#vegetarian #vegan #evolution
#vegetarian #vegan #evolution
Originally shared by Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran
+Eve Volve: "Meat allowed us to evolve"
Really? I think you're mistaken to believe this is a certainty, but what causes you to believe this is so, +Eve Volve?
As I understand it, there have been healthy, thriving vegetarians and vegans for as long as there have been humans. Some were so due to moral or ethical concerns, others due to resource utilization issues, others due to cultural taboos. All other factors being equal, the veg(etari)ans have thrived, and continue to do so.
For some more recent historical examples of vegans, we can look at Pythagoras, the "Pythagoreans" (as vegans were called for the following 1300 years), along with a plethora of like-minded contemporaries (e.g. goo.gl/lgDBL). Buddhists, Jainists, et al., have been doing grand as veg(etari)ans since around the 6th century BCE. Prior to this, there's compelling reason to believe that most people were vegan anyway (ref. goo.gl/3QZWDg). =o)
+Eve Volve: "Those animals were bred to be eaten"
I'm not sure what the reasoning here is. This would be like saying that if I raise a dog specifically to use it in dog fighting, that it's OK to torture and kill that dog in dog-fights since that's what I raised it for. Of course, no reasonable person would support such an excuse, and it can't reasonably be used to explain away our doing so to other animals.
+Eve Volve: "A lot of farmers make most of their money from selling animal products."
So... You're saying that if something makes money, it's therefor a moral action? That's just silly. Besides, they could engage in farming activities which don't hurt or kill sentient beings and make money as well.
+Eve Volve: "People not eating meat is not gonna stop people from producing meat... cause people like me still eat it."
Meh - I grew up on a farm where I was personally raising, killing, and butchering cows, pigs, chickens, goats, et al. You are people like me, +Eve Volve, and I'm sure that you and I have very similar values where it comes to not causing needless pain and suffering in the world. I have faith in your innate humanity, so unless you're a diagnosed sociopath, I trust that you will react the same as I have once you realize how horrific the act of needlessly killing (not to mention torturing) sentient beings is -- which is exactly what one is forcing on the world by deciding to eat animals.
—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—☆—★—
This post is one in a series in which excerpts of discussions on veganism from other threads are reposted (or paraphrased) for the sake of expanding the conversation. As always, your thoughts and questions are welcome. See the full collection via the #spommveganchats hash (or perhaps with a more robust search, such as goo.gl/JoxZC ).
(for anyone requiring/desiring more context, the original conversation can be found at goo.gl/k1Dge4 )
#evolution #meat #vegan
As I understand it, there have been healthy, thriving vegetarians and vegans for as long as there have been humans
ReplyDeleteWould love to know where this comes from.
Ok, I couldn't pass this by without throwing in my opinion on the original post. I didn't want it to seem confrontational, but it probably reads that way...
ReplyDeleteCooking and eating meat did help us evolve - I don't think there's really any credible doubt on the matter. That said, there's no reason we can't carry the process on without eating animals. As much as I like eating meat, I'd survive perfectly fine on meat substitutes or by changing diets.
The world absolutely needs to cut down on the number of animals being produced for food, not least because it's an inefficient way of meeting a growing global demand for food.
However, there's a significant difference between educating others about these issues and telling them what they should and shouldn't do. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the matters involved here, that's fine. Clearly some of the quoted stances here are poorly thought through, but that's no excuse to essentially attempt to emotionally blackmail people into doing what you think is correct.
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran
ReplyDeleteChris Whittleston: "Would love to know where this comes from."
ReplyDeleteSorry, I'm not sure I follow you; do you mean you'd like sources beyond those provided in that block of text?
Nick Stringer: "Cooking and eating meat did help us evolve - I don't think there's really any credible doubt on the matter."
ReplyDeleteHmm... AFAIK, there are hypotheses that humans eating animals might have played a part in evolution, but these largely exist without anything like definitive proof. Conversely, there are hypotheses that it played no role whatsoever, and while these also don't have definitive proof, there is some compelling evidence to believe this may be so (e.g. the links provided in the OP).
Do you have good reason to believe otherwise, Nick Stringer?
Nick Stringer: "Clearly some of the quoted stances here are poorly thought through, but that's no excuse to essentially attempt to emotionally blackmail people into doing what you think is correct."
Hmm... Could you give an example of a poorly thought through stance here, or an attempt to "emotionally blackmail"? I'm honestly not seeing it.
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran - guess I missed the 'nutritionfacts' link when I first read the post. Not sure about that as a source, but maybe I need to read through the Scientific American study linked from there. It does seem to say 'vegetarian' not 'vegan' though. Guess it would make sense that a lot of people weren't able to survive on a meat based diet when you look back far enough what with needing to develop cooking, agriculture, animal breeding etc
ReplyDeleteSean P. O. MacCath-Moran - how do you explain the development of canine teeth without meat eating playing a part at some point in our evolutionary past?
ReplyDeleteOddly enough, Chris Whittleston, that's another one of those culturally ingrained ideas that ultimately has little basis in science.
ReplyDeleteIt turns out that using dentition as an indicator of dietary requirements is a rather hard case to make. For example, we could consider cats as a clear example of a predator, which I think is a really good choice since they are obligate carnivores that cannot survive without meat protein, and which have rather impressive fangs (relative to body size). However, dogs have pretty much the same oral construction and can (and do) thrive nicely on a vegetable based diet.
Gorillas are also noteworthy in this regard for several reasons. They're herbivores, only straying from this in exceptionally rare (usually highly stressful) situations, but when they do eat flesh they don't use their canines to do so; the only use they put their canines to is for social display (i.e. intimidation and expressing emotions).
All this by way of suggesting that we humans, having cuspids of a much smaller size which are also never actually used for processing flesh, cannot reasonably be classified as meat-eaters based on our teeth.
When you add to this that humans have been thriving on plant-based diets at the very least throughout our recorded history, then the issue of how we may or may not have evolved becomes somewhat of a moot point with regard to this topic; i.e. contemporary humans do demonstrably better in terms of health, environment, and a number of other factors by not eating animal's bodies, menses, or secretions.
At least, that's how I see it -- what do you think?
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran
ReplyDeleteThere's never going to be any definitive proof on the matter of meat and evolution, but as far as I was aware the prevailing opinion within the scientific community was that we couldn't have evolved our brains or guts without eating meat.
The stances I was referring to were a couple of the weaker arguments from (the even more weakly named) Eve Volve which you quoted, such as "everyone else does it so what I do doesn't matter".
Maybe it's just a difference in perceptions, but I regard "unless you're a diagnosed sociopath, I trust that you will react the same as I have once you realise how horrific the act of needlessly killing (not to mention torturing) sentient beings is" as a massively loaded statement which could only be read as "if you don't think what I think then you're a terrible person". There are plenty of ways to put together strong arguments together against eating meat without having to resort to this kind of tactic. It's not really a productive argument, and it's absolutely not effective. People view food in such an abstracted way nowadays that "think of the poor pigs" doesn't really have an impact.
Hmm... You know, Nick Stringer, I actually agree with you that that's a fair point. I was pretty deep in my engineer brain when I wrote this reply to +Eve Volve (I was working heavily on a coding project at the time), so was only thinking of what I was writing in terms of the literal definition of the words. In earnest, stepping back now, I can see how it might well be interpreted as you've suggested rather than as I intended.
ReplyDeleteGood note!
Well put Nick Stringer - there is a very important debate to be had in the near future about what is sustainable water and land use wise globally as the population grows - but a lot of these points don't move that forward. I'm absolutely not suggesting that the moral/ethical side of things should be sidelined - just that I don't find it as interesting.
ReplyDeleteSean P. O. MacCath-Moran - I think you maybe didn't understand what I meant about the teeth. I don't doubt that vegetation was a large part of the human diet in the past, as it is now - but I don't think you can deny that the presence of canine teeth is evidence that humans have been omnivorous for a long time. Nick Stringer's point about the gut and how it is is able to break down meat protein alongside vegetation as well as the fact that our appendix is now non-functional support this.
I should point out that this isn't evidence for meat eating somehow driving evolution - as that is incredibly hard to directly prove.
ReplyDeleteBREAKING NEWS: Difference of opinion on internet resolved without death of either party.
ReplyDeleteSome interesting discussion points here though, I'll have to do a bit of reading on the evolution one - for my own benefit if nothing else ☺
And no envolking of Godwin's Law! (yet)
ReplyDeleteSean P. O. MacCath-Moran While I do not agree with raising livestock in abhorrent conditions, I also disagree with the notion that eating meat is somehow outside the natural order of things. Humans are omnivores, we have the capacity to thrive on a wide variety of food sources, and we do. Looking at the diet of peoples from around the world proves that out. They work best when eating a properly balanced diet, not one that necessarily includes or does not include any specific food source.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, the stress of worrying about what other people eat is probably just as destructive to your health as eating meat is destructive to theirs.
And, to the image above: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with respecting other species. It is a simple biological process of culling the weaknesses within a species to produce a demonstrably superior version for its environment.
Chris Whittleston: "I think you maybe didn't understand what I meant about the teeth. I don't doubt that vegetation was a large part of the human diet in the past, as it is now - but I don't think you can deny that the presence of canine teeth is evidence that humans have been omnivorous for a long time."
ReplyDeleteWell... To be clear, my point as it regards the physiological indications of dentition on the diet of a species was that teeth alone don't appear to give us clear signs dietary requirements one way or the other. =o)
Chris Whittleston: "+Nick Stringer's point about the gut and how it is is able to break down meat protein alongside vegetation as well as the fact that our appendix is now non-functional support this."
Heh - there's quite a bit of debate and disagreement about the present function of the appendix, and we still only have theories about it's possible uses by our progenitors. For my part, I find the topic vaguely interesting, but not terribly informative about how I need to conduct my self now (from either an ethical or a physiological perspective).
Chris Whittleston: "I should point out that this isn't evidence for meat eating somehow driving evolution - as that is incredibly hard to directly prove."
Agreed! And much to your point, demonstrating that vegetation somehow drove evolution is equally difficult to prove for the same reasons.
Chris Whittleston Now that you've pointed it out, how could somebody NOT invoke Godwin's Law simply because you mentioned Godwin's Law? The temptation is simply too great for mere mortals to resist!!
ReplyDeletePlus, at a mere 16 comments, the likelihood of such comments is slim when reasoned discussion is what drives the majority of the discussion.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Humans are omnivores, we have the capacity to thrive on a wide variety of food sources, and we do."
ReplyDeleteIndeed it is so! We are omnivores, so by definition, we're capable of thriving with or without eating animals. That said, our being omnivorous doesn't mean we "must" kill and eat sentient beings, only that our bodies are "capable" digesting their bodies should we choose to. The interesting point here is that since it's a choice one way or the other, what possible justification does that leave for needlessly taking the lives of thinking individuals, eh Justtyn Hutcheson?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "They work best when eating a properly balanced diet, not one that necessarily includes or does not include any specific food source."
Well... There actually is compelling evidence that one's health deteriorate in lock step with the amount of animal-sourced products one consumes. Then there's the environmental issues to consider, not to mention the social justice problems with consuming animals (e.g. water usage, hunger, etc.).
But all of that aside, it's useful to keep in mind that a balanced diet is easily and painlessly achieved without using any animal products.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Honestly, the stress of worrying about what other people eat is probably just as destructive to your health as eating meat is destructive to theirs."
Or even the stress of telling other people what they should and should not be (ostensibly) stressed about, eh? =oP
For my part, I really do wish it was just a matter of it all being a personal choice and us agreeing to disagree as you propose, Justtyn Hutcheson. However, it's not like we're talking about what style of clothes people wear or what religion they follow; in this decision, what people choose to eat effects weather sentient beings are tortured and killed. To me, fighting for the rights and freedoms of those who do not have a voice in the issue is an activity that sustains and uplifts me, so you needn't worry over much about how doing so might negatively affect my health. =o)
Justtyn Hutcheson: "And, to the image above: evolution has absolutely nothing to do with respecting other species."
Yeppers - that image is a humor meme, not a scientific assertion. =o)
Oooooh kay, fine, Chris Whittleston and Justtyn Hutcheson, here's your invokation of Godwin's Law: goo.gl/D6Qjn1
ReplyDelete(for reference, that pic was in this post: goo.gl/RzSJAg).
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran That, was really hilarious. Seriously burst out laughing in the middle of the office (thanks for the weird looks, btw). Well played, sir.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I did have a long and involved counterargument, but G+ has eaten it twice and frankly I'm feeling lazy.
So, the crux of the argument is thus: every single living being is only alive because of the death of the another (formerly) living being. That is the ultimate truth of this world, in fact: death is inevitable, and the death of a being will allow the life of another being. That includes everything from microbes to plants to animals. And all are, arguably, sentient.
At which point, the only way to live is to properly respect all of those whose death prolongs your own life, no matter how large or small. I am certain that the corn, broccoli, and soy bean is no more happy to die for your nourishment than a pig, chicken, or cow. Don't waste food, don't abuse or otherwise go out of your way to cause unnecessary pain to any living being, and be at peace with yourself.
I will say, the "you" in my statements is the generic "you" of another person, not the personal "you" of Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran . And as far as that is concerned, I crave reasoned argumentation as my primary means of personal growth and enlightenment.
EDIT: So, about that whole being lazy thing...I think the first two posts were shorter than this one lol.
We try to do the less harm as possible Matthew Graybosch and that starts with not eating animals that feel real pain, as of having central nervous system. Don't you think that it is reasonable as a starting point?
ReplyDeleteMatthew Graybosch: "Doesn't respect for other species obligate us to abstain from eating plants, as well?" and +Justtyn Hutcheson: "... That includes everything from microbes to plants to animals. And all are, arguably, sentient."
ReplyDeleteIn earnest, no one -- not even you, Matthew Graybosch and Justtyn Hutcheson -- really believes that plants are alive in the way that we mean it when we're talking about animals.
If you'd like though, I can go on for some length about the science and metaphysics involved in this assertion, or if you prefer you can read my thoughts on this at goo.gl/g4MhD5 and goo.gl/0h3IoC. However, the short of it is that if someone eats my tomato or eats my dog, people view these as very different acts with vastly different moral implications. To quote from Eat Like You Care:
"Let's be clear here: there is no scientific evidence that plants think or exhibit any sort of mental activity so that we can say that plants have interests. There is no scientific evidence that plants have any sort of mind that prefers, or desires, or wants anything. There is no scientific evidence that dropping broccoli into boiling water is in any relevant way similar to slaughtering a cow or a pig or a chicken, or dropping a live lobster into boiling water."
After reading the links provided above, can we agree that this is a non-sequitur in a conversation about needlessly killing sentient beings, Matthew Graybosch and Justtyn Hutcheson?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "That, was really hilarious. Seriously burst out laughing in the middle of the office (thanks for the weird looks, btw). Well played, sir."
ReplyDelete~Sean tips his hat in acceptance and thanks.~ =o)
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Every single living being is only alive because of the death of the another (formerly) living being. That is the ultimate truth of this world, in fact: death is inevitable, and the death of a being will allow the life of another being."
This is true as far as it goes, but it does not in and of itself provide justification for needlessly killing others (be they human or not). If you will forgive an example that appears somewhat hyperbolic but is meant only as an analogy, this line of reasoning might just as easily be applied to rape; i.e. "Every single living being is only alive because of the [copulation] of the another living being. That is the ultimate truth of this world, in fact: [sex] is inevitable, and the [rape] of a being will allow the life of another being."
Don't get me wrong here Justtyn Hutcheson; I agree completely that it's an imperfect analogy. For example, with rape, the victim is often allowed to live afterwards, whereas when someone eats an someone else... well... the consequences are certainly more dire for that individual.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "At which point, the only way to live is to properly respect all of those whose death prolongs your own life, no matter how large or small."
This is just not so. If someone is concerned about causing death, then a more reasoned reaction would be for them to cause as little death as they possibly can.
FWIW, I think that's an excellent start, Matthew Graybosch! However, sadly, to consume eggs and milk is to participate in horrific death and suffering.
ReplyDeleteIn your defense, it's not at all uncommon for folks to reflexively think that eggs are cruelty free items, but this simply isn't the case. For anyone needing an overview on why this is so, I discussed that in this post: goo.gl/ElVkR. The short of it is that the horrors start at hatching, with all the males being disposed of, and usually in torturous ways (e.g. ground alive, electrocuted, suffocated), and it gets worse from there.
I haven't yet posted one of these on milk (I'll remedy that soon!), but there are many issues to choose from here. Perhaps the most troubling is the creation of "veal". Cows have to be force-bred annually to produce milk (google "rape rack" for more info on this), which translates in the US alone to around 9,500,000 babies per year that have to be dealt with. If she has a daughter, she follows her mother on to the stanchion; if a son, he's restrained in a little pen for a few days (i.e. "Bob Veal") or for up to 8 months before being forcibly killed and served up. Regardless of gender, the mother does not get to raise her child, who is removed from her by force. This happens either immediately or within a day, and against her will -- after all, who else is she creating milk for but for her child?
All of this takes place on largest factory farms and on the smallest most bucolic family farms, and we haven't yet touched on the other horrific abuses that take place. From this perspective, I'm sure it's clear why all milk products represent cruelty and death.
So, again, I fully support whatever steps toward compassion you can make, Matthew Graybosch, but I hope you will look on it all more as a journey than as the step you've proposed being a final stop.
Is that fair to say?
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran Your analogy is indeed far from directly comparable. Sex is not inevitable. Humans can go their entire lives without it, in fact. Many have, with absolutely no detrimental consequences. It is required for the the continuation of a species, of course, but not for living in general, and that is where the argument breaks down. To live, something else must die. Period, end quote.
ReplyDeleteScience has confirmed that plants are indeed affected by external factors in ways that are completely inexplicable if one retains the assumption that they are "unthinking" or don't have "intents". Simply put, if the plant wanted nothing, it wouldn't exist. The desire of all life is to remain alive, and do everything in its power to do so. In that definition, I'd say that plants absolutely have the intent of living, and to eat them would be spoiling that intent.
To "minimize suffering", one presumes that they know what the minimal amount of suffering is. I'd say that is quite the profound statement, considering human beings' limited capacity for understanding the intricate mechanisms of the impact of their decisions on future events within their own lives, let alone the world at large. Chaos theory dictates that any decision made can potentially have catastrophic consequences, and indeed it has been proven out over the centuries that seemingly innocuous decisions have had severe and far-reaching consequences that were impossible to predict. It could very well be that, after years of destroying the balance of our ecosystems, the status quo is the minimal amount of suffering, as without human intervention the current livestock populations being set free would cause absolute catastrophe that would take centuries or even millenniums for nature to correct, if at all.
While I admit that the above is, indeed, only one of many many possible scenarios, very very few of those scenarios actually lead to less suffering in the world at large within a reasonable timeframe of two-three generations. Eventually, perhaps, but we are already working towards that with things like lab-grown animal proteins to replace livestock. Once those techniques are perfected, the market will naturally reduce the demand for livestock, and hopefully that will lead to an overall reduction, and, eventually, elimination in the need for such things.
OK! You've brought up several very interesting points, Justtyn Hutcheson -- I certainly admire your enthusiasm for this topic! I'm going to break these out in to sections in order to deal with each topic you've raised separately. =o)
ReplyDeleteVeracity Of Analogies
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Your analogy is indeed far from directly comparable."
Ok - let's explore that. =o)
• "Sex is not inevitable."
→ Eating animals is not inevitable.
• "Humans can go their entire lives without [sex], in fact."
→ Humans can go their entire lives without eating animals, in fact.
• "Many have [never had sex], with absolutely no detrimental consequences."
→ Many have never eaten animals, with absolutely no detrimental consequences.
• "[Sex] is required for the the continuation of a species, of course, but not for living in general, and that is where the argument breaks down."
→ Eating is required for the continuation of the species, but eating animals is not required for living in general.
• "To live, something else must die."
→ For humans to live, no animals must die.
• "Period, end quote."
→ Well... Umm... Hmm...
"Life" Of Plants
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Science has confirmed that plants are indeed affected by external factors in ways that are completely inexplicable if one retains the assumption that they are "unthinking" or don't have "intents"."
As I explored in the links provided earlier, starting with the assumption that plants are "thinking" in some way, science has also been utilized to confirm that plants are utterly lacking in anything like a mind, or to have literal intentions, or are in any way sentient -- certainly not the way when we mean it when we talk about animal life.
However, for just a moment, I'm going to ask that you suspend disbelief and put science aside to make the assumption that plants are sentient, self aware, thinking beings. Heck - let's go all the way with this and make the assumption that plant life is the highest form of sentience on the planet. From this premise, a plant-based lifestyle would still represent the most moral/ethical choice. The reason for this is that every animal's life requires the direct or indirect consumption of uncountable plant 'lives' (remembering that we're holding with the idea, for the moment, that plants are 'alive' in the same way as animals). Therefore, if ones goal is to be a moral person, and if one considers unnecessarily taking life to be immoral, and one chooses to believe that plants think and feel, then such a person would have absolutely no choice but to reduce their immoral misdeeds by adopting a plant-based diet.
Or, if they prefer, they can stick to science not feel guilty about eating plants at all. =o)
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Simply put, if the plant wanted nothing, it wouldn't exist. The desire of all life is to remain alive, and do everything in its power to do so. In that definition, I'd say that plants absolutely have the intent of living, and to eat them would be spoiling that intent."
Hmm... OK - let's suspend disbelief again for a moment and pretend that plants have "desires". Like non-human-animals, plants cannot communicate with us, so we'll have to derive their "desires" from their "behaviors". Unlike cows and chickens, cucumbers and carrots don't viscously fight against death when they see it coming. Unlike pigs and fishes, plants generally adopt a strategy of spreading and reproduction that assumes and encourages that animals species to eat them, thereby distributing their seeds and pollens.
ReplyDeleteWithal, if someone does believe plants and animals have desires, and if someone does wish to respect those desires, then killing animals is clearly "off the table" for them (so to speak), while eating plants is still in alignment with their values.
Again, there's no peer reviewed science that supports that notion that plants are desires and feelings; this was merely an hypothetical intellectual exercise.
Existential Justifications
Justtyn Hutcheson: "To "minimize suffering", one presumes that they know what the minimal amount of suffering is. ... It could very well be that, after years of destroying the balance of our ecosystems, the status quo is the minimal amount of suffering, as without human intervention the current livestock populations being set free would cause absolute catastrophe that would take centuries or even millenniums for nature to correct, if at all."
This line of reasoning evades the question of responsibility for one's actions by claiming that any good intention might lead to bad consequences. Using such reasoning, one can justify homicide, genocide, or any number of other "cides". =o)
However, none of this addresses the very tangible truth that eating an animal requires needlessly killing a sentient and self-aware being, snuffing out its existence for no greater reason than the satisfaction of one's taste-buds; i.e. since it's not necessary to kill and eat animals, once someone realizes this is so, their only reason for continuing to do so is for pleasure.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Once those techniques are perfected, the market will naturally reduce the demand for livestock, and hopefully that will lead to an overall reduction, and, eventually, elimination in the need for such things."
Or, instead of waiting for some imagined and unnecessary philosophical justification from others, as crazy and radical as this sounds, we could just, you know, stop doing it. =oP
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran Your breakdown still has nothing to do with the intial assertition, which is that death is inevitable. I have never once claimed that eating animal products is inevitable, and have consistently held that it is a choice. Whether or not you agree with that choice, is another matter.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of plant sentience, they do indeed develop mechanisms that allow them to survive when faced with death. Bark, thorns and toxins, are just a few examples. Just because plants have passive, rather than active, defenses, makes their defenses no less a product of a "will" (in the loosest sense of the word) to survive. A few have even developed active defenses by actively preying on "animals".
In your example, you say that the logical conclusion, if plants are the most sentient beings on the planet, is to kill as few as possible. That is an incorrect conclusion. The proper conclusion, holding that plants are the most sentient being on the planet, is for us to die, being not only the least numerous but less sentient being. In fact, you could go so far as to say that even if plants aren't sentient beings, reason would tell you not to eat them simply because if you die, one life is ended while eating them will end, over your lifetime, potentially millions of lives. Just because you believe they aren't as worthwhile or important as "sentient" lives makes it no less harmful. The justification that "plants aren't sentient, so its okay to kill them" sounds oddly like a justification for herbicide, now doesn't it ;-)
At the end of the day, my original thesis at the beginning still holds: death is inevitable, and is the price of all life. To state that killing an animal is needless is the same as stating that killing anything is needless. You are welcome to feel that you occupy the moral high ground, even as I enjoy a delicious steak. We will both be healthy, rational, intelligent and happy individuals until the day we become something else's dinner.
Or, there's some kind of unseen major catastrophe, and all life on this planet is extinguished, at which point the entire discussion is kind of moot :-)
I appreciate your need to defend the idea that killing plants is somehow magically equatable to killing animals, and that in imagining such a thing, you're excusing yourself from moral considerations. However, no one, not even yourself, Justtyn Hutcheson, really believes that sneaking on to my property and taking a tomato home to eat it is anything like the same thing as sneaking in and taking my dog home for the same purpose. No one really believes that plants are sentient and thinking beings, and no science supports this fantastical idea.
ReplyDeleteI respect that your need to somehow self-justify continuing to kill sentient individuals, and this is the cause of these desperate flounderings of logic you're putting forward. I understand your desire to dismiss challenges to these flimsy excuses of yours as being attempts by others to "claim the moral high ground". Nevertheless, at the end of the day, I'm confident that you know the truth of the matter just as well as I do.
From the tone of this last post, it would seem that you neither respect nor appreciate anything I have said thus far and were simply tolerating it while justifying your own position that the only moral thing to do is give up all animal products, the very definition of claiming a moral high ground.
ReplyDeleteWhether plants are sentient is actually completely irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't matter if they are or not, as the only alternative to not eating plants or animals is not living. A choice no sane or rational person should make.
The truth is that, you have made your decision and feel some need to espouse that position to others. I made my decision, but feel no need to actually justify my actions. If you read every one of my comments, they are all counter arguments, never once asserting that either of us was either right or that eating animals was either moral or necessary. I was merely pointing out that you were creating an arbitrary and convenient split between those lives it is okay to end in continuance of your own and those you believe it is abhorrent to end for precisely the same reason. You believe that your life is much more important than theirs, which is the same reasoning that anyone else would give. This discussion is very similar to the one relating to abortion, of when a life actually has meaning or is simply a collection of cells moving in accordance to some genetic predisposition, which in itself is indeed a forum for instinctual life, which is perhaps the purest form of life there is as there is no room for corruption.
But, I digress. Thank you for the excellent discussion. Best of luck and health to you. In honor of St. Patrick's day:
Sláinte is táinte!
It is Interesting to note that most plants have evolved chemicals that make them toxic to animals, so clearly they do not want to be eaten. Many animals have evolved resistance to some of these chemicals. cows and sheep and deer can eat many plants that would poison a human. Humans can eat plants that would poison a cat (just try feeding celery to your cat to see how quickly a food we eat can poison a cat)
ReplyDeleteWhat is interesting is how few animals have meat that is toxic to any other animal. You would almost think they were not too bothered about being eaten !
On that note I call for the grass liberation front to rise up and feast on lamb and steak. Eat all the animals that chew on the innocent green blades.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "From the tone of this last post, it would seem that you neither respect nor appreciate anything I have said thus far and were simply tolerating it while justifying your own position that the only moral thing to do is give up all animal products, the very definition of claiming a moral high ground."
ReplyDeleteBy analogy, this would be like a theist claiming that they were being disrespected simply because they could not prove that their particular God exists.
You've provided no evidence for your wild claims of plant sentience, and yet expect to be taken seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and just because someone dismisses your fantasies doesn't make them anything but prudent.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Whether plants are sentient is actually completely irrelevant to the discussion."
Agreed -- in every way possible.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "It doesn't matter if [plants] are [sentient] or not, as the only alternative to not eating plants or animals is not living. A choice no sane or rational person should make."
It's certainly true that setting up a ridiculous claim will result in an equally ridiculous conclusion. In this case you're claiming (without proof or reason) that plants are sentient and thinking, and that if we cannot eat them for this reason, then we cannot eat anything which is sentient or thinking. Of course, plants are not sentient or thinking, and you've haven't come close to demonstrating this in all of your meanderings, so the conclusions drawn from this premise make just as little sense.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "The truth is that, you have made your decision and feel some need to espouse that position to others."
Umm... No. It was you who came in to this conversation and addressed me. You engaged the the conversation by talking about a series of issues which were readily demonstrated to be illogical and irrelevant. After I did exactly that, you moved on to other points, and eventually landed on this notion of plant sentience (which you insisted on but never demonstrated).
... and yet you accuse me of coming here just to "espouse that position to others"? Me thinks thou dost protest too much, sir.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "I made my decision, but feel no need to actually justify my actions."
Errr... You clearly do feel exactly that need... OH -- maybe you mean that you no longer feel that need?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "If you read every one of my comments, they are all counter arguments, never once asserting that either of us was either right or that eating animals was either moral or necessary."
You've introduced at least five topics that I can readily count; these were not "counter arguments" to any particular point that had been raised previously, but were assertions brought forward because you wished to find a way to defend the indefensible action of needlessly killing sentient beings.
Did you read everyone one of your statements? Would you like a list of these incidents?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "I was merely pointing out that you were creating an arbitrary and convenient split between those lives it is okay to end in continuance of your own and those you believe it is abhorrent to end for precisely the same reason."
And I responded to your assertions. With science. You responded with a dreamy insistence on sticking with unprovable fantasies.
Justtyn Hutcheson:
"You believe that your life is much more important than theirs, which is the same reasoning that anyone else would give."
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe my life is more important that those of carrots and peas (they not be sentient or "alive" in the way animals are).
I also believe my life is more important that pigs, dogs, cows, or other humans, and I vigorously defend my ability to live because of this.
However, unlike you, this belief does not somehow entitle me to kill other sentient beings, whether they are pigs, dogs, cows, or other humans.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "This discussion is very similar to the one relating to abortion, of when a life actually has meaning or is simply a collection of cells moving in accordance to some genetic predisposition, which in itself is indeed a forum for instinctual life, which is perhaps the purest form of life there is as there is no room for corruption."
Err... Yes, I most certainly agree. People who argue about precisely when life begins in vitro/utero are much like people who argue that plants are sentient. I doubt I could have come up with a better analogy.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "But, I digress."
That's OK; I'm sure we've grown accustomed.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "Thank you for the excellent discussion. Best of luck and health to you."
Hey - best of luck back at-cha. Be sure to check back in later if you come up with anything that actually supports your "sentient plants" hypotheses, eh?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "In honor of St. Patrick's day: Sláinte is táinte!"
Tapadh leibh! Is e 'n thionsachadh og a tionsachadh boidheach, agus fear sam bitha loisgeas a mas, ‘s e fhein a dh'feumas suidhe air.
(Full Disclosure: I'm a third year Gaelic student...)
Stephen Beynon: "It is Interesting to note that most plants have evolved chemicals that make them toxic to animals, so clearly they do not want to be eaten."
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, Stephen Beynon; this is interesting! However, it's probably important to note that this aspect of plant life does not in and of itself demonstrate sentience, thought, or intention on the part of plants. As such, classifying this as a demonstrating a "want" is, at best, a misnomer.
Stephen Beynon: "What is interesting is how few animals have meat that is toxic to any other animal. You would almost think they were not too bothered about being eaten!"
What's also interesting is that if you visit a slaughter house, you can watch as the first beings is easily killed, since he or she doesn't know what's coming. Then you can watch as the second being struggles and tries to get away, very clearly demonstrating its desire not to be killed. Of course, this is what one would expect to happen, since cows have cognitive functions, sentience, and enlightened self interest.
Conversely, I've sat in a garden and brutally stabbed a tomato, then reached for another that was in full view of the act. It didn't do anything about it. Of course, this is what we expect to happen, since plants have no cognitive function, and so cannot react with reasoned actions.
You Don't Support Dog Fighting, Right?
If you will indulge me a moment, I'd like to explore something with you, Stephen Beynon, that was introduced in the OP. You may recall the Michael Vick fiasco a few years back. Everyone was quite upset at the notion that Vick was forcing dogs to fight to the death for the pleasure it gave him. You will be in alignment with the majority of society if you agree that abusing and killing dogs in this fashion is morally wrong. The reason we all agree on this is because we know dogs feel pain and because we agree that killing a dog for pleasure is a violation of that dog's intrinsic rights.
Similarly, when we kill a chicken, cow or pig only for the pleasure it brings us (i.e. to eat it), we're making that exact same violation. This realization is the root of the reasoning behind why many people choose to stop participating in the needless killing of sentient beings.
If you don't mind my asking: do you disagree with this analogy, Stephen Beynon?
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran First of all, I want to apologize for my earlier post. After taking some time to step back, I can see that I was indeed forcing something that simply didn't work, and creating false equivalencies in the process. I made false accusations against your character, which has weighed heavily upon my conscience. I am sorry for that, and hope that you can forgive my transgressions upon your person.
ReplyDeleteTo sum up my feelings on the subject of the eating of animal products, I do not personally find it morally reprehensible. Just because I have the ability to choose my food source, I do not believe that it is a moral imperative to choose the one which causes the least suffering. Call it what you will (cultural conditioning, natural instinct, what have you), but I do not see the killing of an animal for the purpose of nourishment as unjust or immoral. It feels as natural as breathing to me, and anything otherwise feels decidedly forced and unnatural.
I did actually change my diet to a completely vegetarian state for nearly all of last year after sustaining a typical American diet for most of my life, but the lack of animal products always bothered me (in case it makes any difference, this change was based on the excellent advice of my new physician, and his recommended reading of "Eat to Live, Live to Eat", which if you haven't read is an excellent publication). And I knew it wasn't simply the taste of the meat, or even the texture, as I was regularly using animal-based stocks in my cooking, and tofu (which I actually quite like now, thanks to this experience) can have a texture very similar to that of many meats. But, there was simply no substitute; no amount of meditation, no internal or external reasoning that could cause me to shake the hunger for a thick, juicy steak, a nice plump chicken breast, or a smoky pulled pork. When I finally accepted that part of myself, I was immediately overcome with an almost euphoric peace, not of giving in to carnal urges, but of admitting how I truly felt; it is quite possibly the closest I have ever come to a religious experience. Of course, that is a purely emotional response, but no sentient being on this planet if free from the shackles of their emotions, no matter how hard they may try to be otherwise.
It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Passion rules reason". Ever since I read it, it struck a cord in me, and I realized that I should always try to be introspective, to examine not simply what my decision was, but why I made that decision; the end result of which being that I am much more accepting of not only my decisions, but also the consequences thereof.
And so, it would seem that I must apologize (again) for once more waxing eloquent over topics which lie outside the original thread of discussion. Perhaps one day I'll learn to stay on-topic, but that is a day that I fear I will become a rather boring person to speak to.
P.S. On a completely unrelated note, while I am really interested in foreign languages, and Gaelic in particular, I am also woefully ignorant of their actual translations, not having made the time to properly study any of them besides the three years of Latin in high school, and only picking up a few phrases here and there of random languages. As such, I have no idea what your statement's translation is, and of course Google (and every other internet source I could find) failed miserably, as I couldn't find enough words to make any sense of it, I'm guessing because of a lack of understanding where fadas should be placed, though I'm 95% certain there should be at least a few modified vowels in that statement.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "[...] and hope that you can forgive my transgressions upon your person."
ReplyDeleteBrother, if I had a dime for every time I've said something over-hastily online (some of them in this very thread), I would be a very rich man today. Let's agree that such things are par for the course and that no forgiving is needed.
Justtyn Hutcheson: "To sum up my feelings on the subject of the eating of animal products, I do not personally find it morally reprehensible. Just because I have the ability to choose my food source, I do not believe that it is a moral imperative to choose the one which causes the least suffering."
Hmm... The thing is, it's not just suffering we're talking about here, but killing -- and needlessly killing at that. Do you really believe that your desire to satisfy your sense of taste, habits, or traditions actually justifies killing sentient individuals?
Justtyn Hutcheson: "... I'm 95% certain there should be at least a few modified vowels in that statement."
I'm 101% certain you're correct about that; I've started picking up the written language this year, and I haven't set up the international keyboard on my computer yet. Add to this that my spoken gaelic is still at an intermediate level, and I'm sure my written gaelic is atrocious.
Sean P. O. MacCath-Moran Hmm... The thing is, it's not just suffering we're talking about here, but killing -- and needlessly killing at that. Do you really believe that your desire to satisfy your sense of taste, habits, or traditions actually justifies killing sentient individuals?
ReplyDeleteSo, if we boil down this entire discussion, it is an inherent disagreement on the definition of the term "needless".
Your argument centers on the fact that, since we are "higher" sentient beings, AND we can survive by eating non-animal food sources, that killing an animal for any reason, even expressly to be used for nourishment, is a moral affront and should be stopped. Is that an accurate representation, or have I missed the mark?
My counter argument is that having the ability to do something (such as surviving on food sources other than animals) does not imply a moral imperative to act upon that ability. The intent of the killing is the important distinction between whether or not is was actually "needless". Nourishment the most natural reason for killing prey. Being near the top of the food chain, and being omnivores to boot, we have the luxury of a large amount of choice, and the choice of no human being should be considered immoral so long as they do, indeed, consume all that they kill.
So, to answer your question directly: Yes. I really, truly believe that is okay to kill an animal for the express purpose of consuming its flesh. I am a predator, they are my prey. No more justification need be made.