Ethics of Eating Meat

[bellemeadows]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

I would never dictate my beliefs on others, i don't see where i have here. I never said humans weren't omnivores by practice. Ii would like to see some information about humans who eat large amounts of animal protein and don't get heart disease. I haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean i would ignore it if i saw it.

I hope that you are never in a position to dictate your beliefs to others.

Well, I don't want to or plan to dictate my beliefs to others; so we're good on that. In fact, I don't belive anyone should be able to dictate to others; except when it comes to unacceptable, negative behavior, like murder.

Folks who don't have any problems with heart disease, and eat meat, don't really get much press. . . . But there are plenty of them around. Usually what gets press are problems.

However, the place to look to see if people are healthy as meateaters is, I think, Argentina. I had a friend who went to vacation with family there, and she said almost their entire diet is meat to the point that it was shocking to her.

All the best, Belle,

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Joeschmoe

Do you think so?



While 2% or 4% are significant portions of the diet, most of that comes form insects. The common chimpanzee will engage in social hunts occasionally. They only do it when plant food is abundant and only the males engage. It is not an energy efficient way of gathering food for them. It takes far too much time and energy for relatively little gain. Like i said they seem to do it for social reasons (rarely) when there is abundant food energy for them to waste.

However i would imagine that most herbivores would get about 2 - 4 % of it's food from animals (insects).

You'll find plenty of articles that say chimps are omnivores, but I think the labels are somewhat useless. It's best to look at anatomy and actual eating habits. Again animals designed to eat large amounts of animal protien can't get heart disease. Humans and chimps can and do if fed large amounts animal protien.

What's the source for this info ? I'm not doubting, just curious where it came from..


The question of homo-sapiens dietary status is generally accepted by the scientific community to be omnivorous, there are arguments against that of course, but the consensus is omnivore, opportunistic feeder. I've noticed most arguments for humans being herbies are presented by other herbies and I have no problem with that except it's a flimsy reason to not eat meat since man has been eating meat as far back as we have found "footprints", so, for a herbivore, we sure do eat a lot of meat.

If you don't want to eat meat, just say ,"I don't want to eat meat because XYZ", but to say "We are herbivores, therefore, we should not eat meat" is historically wrong. You don't need a scientific reason to make a personal decision. The hitch here is that the scientific reason is sought out to convince others of ones "correctness" and make the case that everyone should do the same. I think it's just an integral part of human nature to try and impress ones will on other people, especially if you believe in what you are saying (think crusades) so I don't get all wadded up over it, but, I call 'em like I see 'em.

This is an interesting site that gives a brief overview of the subject. Put up by vegetarians, no less. They simply say this is the wrong argument to use and that ethical, environmental, and health reasons are more valid.
Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group

[fwellers]

I have to say, I have been very impressed with you ( Jeff3 ) in this thread. You seem to be on the opposite side of the table from most posters, for the duration of the thread, and continue to maintain a very high level of civility and post content. Being that you're livelihood is totally tied up in the apparently antagonist viewpoint of this thread ( at least the direction it's taken ), I would expect lesser posters to have gotten much more defensive and their post quality to have deteriorated.

Good job sir.

[yossarian]

Originally Posted by fwellers

I have to say, I have been very impressed with you ( Jeff3 ) in this thread. You seem to be on the opposite side of the table from most posters, for the duration of the thread, and continue to maintain a very high level of civility and post content. Being that you're livelihood is totally tied up in the apparently antagonist viewpoint of this thread ( at least the direction it's taken ), I would expect lesser posters to have gotten much more defensive and their post quality to have deteriorated.

Good job sir.

The irony of jeff3 is that he's managed to find probably the one place in the world where he's actually in the minority.

We battered vegetarians are used to outright hate at every turn, our only comfort being the Pavlina forum which veggies flock to.

Now the battered vegetarian club finds a battered carnivore in their midst.. if he was looking for a fight this is definitely the right place

If it gets too hot in the forum at least he can go to McDonald's and be with his people. I don't even have a single veggie store or restaurant in my cattle-raising town. When I order a Submarine with no cheese and no meat (the sole fast food vegan dish in the entire city of 50,000) they look at me like I'm an idiot.

[fwellers]

I'm not sure I get your post. Is it sarcastic ?
I was praising the "fellow omnivore" for his demeanor, and you respond to my post by attempting to ostrasize him ? Did I get that right ?

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by yossarian

The irony of jeff3 is that he's managed to find probably the one place in the world where he's actually in the minority.

We battered vegetarians are used to outright hate at every turn, our only comfort being the Pavlina forum which veggies flock to.

Now the battered vegetarian club finds a battered carnivore in their midst.. if he was looking for a fight this is definitely the right place

If it gets too hot in the forum at least he can go to McDonald's and be with his people. I don't even have a single veggie store or restaurant in my cattle-raising town. When I order a Submarine with no cheese and no meat (the sole fast food vegan dish in the entire city of 50,000) they look at me like I'm an idiot.

LOL

I thought I was among friends here, you know, fellow human beings on a quest to expand their mind and learn to be a more effective agent of positive change.

Are you kidding ?, battered vegetarians, whens the last time you saw an anti-vegetarian propaganda film?

I'm not looking for a fight, just sharing facts and pointing out some overlooked points in this debate.

LoL , I don't even eat at McDonald's, they serve grade B and sometimes grade C beef. As far as what people think about you for your choice of meals, why do you care? I think everyone should have the choice to eat what they want,....except cannibals.

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by fwellers

I'm not sure I get your post. Is it sarcastic ?
I was praising the "fellow omnivore" for his demeanor, and you respond to my post by attempting to ostrasize him ? Did I get that right ?

You have to remember that this is a completely emotional argument for some people and their responses come from their emotional nature. That is actually sometimes a direct result of viewing one of those awful films PETA et al put out, they are designed to appeal to the emotions through their graphic depictions of mistreatment and violenece toward animals,then they basically villify the whole industry and anyone else they want just by mentioning them in the video. I have to admit, they are very effective at impacting people on a gut level, the imagry, with the black & white grainy film creates a real feeling of disgust that stays with you long after viewing the film. It reminds me of a series of videos that came out long ago called "faces of death" that depict humans dying in various ways. When I was a college student I walked into an apartment while some friends were watching the one about suicides and it made me feel bad for days after just watching a few scenes.

My main point about the PETA videos is that they do not represent the whole industry, not even a fraction of it and I just want people to be aware that their agenda is not spread facts, but to "poison the well" by turning peoples emotions against eating meat by associating the images in the video with any meal containing meat.

I find no conflict between growing & consuming meat and spiritual/mental/physical growth and development because I am doing what I can to make the process better, I'm trying to be part of the solution to some of the problems, which I never denied actually exists.

The original post is actually what is at the heart of what I believe about the cycle of life and death and the food chain, that is to be conscious of the sacrifice the animal or plant made so I may continue until my cycle is over and my consciousness breaks free from my body and my body re-enters the cycle by returning to an elemental form.


So, at this time I would like to officially thank the universe for that wonderful grilled chicken salad I had this evening. It was delicious.

[Mato Kinze]

You know, when Erin suggested that I move this topic to a thread of it's own, I thought, "Hmph. Ok... whatever. Like anyone's really going to be interested in this conversation...." I am yet again humbled by my incredible short-sightedness and inability to appreciate things that drive 'the masses.'

Though, I am glad that so many people have found a place to share their thoughts and ideas on the issue.

[yossarian]

Yes my post was meant to be humorous. The idea of a battered carnivore being picked on is very ironic to me, because I know it's the same way that many veggies feel.

Originally Posted by jeff3

Are you kidding ?, battered vegetarians, whens the last time you saw an anti-vegetarian propaganda film?

Omnivores don't need anti-veggie propaganda because it's the mainstream stance of society. Every news caster, almost every commercial, almost every person is a walking billboard for omnivorory.

I suppose it's true that certain communities have the exact opposite case, like this community, but to me this is strange, probably just because of where I live

LoL , I don't even eat at McDonald's, they serve grade B and sometimes grade C beef. As far as what people think about you for your choice of meals, why do you care? I think everyone should have the choice to eat what they want,....except cannibals.

It was a joke, I was just trying to make the point that if the Pavlina forum comes across as hostile to meat-eaters, the rest of the world comes across as hostile to vegetarians. Like how many restaurants have literally put animal products in my food even though I specifically ask for no animal products. I'm sure most of this is due to laziness, some to ignorance, and a minority to malice. But I have to admit that oftentimes the world seems downright hostile to me.

I'm not kidding at all when I say that every fast food restaurant in my town has animal products in EVERYTHING on the menu. Even the salads have bacon and chicken and cheese.. it is a similar story at all the sit down restaurants.. from french fries to breadsticks they manage to put animal products in everything. I honestly can't eat at restaurants without breaking my vegan diet at least a little.

Often if you ask for a dish without the animal products they serve it to you with them anyway.. oriental food is the worst offender. They'll take vegetarian dishes like rice and add in eggs or chicken as a "bonus".

I'm just venting If you think you're persecuted by the PETA propaganda you should try out my shoes for a day. Being vegan with non-vegan friends is poison for your social life, at least here in ranching country. Maybe when the housing prices go down I'll move to California which I hear is full of tree hugging hippies

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by yossarian

Yes my post was meant to be humorous. The idea of a battered carnivore being picked on is very ironic to me, because I know it's the same way that many veggies feel.



Omnivores don't need anti-veggie propaganda because it's the mainstream stance of society. Every news caster, almost every commercial, almost every person is a walking billboard for omnivorory.

I suppose it's true that certain communities have the exact opposite case, like this community, but to me this is strange, probably just because of where I live



It was a joke, I was just trying to make the point that if the Pavlina forum comes across as hostile to meat-eaters, the rest of the world comes across as hostile to vegetarians. Like how many restaurants have literally put animal products in my food even though I specifically ask for no animal products. I'm sure most of this is due to laziness, some to ignorance, and a minority to malice. But I have to admit that oftentimes the world seems downright hostile to me.

I'm not kidding at all when I say that every fast food restaurant in my town has animal products in EVERYTHING on the menu. Even the salads have bacon and chicken and cheese.. it is a similar story at all the sit down restaurants.. from french fries to breadsticks they manage to put animal products in everything. I honestly can't eat at restaurants without breaking my vegan diet at least a little.

Often if you ask for a dish without the animal products they serve it to you with them anyway.. oriental food is the worst offender. They'll take vegetarian dishes like rice and add in eggs or chicken as a "bonus".

I'm just venting If you think you're persecuted by the PETA propaganda you should try out my shoes for a day. Being vegan with non-vegan friends is poison for your social life, at least here in ranching country. Maybe when the housing prices go down I'll move to California which I hear is full of tree hugging hippies

I actually never thought about the difficulties of eating vegan "out" until you described it, I suppose it would be a challenge.

Just a question, no implications intended, what is your stance on exerting influence on restaurants, especially chain restaurants, to include vegan meals even if it is not cost effective for them to do so. For instance, do you feel that a restaurant owner is obligated to alter their menu even if they will lose money? It's sort of a civil liberties question I guess. Personally I've never been a believer in catering to special interests even though sometimes I'm the one with a special interest. Like the smoking bans, for instance, where I live there were several little mom and pop cafés' that were the last holdouts for the smoking crowd and one in particular was a great breakfast place, but the smoke was almost too much sometimes, so...I just found another place to go instead of complaining. I felt and still feel it was their right to own and operate a place that catered to smokers, even though I don't smoke. Now, in a situation with no choice I suppose I would just tough it out.

[yossarian]

do you feel that a restaurant owner is obligated

I'm a Ron Paul Libertarian. 'Nuff said?

Ron Paul with a bit of Chomsky thrown in, of course most people misunderstand Chomsky's personal politics. He is actually libertarian himself.

Basically I believe in personal property rights as paramount, BUT there is a caveat, and that is when it comes to natural resources. How can someone really own oil, for instance? Or trees? I think Chomsky's ideas on natural resources are important. There is a role for government and IMO it is this high level control over concentrated natural resources, I'm talking oil, trees, fresh water, gold, diamond, stuff like that.

The government has no right gifting these resources to rich aristocrats and then pretending that they are the personal property of aristocrats. This is honestly the only role I see for a federal government... I think basically everything else should have small local governance.

Everyone has a share in the land, and extremely large private land holdings that result in plutocracy must be avoided. I actually think it's not a bad idea to put a cap on the amount of land a person can personally own, and if he needs more then it should be dealt with through temporary leases that do not last centuries. There is no reason why rich white people, for instance, have a greater claim to american soil than black families or native americans or poor white people. Of course wealth redistribution is a touchy subject, but that's what politicians are for, dealing with touchy subjects.

bleh bleh politics. none of this will ever happen

[Joeschmoe]

Originally Posted by jeff3

What's the source for this info ? I'm not doubting, just curious where it came from..


The question of homo-sapiens dietary status is generally accepted by the scientific community to be omnivorous, there are arguments against that of course, but the consensus is omnivore, opportunistic feeder. I've noticed most arguments for humans being herbies are presented by other herbies and I have no problem with that except it's a flimsy reason to not eat meat since man has been eating meat as far back as we have found "footprints", so, for a herbivore, we sure do eat a lot of meat.

If you don't want to eat meat, just say ,"I don't want to eat meat because XYZ", but to say "We are herbivores, therefore, we should not eat meat" is historically wrong. You don't need a scientific reason to make a personal decision. The hitch here is that the scientific reason is sought out to convince others of ones "correctness" and make the case that everyone should do the same. I think it's just an integral part of human nature to try and impress ones will on other people, especially if you believe in what you are saying (think crusades) so I don't get all wadded up over it, but, I call 'em like I see 'em.

This is an interesting site that gives a brief overview of the subject. Put up by vegetarians, no less. They simply say this is the wrong argument to use and that ethical, environmental, and health reasons are more valid.
Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group

I'm not saying what you should eat or not btw. I don't think I've ever said that. I also don't debate that humans are omnivores by most definitions (eat both meat and vegetation for nutrition). I was just pointing out that we are not built like omnivores. So the "we are omnivores we should obviously eat meat" argument doesn't hold water for me. We act like omnivores, and are build like herbivores, so I guess it's up to choice. I think both sides should abstain from using the evolutionary/anatomical argument.

Here is a good article. All the information is cited:
Baylor Health Care System: Twenty questions on atherosclerosis

1. Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?

Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

I can't find the article about classification of Humans online, but as i said, it doesn't really matter.

Here is another
Thematic review series: The Pathogenesis of Atherosclerosis. An interpretive history of the cholesterol controversy: part II: the early evidence linking hypercholesterolemia to coronary disease in humans -- Steinberg 46 (2): 179 -- Journal of Lipid R

Indeed, dogs and cats, carnivores, did not develop atherosclerosis on cholesterol feeding, as Anitschkow had himself recognized and reported (2). However, this was not because their arteries were somehow immune but simply because, despite the large increase in dietary cholesterol, their blood cholesterol levels did not rise high enough. These species have very effective systems for converting dietary cholesterol to bile acids and excreting it.

There is also a lot of good information about some of the founding studies linking diet to heart disease.

Again i agree that looking at our past is not entirely useful in deciding on a dietary strategy. However looking at the science, it does appear that a largely vegetarian diet is best for health. So as far a ethics of eating meat go you don't have to look at PETA, you can look at the science. I hold the ethical view of "do no harm," so avoiding animal products seems obvious to me. It is the best way for me to avoid harming myself.

[fwellers]

I wonder what that study would show if done on Omnivores. As far as I know, Dogs, cats, lions are Carnivores. Humans are not carnivores, so a comparison is not feasible.

[Joeschmoe]

Sorry, that is a good question. Again these classifications are somewhat arbitrary.

Some laboratories did indeed try to confirm Anitschkow's findings, but instead of using rabbits most of them used the laboratory animals they were familiar with, rats or dogs. Cholesterol feeding in these species failed to induce lesions. So, understandably, these investigators concluded that Anitschkow's results must reflect some peculiarity of the rabbit. After all, it is a strict herbivore that normally has zero cholesterol intake and a very low fat intake. The rabbit model was dismissed as irrelevant to human disease.

What was not appreciated was the fact that rats and dogs, unlike rabbits, are very efficient in converting cholesterol to bile acids.

J. Lipid Res. -- Search Result

Dogs are carnivores, but rats are certainly omnivores by almost any definition.

[Dan.Linehan]

@ Jeff, here's a link about one of those bad Factory farms that don't really exist.

Federal Bust: Immigration Raid Reveals Meth Lab At Nation's Largest Kosher Meat Plant

Luckily, PETA only uses old, emotional videos, and they had nothing to do with exposing animal cruelty here in 2005.

And pollution was never a problem here in 2006. No kids will get Leukemia from the polluted water in this town..

And even if this was pretty bad, I'm sure this was the exception. Not like they are the largest Kosher meat processor in the nation or anything.

I'm sure the other top twenty plants are much more ethical, and don't have these issues.

[Dharma]

Since we are in the spirituality, consciousness, and awareness forum, maybe we could stop with the tit for tat and use our consciousness here.

You can -

• create all your experiences or believe life happens to you
• see the world as a reflection of yourself or see it as separate from yourself
• believe in polarity (right/wrong for instance) and victimization or choose to receive the moment as it is.
• move from a point of power
• move from a point of victimization.
• think it's really cool that you could create so much variety in your world
• say it's not my fault, THEY'RE the ones doing it. This has nothing to do with me.
• look in the mirror see that when I go to interact with the part of me that nourishes myself (meat industry) I move from a point of presence (Jeff3's experience) and also from a point of unconsciousness (Dan's links above). When I move to nurture myself with presence there's a totally different feel and outward manifestation from it then when I'm focused on getting my nurturance through my focus on productivity, profitability, efficiency, lack, throughput, volume, and my idea of responsibility. Maybe I'm just showing myself I have a lot of denial around how I nourish and nurture myself. Maybe I'm telling myself I need to slow down and be more present, and that's a very nurturing thing in itself.

[Dan.Linehan]

Dharma, I don't understand. Is it that denial is a good thing?

What would be the most ethical / spiritual response to knowing all the negative effects of meat production, besides not buying the stuff? Or at least limiting yourself to buying organic? (And not Kosher apparently!)

[jeff3]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

@ Jeff, here's a link about one of those bad Factory farms that don't really exist.

Federal Bust: Immigration Raid Reveals Meth Lab At Nation's Largest Kosher Meat Plant

Luckily, PETA only uses old, emotional videos, and they had nothing to do with exposing animal cruelty here in 2005.

And pollution was never a problem here in 2006. No kids will get Leukemia from the polluted water in this town..

And even if this was pretty bad, I'm sure this was the exception. Not like they are the largest Kosher meat processor in the nation or anything.

I'm sure the other top twenty plants are much more ethical, and don't have these issues.

I don't understand your post, is it meant to be sarcastic? I did look at the link and I did not see my ranch mentioned there so I guess I'm doing OK. I am just amazed that there is such a thing as a Jewish meth lab. I can't help but chuckle about that.

How do you know the kids won't get leukemia?

A lot of the video floating around is old, from over 20 years ago, this link does not disprove that. What the article proves to me is that there is still a lot of work to do in cleaning up the industry. I appreciate that you feel strongly about the meat industry and you seem to believe that animal torture and wanton environmental destruction is part of the business, but, fortunately ...it's the exception not the norm. First , it's a business, which means profit/money is involved and we all know what happens when money is at stake, people sometimes do un-ethical things. As I've mentioned several times, factory farming (large scale animal processing) has improved a lot in the last 20 years and I choose to focus on these advancements. I'll even give Peta credit for exposing a lot of things that needed fixing, I just don't agree with their ultimate agenda which is to dictate what is and is not acceptable to eat. I still contend most of the reason for their drive to do all this is purely emotional (fluff bunny) attitudes about animals and their denial of our place at (or near) the top of the food chain.

I have stated that I am against cruelty, mistreatment, and mal-treatment of animals but I don't see that that attitude is at all in conflict with eating animals and supporting the industry and ,if need be, defending my right to do so. The truth is the anti's efforts would be much better spent being an agent of change rather pointing fingers and pushing an anti-meat agenda because they are doomed to fail, people are going to eat meat, lots of it every day in this country and all over the world. At least that's my feelings, that the system should be improved, not done away with.

Obviously your post is meant to discredit my posts about PETA using underhanded, sometimes false, frequently overly sensationalized propaganda to turn people off of eating meat but the only way to really do that is to get them to stop doing it, because, like it or not, it's a fact.

Again, to beat a dead horse just a little more, I never said problems didn't exist. When you look at the sheer quantity of animals put through the system every day I'm sure there is a lot of video opportunity, stuff that would make PETA's mouth water, you know, so they can be right.

I've been forthright with my position but I don't think you have, you seem to have a large emotional investment in this topic. Is there something you need to get off your chest?