of your ethical argument.

Mark Hamill

The Corinthian wrote:

After all, if God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of food, would he?

Can you please tell what part of your body isn't meat?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Remove all meat and animal products from the menu and you actually have veganism, and there are serious question-marks over whether a vegan diet is viable for humans, without nutritional issues occurring. At the end of the day, we're omnivores and all the ethics in the World won't change that.

Then dont be a vegan, be a vegetarian (not that Memnoch suggested veganism). We may still rely on dairy products, but that doesn't mean we need meat too.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But you would still be feeding animals in a society where everyone is a vegetarian, as most forms of vegetarianism include animal produce, such as eggs and cheese.

But we wouldn't be feeding the other animals just to kill them when they reach an appropriate age/size, thereby reducing the overall inherent inefficiency of animal farming.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, vegetarianism is a pretty loose term, in that many simply see it as abstention from eating 'red' meat - many self-identifying vegetarians have no problem eating fish, for example (because tuna is somehow not 'meat').

Those people are just idiots. If you eat fish then you are pescatarian, not vegetarian. Vegetarianism starts with not eating the flesh of any animal (mammal, fish, bird whatever) and then you eliminate food types to become one of the various types (ovo/lacto vegetarianism etc).

The Corinthian wrote: »

An ethical consideration that you may not have considered though is what would happen to those animals we presently farm for their meat? The Sus scrofa domesticus (pig), being domesticated, would quickly become endangered species, or extinct. The gallus gallus domesticus (chicken) would still be farmed for its eggs and Bos primigenius (cow) for milk, presumably; unless we adopt a vegan approach to vegetarianism - in which case they to would die out.

I dont understand why this is an ethical problem? The only reason these farm animals have evolved in such a way as to be so in danger of extinction is because we farmed them. They aren't naturally evolved animals, so why should we care what happens to their species (assuming you are going along the hippy-we must love every animal line).

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, given that milk is related to bovine reproduction, cows would still have to have multiple births to keep production going in the long term, thus growing the population. Would we simply cull the excess offspring? Defeats the purpose of your ethical argument.

Genetic modification could overcome that need to have multiple births. It would be no harm if people looked at different sources for milk production too (soy, goat, camel etc).

The Corinthian

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Can you please tell what part of your body isn't meat?

Way to skip over an entire argument and focus on the joke at the end

But we wouldn't be feeding the other animals just to kill them when they reach an appropriate age/size, thereby reducing the overall inherent inefficiency of animal farming.

How does that reduce the overall inherent inefficiency of animal farming?

Indeed, I suspect it would increase it - you still have to feed cows when they're too old to produce milk. Unless you want to cull them - Logan's Run meets Animal Farm.

Those people are just idiots.

No argument there.

I dont understand why this is an ethical problem? The only reason these farm animals have evolved in such a way as to be so in danger of extinction is because we farmed them. They aren't naturally evolved animals, so why should we care what happens to their species (assuming you are going along the hippy-we must love every animal line).

So it's all right to let them go extinct, but not to eat them?

Sorry, why is it we don't want to eat them again?

Genetic modification could overcome that need to have multiple births. It would be no harm if people looked at different sources for milk production too (soy, goat, camel etc).

Genetic modification? I can see where people would go given a choice between genetically modified milk and a wish to be kinder to animals...

And you want people to drink goat or camel milk? Ignoring for one moment that you're just replacing one farm animal with another, can you see people who turn their nose up at eating horse fillet downing a pint of camel milk? I can't.

Less said of soy milk the better.

Mark Hamill

The Corinthian wrote: »

Way to skip over an entire argument and focus on the joke at the end

Didn't realise it was a joke (I have heard people make the same point in serious discussion).

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does that reduce the overall inherent inefficiency of animal farming?

Animal farming is inefficient (compared to crop farming). Some of those animals are farmed for food, some for the produce they make. Stop farming for food and overall, efficiency is improved. I dont mean that animal produce farming would itself get magically more efficient, just that overall, farming would waste less energy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, I suspect it would increase it - you still have to feed cows when they're too old to produce milk. Unless you want to cull them - Logan's Run meets Animal Farm.

Genetic modification to have them produce milk older.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So it's all right to let them go extinct, but not to eat them?

Leave in the wild and let nature take its course. We can protect them from extinction without eating them, no-one is trying to save giant pandas because the look so delicious.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry, why is it we don't want to eat them again?

Are you trying to say that its okay to kill and eat them because without us they wouldn't exist? Whats to stop someone from saying the same thing about their own kids?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Genetic modification? I can see where people would go given a choice between genetically modified milk and a wish to be kinder to animals...

The Corinthian wrote: »

And you want people to drink goat or camel milk? Ignoring for one moment that you're just replacing one farm animal with another,

I'm suggesting replacing one animal with another, I'm suggesting supporting production from multiple animal sources, so that we dont end with a huge over population of one.

The Corinthian wrote: »

can you see people who turn their nose up at eating horse fillet downing a pint of camel milk? I can't.

If people where intelligent enough to even accept that we should stop eating meat, then they would be intelligent enough to get over it.

The Corinthian

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Genetic modification to have them produce milk older.

Unless you hadn't noticed, genetically modified foods are not very popular.

Leave in the wild and let nature take its course. We can protect them from extinction without eating them, no-one is trying to save giant pandas because the look so delicious.

So we would spend additional resources on protecting such animals from extinction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but farming doesn't seem so inefficient now.

Are you trying to say that its okay to kill and eat them because without us they wouldn't exist?

No, I'm questioning how abandoning a species to extinction serves the the aim of being humane to them (by not eating them).

Whats to stop someone from saying the same thing about their own kids?

Are these the aliens again? Otherwise I really do not accept this logic of equating cannibalism with eating animals morally and already said why.

I'm suggesting replacing one animal with another, I'm suggesting supporting production from multiple animal sources, so that we dont end with a huge over population of one.

There goes your earlier gains in efficiency.

If people where intelligent enough to even accept that we should stop eating meat, then they would be intelligent enough to get over it.

You've not sold the principle that people would be intelligent to accept that we should stop eating meat though. I've only been pointing out that most if not all of the practical 'advantages' of doing so appear to be bogus.

Improved health is a better argument, imho, but you don't have to give up all meat for that.

Mark Hamill

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless you hadn't noticed, genetically modified foods are not very popular.

So? Popularity is based on cultural perceptions and ignorance much more than it is based on understanding of the product, hence this thread.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we would spend additional resources on protecting such animals from extinction. Correct me if I'm wrong, but farming doesn't seem so inefficient now.

Why would you need to spend additional resources? There are already agencies for protecting endangered animals, and we wouldn't need to protect either many different species (how many farm animals have no use outside of meat?) or all of a species (ie all whatever millions of chickens there are).

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I'm questioning how abandoning a species to extinction serves the the aim of being humane to them (by not eating them).

How are we abandoning anything? There are wild versions of these animals alive today - boars, bison, yak, red junglefowl etc.), so the species wouldn't go extinct.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I really do not accept this logic of equating cannibalism with eating animals morally and already said why.

The "evolutionary reasons against cannibalism" point you made? Even if it were true, how is that a moral argument?

The Corinthian wrote: »

There goes your earlier gains in efficiency.

How? At the moment we need X amount of cows to support our milk consumption, but this leaves us with excess calves that will be a drain. If we use other animals to support our milk consumption, then we wont have such a big excess of cows. Even if the effect where negligible, the earlier gain (from abandoning farming animals purely for food) would be unaffected.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You've not sold the principle that people would be intelligent to accept that we should stop eating meat though. I've only been pointing out that most if not all of the practical 'advantages' of doing so appear to be bogus.

No you haven't. You have failed to dispute the improvement of efficiency that would be gained in farming, and have tried to justify the meat industry with the claim that the animals would be extinct if they weren't being farmed, which is ludicrous both on the claim that they would go extinct (wild cows/pigs/chicken still exist) and that we should care about domesticated food animals that may or may not be born.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Improved health is a better argument, imho, but you don't have to give up all meat for that.

Humans can survive on high meat diets and no meat diets, as long as they eat the right foods and take synthetic supplements to replace what they dont get, so I've always seen it as moot.

aidan24326

Memnoch wrote: »

3) I feel this is a moral issue. Do we feel it is okay to kill other living things for our pleasure? Because that is all meat eating is now, killing for pleasure because we LIKE the taste of meat, not because we need to eat it. Might be a cliche but I think it goes without saying that if some day some more powerful alien race decided we visit us we can only hope we don't seem as delicious to them as chickens do to us

I agree. Some people in certain parts of the world (a decreasing number it must be said) hunt meat for food out of necessity. That's fair enough.

In the developed world we eat meat because we like the taste of it, we certainly don't need it, as is attested by the many perfectly healthy vegetarians (and vegans) that are around. In fact, it's medically well established now that a veggie diet is healthier - lower incidence of heart disease, bowel cancers, diabetes etc All of the evidence is that in the Western world we eat far far too much meat.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unless you hadn't noticed, genetically modified foods are not very popular.

There's no valid reason for this though. It's mostly a case of media scaremongering, by journalists who often know nothing of the science involved but won't ever let the facts get in the way of a good story, espcially a sensationalist scaremongery story. We all eat GM fruits and veggies every day, with no harm whatsoever. And why would there be? You're only mimicing what already happens in nature.

Improved health is a better argument, imho, but you don't have to give up all meat for that.

Improved health is one argument but we can't get away from the ethical aspect of it either. Animals undoubtedly feel distress and suffering in varying ways and to varying degrees by the act of our slaughtering them for food. Anyone who thinks farm animals routinely go to their deaths in a humane way should have a read of Gail Eisnitz expose of the American abbatoir industry (called 'Slaughterhouse'). It's pretty shocking stuff.

CerebralCortex

Memnoch wrote: »

Posting as someone who isn't a vegetarian I do think that from a philosophical point of view, we should strive, as a species to become vegetarian.

I don't think so. Meat is a brilliant source of nutrition that you just can't get from veg. If anything if we're concerned about animal suffering we should be looking to synthesise meat. It is essential for health.

Memnoch wrote: »

1) There is no longer a dietery requirement to eat meat. We can be vegetarian, have a delicious and varied diet and still get all the nutrients we require and those few that might be available ONLY in meat (are there any such?) can easily be artificially manufactured.

http://www.sentientdevelopments.com/2011/06/so-i-started-eating-meat-again.html

Memnoch wrote: »

2) It is more efficient this way because as you climb up the food chain you are wasting more and more energy. It costs a lot of energy to feed animals to the point where they are ready to be consumed by us, if that same energy was instead invested in agriculture for direct consumption it would feed more people.

In what? Grain based diets, which is actually exacerbating obesity.

Memnoch wrote: »

3) I feel this is a moral issue. Do we feel it is okay to kill other living things for our pleasure? Because that is all meat eating is now, killing for pleasure because we LIKE the taste of meat, not because we need to eat it. Might be a cliche but I think it goes without saying that if some day some more powerful alien race decided we visit us we can only hope we don't seem as delicious to them as chickens do to us.

I'd like to be a vegetarian and I want to be a vegetarian but chicken just tastes too damn good. Makes me a bit of a hypocrite though.

Meat tastes great but it's also an essential part of my diet. We evolved as omnivores for a reason.

CerebralCortex

aidan24326 wrote: »

Improved health is one argument but we can't get away from the etical aspect of it either. Animals undoubtedly feel distress and suffering in varying ways and to varying degrees by the act of our slaughtering them for food. Anyone who thinks farm animals routinely go to their deaths in a humane way should have a read of Gail Eisnitz expose of the American abbatoir industry (called 'Slaughterhouse'). It's pretty shocking stuff.

Since when does giving up meat mean improved health?! This just sounds like convential wisdom gone crazy.

The Corinthian

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So? Popularity is based on cultural perceptions and ignorance much more than it is based on understanding of the product, hence this thread.

Oddly, ethics and morality are also based upon popular cultural perceptions, and often also ignorance.

Why would you need to spend additional resources? There are already agencies for protecting endangered animals, and we wouldn't need to protect either many different species (how many farm animals have no use outside of meat?) or all of a species (ie all whatever millions of chickens there are).

So to protect additional species from extinction would cost nothing extra? It's OK to cull the excess population too, I expect?

How are we abandoning anything? There are wild versions of these animals alive today - boars, bison, yak, red junglefowl etc.), so the species wouldn't go extinct.

I suggest you read up on the difference between wild and domesticated species.

The "evolutionary reasons against cannibalism" point you made? Even if it were true, how is that a moral argument?

I never said it was a moral argument - I'm not trying to argue on that basis.

How? At the moment we need X amount of cows to support our milk consumption, but this leaves us with excess calves that will be a drain. If we use other animals to support our milk consumption, then we wont have such a big excess of cows. Even if the effect where negligible, the earlier gain (from abandoning farming animals purely for food) would be unaffected.

LOL. Because those animals don't have their own offspring, creating excess populations of different species. I don't think you've worked it all out.

No you haven't. You have failed to dispute the improvement of efficiency that would be gained in farming, and have tried to justify the meat industry with the claim that the animals would be extinct if they weren't being farmed, which is ludicrous both on the claim that they would go extinct (wild cows/pigs/chicken still exist) and that we should care about domesticated food animals that may or may not be born.

Then you didn't understand what I wrote.

Your principle argument against eating meat is moral. Yet, without anumal farming the populations of many domesticated species would have to be reduced if not be allowed to become extinct.

Additionally, even if we continued with some animal products; animals do not produce eggs, milk, etc. their entire lives, leaving one to care for them in their old age (inefficient) or culling them (there goes the moral argument). Or they would end up producing offspring that we cannot use - do we care for them or cull them?

Splitting animal product farming between different species does not solve this - it just splits the total excess population into different species. Genetic modification of these species, other than being morally dubious (it's not OK to kill them, but it's OK to continue screwing with their DNA?) is both unpopular and has human health implications.

The problem is that you are approaching this from a purely ideological standpoint (call it 'moral' if you like, but morality is often based upon ideology). When you try to justify it in other ways, your arguments fail to convince, leaving us with a case of we either do it for ideological reason or we don't - which is fair enough.

Humans can survive on high meat diets and no meat diets, as long as they eat the right foods and take synthetic supplements to replace what they dont get, so I've always seen it as moot.

Food science has progressed to a point where we can probably survive on purely synthetic food at this stage and do away with all farming, if we wanted. And curb every other 'instinct' that we choose is 'undesirable' with drugs too.

aidan24326 wrote: »

Improved health is one argument but we can't get away from the etical aspect of it either. Animals undoubtedly feel distress and suffering in varying ways and to varying degrees by the act of our slaughtering them for food. Anyone who thinks farm animals routinely go to their deaths in a humane way should have a read of Gail Eisnitz expose of the American abbatoir industry (called 'Slaughterhouse'). It's pretty shocking stuff.

So what? The bottom line is this really comes down to a question of morality or ideology. All the other arguments against eating any meat are weak at best.

And if we accept that killing animals is wrong, then you realistically have to extend this elsewhere. Animals could not be killed for their hides, oils or any other reason. Culling them to save other animal populations would be immoral too. If they are unproductive, they also could not be killed.

And not just the nice fluffy ones - but all animals. That includes vermin. Even insects and arachnids. Even the ones eating our crops.

Termites eating through your house? Tough, you can't kill them. It's not self-defence, because it's your home (or the value of your home) that they're threatening.

To me, it's a ridiculous ideology, poorly thought out and the product of a largely anglophone, middle-class, urban demographic.

aidan24326

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Meat tastes great but it's also an essential part of my diet. We evolved as omnivores for a reason.

We must have for sure, though interestingly it's believed that we didn't start eating meat until quite recently in our evolutionary history, and that our taking up meat eating coincided with our brains also becoming bigger, and presumably more intelligent (though it's hard to know if that was from eating meat or merely from having to master the difficult skills necessary to hunt for it).

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Since when does giving up meat mean improved health?! This just sounds like convential wisdom gone crazy.

It isn't though. There's oodles of research showing strong links between meat eating (especially red meat) and a number of common serious health disorders. Though admittedly that's probably from the fact that we eat too much meat, rather than us eating meat at all. I eat meat myself btw, so I'm not posting as a biased vegetarian.

The Corinthian wrote:

Termites eating through your house? Tough, you can't kill them. It's not self-defence, because it's your home (or the value of your home) that they're threatening.

To me, it's a ridiculous ideology, poorly thought out and the product of a largely anglophone, middle-class, urban demographic

You're the one who's being ridiculous now. You know very well that nobody is suggesting we should never kill any living thing ever. You can't compare a pig with a termite for example. And don't say why because you know very well why.

I'm not saying we should never kill a pig either, but we'd certainly want to have a look at the way we treat animals like pigs that we know to be intelligent and sentient. Our treatment of our fellow animals in general is pretty shameful, and that doesn't just apply to the meat industry.

aidan24326

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Meat tastes great but it's also an essential part of my diet. We evolved as omnivores for a reason.

We must have for sure, though interestingly it's believed that we didn't start eating meat until quite recently in our evolutionary history, and that our taking up meat eating coincided with our brains also becoming bigger, and presumably more intelligent (though it's hard to know if that was from eating meat or merely from having to master the difficult skills necessary to hunt for it).

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Since when does giving up meat mean improved health?! This just sounds like convential wisdom gone crazy.

It isn't though. There's oodles of research showing strong links between meat eating (especially red meat) and a number of common serious health disorders. Though admittedly that's probably from the fact that we eat too much meat, rather than us eating meat at all. I eat meat myself btw, so I'm not posting as a biased vegetarian.

The Corinthian wrote:

Termites eating through your house? Tough, you can't kill them. It's not self-defence, because it's your home (or the value of your home) that they're threatening.

To me, it's a ridiculous ideology, poorly thought out and the product of a largely anglophone, middle-class, urban demographic

You're the one who's being ridiculous now. You know very well that nobody is suggesting we should never kill any living thing ever. You can't compare a pig with a termite for example. And don't say why because you know very well why.

I'm not saying we should never kill a pig either, but we'd certainly want to have a look at the way we treat animals like pigs that we know to be intelligent and sentient. Our treatment of our fellow animals in general is pretty shameful, and that doesn't just apply to the meat industry.

aidan24326

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Meat tastes great but it's also an essential part of my diet. We evolved as omnivores for a reason.

We must have for sure, though interestingly it's believed that we didn't start eating meat until quite recently in our evolutionary history, and that our taking up meat eating coincided with our brains also becoming bigger, and presumably more intelligent (though it's hard to know if that was from eating meat or merely from having to master the difficult skills necessary to hunt for it).

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Since when does giving up meat mean improved health?! This just sounds like convential wisdom gone crazy.

It isn't though. There's oodles of research showing strong links between meat eating (especially red meat) and a number of common serious health disorders. Though admittedly that's probably from the fact that we eat too much meat, rather than us eating meat at all. I eat meat myself btw, so I'm not posting as a biased vegetarian.

The Corinthian wrote:

Termites eating through your house? Tough, you can't kill them. It's not self-defence, because it's your home (or the value of your home) that they're threatening.

To me, it's a ridiculous ideology, poorly thought out and the product of a largely anglophone, middle-class, urban demographic

You're the one who's being ridiculous now. You know very well that nobody is suggesting we should never kill any living thing ever. You can't compare a pig with a termite for example. And don't say why because you know very well why.

I'm not saying we should never kill a pig either, but we'd certainly want to have a look at the way we treat animals like pigs that we know to be intelligent and sentient. Our treatment of our fellow animals in general is pretty shameful, and that doesn't just apply to the meat industry.

CerebralCortex

aidan24326 wrote: »

We must have for sure, though interestingly it's believed that we didn't start eating meat until quite recently in our evolutionary history, and that our taking up meat eating coincided with our brains also becoming bigger, and presumably more intelligent (though it's hard to know if that was from eating meat or merely from having to master the difficult skills necessary to hunt for it).

I'd be interested to read that research.

aidan24326 wrote: »

It isn't though. There's oodles of research showing strong links between meat eating (especially red meat) and a number of common serious health disorders. Though admittedly that's probably from the fact that we eat too much meat, rather than us eating meat at all. I eat meat myself btw, so I'm not posting as a biased vegetarian.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/

It is if you want complete source of protein and fats. There's oodles of research showing correlation not causation. The western diet has emphasised less meat and animal fat and more grains with an increase in overeating related disease. As an example in these oodles of studies, do they mention how the meat was raised CAFO or free range, what the rest of the persons diet consisted of, how many calories they ingested, levels of exercise, age etc.

Mark Hamill

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oddly, ethics and morality are also based upon popular cultural perceptions, and often also ignorance.

Your point? Eithics and morality can (and should) be based on logic and reason.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So to protect additional species from extinction would cost nothing extra? It's OK to cull the excess population too, I expect?

Release them to the wild.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suggest you read up on the difference between wild and domesticated species.

And what? Domesticated animals aren't different species from their immediate, wild ancestors and many can interbreed with other animals in their genus.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said it was a moral argument - I'm not trying to argue on that basis.

Then what argument are you referring to when you say "I really do not accept this logic of equating cannibalism with eating animals morally and already said why"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Because those animals don't have their own offspring, creating excess populations of different species. I don't think you've worked it all out.

It will spread out the over population amongst different animals and different areas. Even if that makes no difference, we still would make an overall saver by not raising other animals purely for food.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you didn't understand what I wrote.

Your principle argument against eating meat is moral. Yet, without animal farming the populations of many domesticated species would have to be reduced if not be allowed to become extinct.

it is not immoral to let animals live in the wild and let nature take its course. Raising these animals for food and justifying it with the notion that they wouldn't be alive otherwise is immoral. Try justifying this line argument but with people instead of animals.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, even if we continued with some animal products; animals do not produce eggs, milk, etc. their entire lives, leaving one to care for them in their old age (inefficient) or culling them (there goes the moral argument). Or they would end up producing offspring that we cannot use - do we care for them or cull them?

Like I said, genetic modification. People might not like it, but people wont like giving up their meat either, so what difference does that make.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Genetic modification of these species, other than being morally dubious (it's not OK to kill them, but it's OK to continue screwing with their DNA?) is both unpopular and has human health implications.

How is it morally dubious? Breeding programs screw with dna, do you think that all of the various domestic dog breeds arose naturally? And the human health implications are scaremongering bs. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about genetic modification, we have been doing for years.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Food science has progressed to a point where we can probably survive on purely synthetic food at this stage and do away with all farming, if we wanted. And curb every other 'instinct' that we choose is 'undesirable' with drugs too.

So why dont we?

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if we accept that killing animals is wrong, then you realistically have to extend this elsewhere. Animals could not be killed for their hides, oils or any other reason. Culling them to save other animal populations would be immoral too. If they are unproductive, they also could not be killed.

And not just the nice fluffy ones - but all animals. That includes vermin. Even insects and arachnids. Even the ones eating our crops.

Termites eating through your house? Tough, you can't kill them. It's not self-defence, because it's your home (or the value of your home) that they're threatening.

To me, it's a ridiculous ideology, poorly thought out and the product of a largely anglophone, middle-class, urban demographic.

Of course its a ridiculous ideology, but thats because its a non sequitor. I'm a pacifist, but I wouldn't let someone attack me (or a loved one) and not stop them by force, if I had no other choice. I realise that there are some groups who do support this nonsense (PETA etc), but not everyone against meat is insane.

Mark Hamill

CerebralCortex wrote: »

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/

It is if you want complete source of protein and fats. There's oodles of research showing correlation not causation. The western diet has emphasised less meat and animal fat and more grains with an increase in overeating related disease. As an example in these oodles of studies, do they mention how the meat was raised CAFO or free range, what the rest of the persons diet consisted of, how many calories they ingested, levels of exercise, age etc.

This sort of thing is why I dont use the health argument for a no meat diet. A healthy diet involves exercise as well as balanced eating, and the diet itself just needs to meet the nutritional needs of the person which can be accomplished with a meat diet and a no meat diet fairly easily. You can easily be obese being a vegetarian or even vegan (sunflower oil and chips are completely vegan).

The Corinthian

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your point? Eithics and morality can (and should) be based on logic and reason.

My point is that you were promoting a populist concept and calling irrelevant another.

But as you've brought up a supposed link between morality and reason, you've not really backed up your former with the latter here.

Release them to the wild.

Ahhh... where they can die out within a few weeks and trigger a birth explosion in predators. Not our problem though - out of sight, out of mind.

And what? Domesticated animals aren't different species from their immediate, wild ancestors and many can interbreed with other animals in their genus.

Again, read up on the subject. Most, but not all, domesticated animals tend not to survive in the wild.

Then what argument are you referring to when you say "I really do not accept this logic of equating cannibalism with eating animals morally and already said why"?

Read back on my posts.

It will spread out the over population amongst different animals and different areas. Even if that makes no difference, we still would make an overall saver by not raising other animals purely for food.

That makes no logical sense.

Imagine that camels, cows and goats all produce the same volume of milk and cost of care and that a population needs 10,000 cows to supply demand. You can supply them with 3,000 camels, 3,000 cows and 4,000 goats, but you still have the same number of animals and cost of care, regardless if they are in one, two or a thousand farms.

And how would we "make an overall saver by not raising other animals purely for food"? We don't do that now.

it is not immoral to let animals live in the wild and let nature take its course. Raising these animals for food and justifying it with the notion that they wouldn't be alive otherwise is immoral. Try justifying this line argument but with people instead of animals.

So Darwinism is all right when it suits you?

I'm not suggesting that raising these animals for food and justifying it with the notion that they wouldn't be alive is a reason for farming them for food. I'm pointing out that not farming them for food so that they can instead become extinct is a moronic piece of moral logic.

Like I said, genetic modification. People might not like it, but people wont like giving up their meat either, so what difference does that make.

You're on a real winner then.

How is it morally dubious?

Killing them is wrong, tampering with DNA for our (not their) ends is good?

So why dont we?

Because it tastes crap.

If you want to 'survive', you can with such a lifestyle. If you want to 'live', that's another matter.

Of course its a ridiculous ideology, but thats because its a non sequitor. I'm a pacifist, but I wouldn't let someone attack me (or a loved one) and not stop them by force, if I had no other choice. I realise that there are some groups who do support this nonsense (PETA etc), but not everyone against meat is insane.

Personally, I reject this 'morality' because it is anglophone, middle-class, urban nonsense that is almost impossible to argue coherently and comes down to our empathizing with animals that we have little or no direct contact with in the modern age. It's a matter of ideology, of faith, not logic.

We're omnivores, all our closest relatives are omnivores. We're designed to eat meat from the moment the first homo sapian came into being, because our brain needs a ridiculous number of calories to function.

That's not to say we don't eat too much meat - and we do - but it's a jump to then conclude that we shouldn't eat any.

CerebralCortex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This sort of thing is why I dont use the health argument for a no meat diet. A healthy diet involves exercise as well as balanced eating, and the diet itself just needs to meet the nutritional needs of the person which can be accomplished with a meat diet and a no meat diet fairly easily. You can easily be obese being a vegetarian or even vegan (sunflower oil and chips are completely vegan).

I don't know if I agree. The best protein sources come from meat, also they're higher in saturated fat(best source of energy), polyunsaturates etc, and other essential vitamins and minerals. Vegetarian diets IMHO aren't good enough for me to switch especially as someone who does heavy lifting. The sooner we have synthetic meat the better. Obesity comes from too many calories not meat. Products ranging from bread to soft drinks provide far more easily consumable empty calories than meat.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/top-ten-protein-sources/

I know I quote this guy a lot but he seems to know his stuff and looks the part too.

goose2005

Personally, I reject this 'morality' because it is anglophone, middle-class, urban nonsense that is almost impossible to argue coherently and comes down to our empathizing with animals that we have little or no direct contact with in the modern age. It's a matter of ideology, of faith, not logic.

But how is it logical to abhor the idea of killing a human but one can shrug aside the killing of millions of animals with comparable intelligence?

We're omnivores, all our closest relatives are omnivores. We're designed to eat meat from the moment the first homo sapian came into being, because our brain needs a ridiculous number of calories to function.

Meat is important as a protein source, not for calories, and there are tons of plant protein sources we can use instead. And "designed to eat meat" means nothing.

The Corinthian

goose2005 wrote: »

But how is it logical to abhor the idea of killing a human but one can shrug aside the killing of millions of animals with comparable intelligence?

What animals of comparable intelligence?

Meat is important as a protein source, not for calories, and there are tons of plant protein sources we can use instead. And "designed to eat meat" means nothing.

Really? Give a hamburger to a sheep and let me know if it's designed to eat meat.

AhSureTisGrand

goose2005 wrote: »

But how is it logical to abhor the idea of killing a human but one can shrug aside the killing of millions of animals with comparable intelligence?

How is it logical to abhor the idea of killing a brain-damaged or handicapped human when they aren't even of comparable intelligence to animals?

Mark Hamill

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point is that you were promoting a populist concept and calling irrelevant another.

If you cant see the difference between popularity and ethics, then it doesn't bode very well for this argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But as you've brought up a supposed link between morality and reason, you've not really backed up your former with the latter here.

Morality isn't reasonable?
As for the link, I would hope it was obvious. In general, morality has to be reasoned in order for it to transcend cultural tropes (which in this age of international relations, it most certainly needs to be). In the specific case of meat, the link is simply that humans are as much meat as the animals that are farmed for it, if its wrong to farm humans for meat then its wrong to farm animals.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahhh... where they can die out within a few weeks and trigger a birth explosion in predators. Not our problem though - out of sight, out of mind.

Then dont do it all at once.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Again, read up on the subject. Most, but not all, domesticated animals tend not to survive in the wild.

You missed my point. Most domesticated animals have very close relatives in the wild, so even if all the domesticated animals die out, the species would remain.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Read back on my posts.

I did, I cant see it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That makes no logical sense.

Imagine that camels, cows and goats all produce the same volume of milk and cost of care and that a population needs 10,000 cows to supply demand. You can supply them with 3,000 camels, 3,000 cows and 4,000 goats, but you still have the same number of animals and cost of care, regardless if they are in one, two or a thousand farms.

I'd imagine spreading out across different animals in different countries would represent a small increase in efficiency. even if it didn't, we would still have the major increase from not raising the breeds of animal that we only raise for food.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And how would we "make an overall saver by not raising other animals purely for food"? We don't do that now.

We raise millions of cows and pigs and other animals purely for food, something which represents a far less efficient use of land than if we had food producing crops on the same land. If we stopped this, then we would improve overall efficiency.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So Darwinism is all right when it suits you?

Do you mean natural selection? If so, then it happens billions of times all over the world all the time, and i dont hear you defending the wild animals that are subject to it, so I find thsi line of reasoning pretty disingenuous.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that raising these animals for food and justifying it with the notion that they wouldn't be alive is a reason for farming them for food. I'm pointing out that not farming them for food so that they can instead become extinct is a moronic piece of moral logic.

Why? There is no definite reason why they would become extinct, those animals that have no use beyond food can be absorbed back into the population of their closely related wild cousins. Even if that was immoral, it still wouldn't make your proposed alternative of continuing to raise them for food anymore moral. the most moral thing would be to try and make them wild again somehow.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Killing them is wrong, tampering with DNA for our (not their) ends is good?

We have been doing it hundreds if not thousands of years, do you think these docile, domesticated species we currently farm and eat occurred naturally? This ignorant bullsh*t scaremongering of genetic modification stops here. If dna modification is wrong, then yellow long bananas and orange carrots are wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If you want to 'survive', you can with such a lifestyle. If you want to 'live', that's another matter.

Most people "live" quite happily on diets of heavily processed meat derived products like fast food, so I dont see much of a difference.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I reject this 'morality' because it is anglophone, middle-class, urban nonsense that is almost impossible to argue coherently and comes down to our empathizing with animals that we have little or no direct contact with in the modern age. It's a matter of ideology, of faith, not logic.

Its far more logical than the alternative "why shouldn't we eat animals, they are made of meat durr" argument. Despite your previous denial, your argument is still skirting the idea that humans are more than animals, that we are entitled to treat them whatever we like. We aren't, either one. There isn't a part of your carcass that couldn't be used in meat production much like a cows. This is not an ideology or a faith, its a simple biological fact. If I shouldn't empathise with animals I have little or no direct contact with, then why the hell should I empathise with people I dont have contact with?

The Corinthian wrote: »

We're omnivores, all our closest relatives are omnivores. We're designed to eat meat from the moment the first homo sapian came into being, because our brain needs a ridiculous number of calories to function.

Your mistake is in bold. We are not designed. We have evolved in an environment we were could take advantage of an omnivore diet, but there is no reason why we should. Evolution is blind and amoral, simple cause and effect on a genetic level over millions of generations. We dont have to follow it blindly. Almost every filed of human endeavor: medicine, science, business, engineering etc is humanity reaching past evolution and (hopefully) changing ourselves at a better pace and in a more long term efficient manner.

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's not to say we don't eat too much meat - and we do - but it's a jump to then conclude that we shouldn't eat any.

I never concluded that we shouldn't eat any meat because we eat too much.