Posted by: Bahman ®
11/13/2002, 13:31:27
Author Profile Mail author
|
First, I'd like to emphasize that I am only interested in discussing principles and not necessarily your diet, etc., although it sounds interesting to read. But please don't feel obligated to write about yourself.It seems to me that our discussion boils down to ethics. So what are they and who makes them? Of course the very religious would say they all come from God, which means there is nothing left to discuss. However, my answer is that ethics, like almost everything else in our human life, are made by us. That being the case, they are time-and-place dependent: They can change from culture to culture, and in time. So, not eating meat is a matter of choice and I am not prepared to call it "natural" or "unnatural." As far as suufering is concerned, I think in general (exceptions aside) the slaughter of animals is more humane than the suffering they may encounter when alive.
|
Posted by: james ®
11/14/2002, 07:24:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hello Bahman,
I think it comes down to personal taste and emotionalism reguarding animals. No real universal ethic involved, other than wanting to minimize harm to animals while they are alive. In theory animals could be harvested with minimal pain. I would agree with you that animals need to be alive to feel pain. As far as I know animals don't feel any pain after they are dead. What they feel before hand is much a matter of dispute, especially in reguards to commerical production of animal products. I hope this satisfies your interest concerning my feeling about the matter.
Modified by james at Thu, Nov 14, 2002, 07:24:46
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 07:31:39
Author Profile Mail author
|
I suppose we are in agreement to close the case here!
PS: With respect to reducing suffering, I just posted my view in reply to . . . what was his/her name? . . . let's say the newcomer!
|
Posted by: james ®
11/14/2002, 07:39:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes, closed. Meat tastes good to a lot of people. In my earlier years I was a vegetarian and content to eat with others while observing this dietary 'constriction'. Some people said that it made them feel guilty, which I found pretty strange. I knew that other people didn't want to be bothered with my ideas and preferances, so I did my best to not talk about it while eating with others so as not to upset them.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 05:58:43
Author Profile Mail author
|
I've been trying to separate factors involved. I think we've at least agreed to
1) Food chain is "natural" and if we eat meat, it is NOT "unnatural."
2) Ethics is "hand-made" in any culture or society and if I eat meat I am is NOT "unethical."
3) Other reasons for vgeterianism such as health, aesthetics, possible suffering of animals, etc., are personal choices and can't be, IMO, ruled in or out in general. How is that?
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 06:05:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Upon posting the above, I realized that the whole thread has been distorted, including the removal of some posts. I don't know if there is any remedy.
|
Posted by: james ®
11/14/2002, 07:32:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
Sorry if I created a distortion in the space/thought continuum, I removed some posts because I felt I didn't put enough thought into the posts. Plus, they did get perhaps a little too personal. I don't think there isn't any permanent damage. The discussion is sure to continue.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 07:36:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
So you were the cause of distortion, ha? (just kidding) And all that time I was blaming the poor cyberspace!
|
Posted by: freajnt ®
11/14/2002, 06:46:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm an occasional lurker here, but an article I read yesterday delved deeply into this subject and gave me pause to reflect on my thoughts about it.I've generally thought that folks who were put off by eating meat hadn't spent sufficient time around cattle or chickens - definitely dim bulbs those animals. However, even though I'm a somewhat staunch agnostic/atheist/rationalist/materialist, I'm sympathetic to the notion that humans can choose to reduce the suffering in the world and not participating in the killing of animals seems like a reasonable way to do that. Further, I *have* raised a hog in my life and it was every bit as interesting and personable as a dog. I ended up having to have it slaughtered as it grew to be huge. It wasn't fun. Notwithstanding the article's excellent portrayal of the pro-vegetarian argument, I'll not choose that path as yet, however, I do intend to buy "Free Farmed" food when I can. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/10ANIMAL.html?pagewanted=all&position=top PS. You'll have to register with the NYT, but it's painless and worth it.
Related link: An Animal's Place
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 07:21:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
Welcome and thanks for your post.I am very sympathetic to the issue of mistreatment of animals, but I think the best way to contribute to the advance of better treatment is to help or join activist groups who do good work. IMO, this method is much more productive than just refuse to eat meat. PS: I haven't yet got chance to use the link you provided. Thanks.
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
11/14/2002, 15:55:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think it is probably true that most of us (including me) eat more meat and meat products than we need to or is even good for us. Nevertheless, it is my understanding that we humans are, by nature, omnivores, with some dietary needs that can not be filled by plants alone. For example, our bodies cannot synthesize vitamin B12 which is vital to our health and is not found in any plants (though it is probably possible nowadays to genetically engineer plants to produce it). Strict vegetarians who scrupulously avoid eating anything coming from animals can suffer from debilitating vitamin B12 deficiency, and can even die a rather unpleasant death from this deficiency.I don't believe it is inherently unethical or immoral to eat meat, though I share the concerns expressed here about the inhumane treatment of animals that are raised for slaughter or to otherwise provide food for us. Some predation, like it or not, is absolutely necessary for a healthy and sustainable ecosystem. I don't see any good reason to condemn any humans merely for choosing to be numbered among the predators. As for the individuals mentioned in Daniel who thrived on "pulse" (assuming, of course, that there is any historical validity to the story), they could not have been so healthy if they really ate pulse alone. Beans simply do not have all the essential amino acids our bodies require. They would have to have eaten something else in addition (for example, cereal grains, which have the essential amino acids lacking in beans, which, in turn, have essential amino acids lacking in cereals). Gunnar
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/14/2002, 20:18:40
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks for your "late" testemonial!
Since we agree on almost everything (except for that Daniel thing, I usually try to focus on present and the knowledge available to us at present), let's focus on probably the most troubling aspect of the issue (at least for you and me): The mistreatment of animals. Would you please elaborate on it? Especially on solutions.
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
11/15/2002, 21:56:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not at all confident that I know the best solutions to the problem of inhumane treatment of animals that we raise for food. For starters, though, I think we can avoid raising such animals (chickens, for example) in overcrowded, factory conditions in which they are never allowed to move more than a few inches in any direction all their lives. I do buy into the idea that even some animals (though not plants) have feelings and are capable of experiencing unhappiness and dismay. Such crowded conditions are not only stressful to the animals, but are highly conducive to the spread of pathogens among them that can, in many cases, also threaten the health of the humans that consume them or their by-products such as eggs and milk. Massive use of antibiotics to prevent this results in strains of bacteria that are increasingly resistant to all known antibiotics. This is not good either for man or beast.I have not made myself familiar with all the methods currently used to slaughter the animals we eat, but I think that we should continually strive to find quicker and less painful ways to do so. The use of "free ranging" of food animals and more humane methods of killing them will probably raise the cost of meat to the consumers, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, if it encourages them to curb excessive consumption of meat and rely more on direct consumption of plants, rather than the more inefficient feeding of plants to animals intended for providing meat for our tables. This is not only healthier for us, but increases the number of people that be fed per acre of farmland. One reason for not eliminating meat consumption entirely, though, is that our predilection for eating meat helps to assure the continuation of the species we raise for food. I think it is fair to regard this as an up side to human meat consumption. Do you agree with that? Gunnar
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 00:42:02
Author Profile Mail author
|
I generally agree with the solutions you propose and add that improvement in these areas may come VERY slowly. And IMO the best way for those interested in accomplishing them is to join forces with groups and activists (I don't care for the radical ones!) who work in the area."One reason for not eliminating meat consumption entirely, though, is that our predilection for eating meat helps to assure the continuation of the species we raise for food. I think it is fair to regard this as an up side to human meat consumption. Do you agree with that?" Maybe, but I've never thought about it. Now, I'm trying to see if I can find "counterexamples." We don't eat dogs and cats (generally speaking!) but I am pretty sure they are going to be around for years to come. Of course, one may rightfully reason it is because we treat them as pets. We can of course point to creatures like cockroahes and so on, but they may not be comparable to cows and chickens. What else? If you are really into it, can you elaborate your thoughts on the factors involved in the extinction of species? This may bring us close to answering your question.
|
Posted by: Gunnar ®
11/18/2002, 15:04:17
Author Profile Mail author
|
First of all, I apologize for being so slow to respond to you. I have not been as active on the internet lately as I used to be.About extinctions, certainly our food preferences are not the only way we humans influence the odds on which species are perpetuated and which become extinct. I also realize that our strong food preferences can sometimes negatively affect the survivability of preferred food species in the case of undomesticated species we obtain from the wild at unsustainable rates. Many important species of fish, for example, are becoming increasingly endangered for that reason. I understand that the yield from nearly all the world's major fisheries is declining, despite steadily increasing manhours and equipment used to harvest fish from them. As you mentioned, we also enhance the perpetuation of species (both plant and animal) we prefer as pets or raise for various other reasons other than as food. Also we positively influence the evolution and perpetuation of species that parasitize us or our domesticated species. You also mentioned cockroaches, which, along with other species we regard as vermin, thrive on our garbage and/or can take surreptitious advantage of shelter provided by our homes and other structures that we build. I have to acknowledge, though, that over all, we probably contribute to the demise and extinction of far more species than we protect and preserve by our actions and preferences. There are, of course, many other factors involved in the extinction of species such as changes in climate and environment (sometimes caused or abetted by the existing species themselves), the introduction or evolution of new species that prey upon or out-compete previously existing species, etc. Extinctions will always occur naturally no matter what we humans do, or even if we, ourselves, cease to exist. This too is an essential part of viable and sustainable ecosystems, but there is ample cause for alarm at the rate extinctions are now occurring due to loss of habitat caused by human activities and unbounded population growth. According to several sources I have read, we humans are probably causing or at least greatly contributing to the most massive and rapid die off of species since the late Cretaceous extinctions of 65 million years ago. I doubt this is good thing for us, let alone other species, in the long run. Gunnar
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/18/2002, 21:18:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
No appology needed for anything, that 's how internet and BB's work.
As for evolution and extinction, you are the expert, I learned a lot. Thanks again.
|
Posted by: TLC ®
11/15/2002, 22:22:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dear Bahman sir:I have read that the very fact our early ancestors began eating meat at some stage in our evolution possibly contributed in an important way to the development of the modern human brain and it's remarkable thinking and reasoning power. The proteins and fats contained in animal flesh were required to build physical size to the brain over time and provide the capacity to house the trillions of neuro-circuits required to function in the marvelous manner that it does. If indeed, this is the case, it is quite possible that had we not aqquired a taste or need for meat in our early development, the very idea that we as modern humans can even discuss this subject, might not even be able to take place. Of the three great apes, Chimpanzee,Orangutan and gorilla, the Chimps, as far as I know, are the only ones to be known to eat meat. They also are, hands down, the most intelligent of the three. Any connection here? A question for everyone: Is there any scientific data on whether or not a celery stalk feels any sensations or pain when it is cut? Do we know for sure? I ask this because I feel that the case of animal suffering is often considered when the subject of eating meat is debated or discussed. If we are not sure, than maybe the plants are being treated in an unjust manner. More "food" for thought. TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 00:58:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thank you Sir (or Madame. Sorry I didn't check your "profile" to se what you are!!) for your very informative post."Of the three great apes, Chimpanzee,Orangutan and gorilla, the Chimps, as far as I know, are the only ones to be known to eat meat. They also are, hands down, the most intelligent of the three." I am glad you brought this up because I've been wanting to know what each animal ate but I was afraid to ask! Now can you tell me this: Is meat a regular food for chimps, or they may eat meat only when nothing else is avaiable? "A question for everyone: Is there any scientific data on whether or not a celery stalk feels any sensations or pain when it is cut? Do we know for sure?" I also hope that someone can answer your question. All I know is that some studies have shown that plants have "some feelings," but I don't know how conclusive and widespread this result is.
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/16/2002, 01:51:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
If you're an animist, then you also likely believe the celery experiences being cut (and eaten). But from a scientific point of view, the celery experiences neither pain nor does it have the ability to 'feel' a pain consciously. It simply lacks the physiological structures necessary for this.But if you happen to be interested in what is required to possess consciousness (physiologically speaking), I would recommend Damasio's The Feeling of What Happens. Aaron
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 02:30:00
Author Profile Mail author
|
Is it then safe to say that you don't think those "research studies" that have shown "some plants" (I don't know about celery!) have "feelings," are credible, Right?
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/16/2002, 03:51:55
Author Profile Mail author
|
Certainly plants -- celery included -- are capable of (even complex and organized) stimulus response, but this in no way means they experience the process.
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/16/2002, 12:31:32
Author Profile Mail author
|
Since we have lots of time on our hands, let's go deeper on this subject! We need to be clear of the exact definition of the key words and terms we use.You say plants are capable of "stimulus respone" but they don't "experience the process." Please elaborate on this and for comparison explain how these key expressions compare with human "feelings."
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/17/2002, 08:33:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman,Alright, but I am going to limit my end of the discussion to a physiological perspective only… I would define “stimulus response” as any reaction, either internal or external, to a stimulus which portrays some meaningful (but not necessarily useful) behavior. Taking this definition to be operant, we can illustrate a few simple examples… Internal stimulus response (hereon dubbed SR): 1) I inject you with a solution containing various allergens -> your body produces histamines
2) Some (aerobic) microbe suddenly finds itself in an environment of little oxygen -> instead of processing its food through respiration (which requires oxygen), it switches to the less efficient (but anaerobic) process of fermentation External ST: 1) I poke you with the head of a needle -> you say “Ouch!”
2) A potted plant, who’s leaves have oriented toward the sun, is turned around so that its leaves now face the opposite direction -> a certain chemical within the plant’s cell walls migrates away from the sunlight, and the plant’s stem bends outward thus reorienting the leaves What does this all mean? Well, nothing really; but I can use it to illustrate the differences between “experiencing the process” and not. First, I should define ‘feeling’ from a physiological perspective. Though I should say that my definition is by no means the consensus, but I would argue it’s the best one we’ve got. Feeling: A neural image; that is, a structured pattern of brain activity (resulted from a series of axonal activations, or whatever) indicative of a sensory input. (some equally pretentious sounding phrase would do just fine, as well) What should be clear enough is that to “feel” or “experience” something, another something must be equipped with the right nervous system. So while you certainly have feelings -- wouldn’t you feel pain in the process of saying “Ouch!” if a poked you with a needle? -- plants do not. They simply lack the capability physiologically. So, did I earn an ‘A’, or do I have to buy it? Aaron
Modified by Aaron V. at Sun, Nov 17, 2002, 08:35:35
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 10:20:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
OK, let's see if we can apply your definitions to what I recall some plant researchers have found. They've concluded that music (I think it was classical, I don't know about R&R!) makes some plants grow faster and healthier.1) Have you heard of this, and do you think it could be a credible conclusion? 2) If yes, then can it be explained away without resort to the existence of feelings and nervous systems? Finally, the answer to your last question is neither. I have no A's to give away or sell! (And you don't want to buy it from someone else, do you?)
|
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
11/17/2002, 11:29:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
1) Yes. And I do think music has the potential to affect plant growth, but we know far too little to predict what affects what in what way. I read of one study which found that heavy metal was best for plants!2) Yes. Since plants don't have nervous systems, we'd have to. But I'm certainly not up enough on my botany to comment what (and how) music could cause irregular growth. As for my 'A', if I don't get it from you, I'll have to find someone who will give (or sell) it!
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 11:44:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Thanks.As for "A", you may eventually get it. Give me some time to think about it. A's are not grown on trees, you know!
|
Posted by: TLC ®
11/17/2002, 03:21:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman; First and foremost, I am a male of our species and damn proud to say so.You ask: "Is meat a regular food for chimps, or do they eat meat only when nothing else is available?" After thirty years of very close and intensive study of Chimps in the wild by the likes of Jane Goodall and other prominent primatologists, some important aspects about Chimpanzee life have been learned. It is now clear that meat is a natural part of the Chimpanzee's diet. It turns out, a Chimpanzee community may eat several hundred kilograms of meat in a single year. Of the higher primates, only human beings and Chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular basis. Although Chimpanzees can and do hunt alone, they often form large hunting parties consisting of more than 10 adult males,plus females and juveniles. Chimpanzees often go on "hunting binges" in which they kill a large number of monkeys and other animals over a period of several days or weeks. These hunting and raiding parties are organized ahead of time but we are still uncertain as to what triggers the decision to stop plant foraging and suddenly go on "the hunt". They do know that it is not associated with a lack of sufficient plant material available to them. All of the Chimp habitat in the wild that I know of would certainly confirm this. Although they are only beginning to understand some of the causes and consequences of the Chimpanzees actions, what they have discovered is more complicated and interesting than anyone suspected. For Chimpanzees, meat is not only another way to get nutrients like fat and protein, but a means to make political bonds and gain access to sexually receptive females. Kind of a Macho bonding thing maybe also. So, as you can understand by now, the subject seems to involve a multitude of factors as to how and why meat consumption effects the very complicated social, political and nutritional life of our closest relatives on the planet. This is one of my favorite subjects and I hope I have given you some useful insight on the matter.
Best regards; TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/17/2002, 04:40:59
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Bahman; First and foremost, I am a male of our species and damn proud to say so."Me too, and I sympathize with you!! (bad joke)
"This is one of my favorite subjects and I hope I have given you some useful insight on the matter." Yes, you have TLC (Tender Loving Care!), but you can do more.
My question now is if they know how far back this meat-eating habit of chimps & humans goes. Can they estimate that? PS: We've found an expert on chimps, right?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
11/17/2002, 23:51:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Bahman; I'm glad you like this stuff. You ask: "How far back does this meat-eating habit of humans and Chimps go?" First of all, I am no expert on such a subject as primatology which is really what we are talking about here. I do have a fair amount of reference material at my disposal however. I find it utterly fasinating to learn of our history and where we came from. It draws me in like a magnet. The following is a quote from some of my material: "We do know that the earliest bipedal hominids, the Australopithicines, evolved in Africa about 5 million years ago, and that they shared a common ancestor with the modern Chimpanzee shortly before that time.
Unfortunately, the evidence for the occurrence of meat-eating among the australophicines is spotty at best. Primative stone tools that were made 2.5 million years ago suggest that the early hominids had the means to carve flesh from large carcasses, but we know very little about their diets before that time." From what I understand, they are not sure whether or not our ancestors gradually evolved from being scavengers to hunters or what the actual process over many many years entailed. The fossil record is, at best, sketchy and leaves a lot of questions still unawnsered.
Chimpanzees are known to use rudimentary tools such as modified twigs to retrieve termites and such from hills. They also will use twigs and branches as weapons when in combat. But nowhere is it shown that Chimps have ever used anything as sophisticated as a carved or modified stone as tools. I always like to think that, given the chance and time, maybe Chimps could evolve into something similar to us. We certainly do have a common background. Anytime; TLC
|
Posted by: Bahman ®
11/18/2002, 00:29:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think that should do it for now."I always like to think that, given the chance and time, maybe Chimps could evolve into something similar to us." I am not so sure whether your wish is a "bleesing" or a "curse" for the chimps!! Do you think we are better off?
|
Posted by: TLC ®
11/18/2002, 01:56:34
Author Profile Mail author
|
Bahman; Good point. A matter of opinion I guess. Only time will tell.Your welcome; Glad you enjoyed the info. TLC
|
|
