HalfBakedProphet
Member
fantastic post, mate
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Yahoo: Why Some Vegetarians Start Craving Meat
- Thread starter Tripon
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Before I read more, are you referring to that mouse study that was making the rounds earlier this year?
It's a very human-centric viewpoint, which is to be expected, I suppose.
It's pretty much, "anything that's similar enough to us" should not be killed.
clay_ghost
Member
Not a vegan but maybe that why I have carving for steaks now and then.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
They can't, but the passionate ones will claim that they can!
Raven Prime
Member
No, I'm just talking about Neu5Gc in general.
Except for vitamin B12 there is no need to supplement, and you could also get enough B12 if you eat enough fortified products each day.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864/
Raping is part of human advancement. It always has been for as long as humans were humans. Whether it was picking a girl to knock down and impregnate for the good of our population, or working together to capture many women from a different tribe to procreate with our tribe. There's no compassion there because their doesn't need to be and shouldn't. It's just part of survival and how nature moves energy between living organisms.
Apologies if this comes off crude, but I hope you get the point. We haven't been taking moral dictations from "nature" for a long time, and what has been good for us in the past has no bearing on whether it is good or useful now.
Thank you.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Took us a few pages, but we're finally here, folks. Comparing eating meat to rape!
I'm sure we'll get a Hitler mention within the next 100 posts.
I'm sure we'll get a Hitler mention within the next 100 posts.
Stop being obtuse. I'm comparing other things that are "natural" but not what modern societies call moral. Killing Paul so I can take his sheep is natural but by and large considered evil in the modern worlds.
Raven Prime
Member
Well to be fair, they both satisfy a need that could be met by other means, and are therefore completely unnecessary.
The only difference would be the social acceptance and justifications.
Then again many things were accepted and justified only a couple of centuries/decades ago that we frown upon today. I think it's highly likely, that in let's say a 100-200 years from now that we will condemn the killing of non-human animals simply for human consumption in the 'modern world'.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
The guy who thought he was being clever by comparing meat eating to rape in order to make some kind of statement is calling me obtuse. I don't even...
The meat eating and rape is irrelevant in its specificity. They're variables. The point is that there are many "natural" things we consider not to be good anymore.
I am not ranking which is worse over the other or anything of the sort.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, any old variable and you just happened to choose rape.
Not to mention that you're casually grouping it together with "eating meat" in the category of "natural things we consider not to be good anymore."
lem0n
Member
Think of the little baby mushrooms!
Yes, because modern notions of rape are different than that of the past. That is why it makes a good example.
Once again.. I am not in any way, shape, or form trying to advocate that someone who eats meat is the same as a rapist. It is just a helpful example in "natural" things vs "good" things as we clearly see rape today as not good.
I would appreciate it if you would address that message instead of feigning concern over the comparison itself, though. I think it is a fantastic point about arguments from nature (which is why we have a thing called the appeal to natural/naturalistic fallacy).
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Unless you're saying eating meat is similar in offense to raping another human being, your whole example is completely meaningless to the discussion. The only reason you would bring it up in this topic is to attempt to relate the two and thus convince someone that eating meat is bad since obviously rape is bad.
The person I replied to was calling something good because it was natural. I answered with something else that is natural but not what we consider good. Cannibalism, murder, and theft all work in that
example as well.
Premise: That which is natural is good.
1. X is natural, and X is good because it is natural.
2. Y is natural, but Y is wrong. <------ this breaks the premise
See how there is a flaw there?
I do not think it is possible to phrase that simpler. Sorry if you do not understand the reasoning and took offense.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Now you're just misrepresenting his argument.
Go back and read the exchange. He never said anything about it being "good because it was natural."
Since you like to take a condescending tone and fancy yourself an educator, allow me to do the same for a moment: we call what you just did a "straw man."
Then I guess we simply disagree. His argument that it is good because we've been doing it forever and at one point or another it was beneficial, seems explicitly like an appeal to nature.
I was never trying to take a condescending tone. I have been trying to work the thought into something else that may construe the point better. Sorry.
I wouldn't say zero. There is the article I listed and many others which are a simple Google search away. You seem an intelligent poster and I love discussing this with you, but your argument seems fallacious to me. Not counting the appeal to authority this is essentially a false premise. Taking one definition of pain from a source working with people will naturally give a definition made about humans. As the author enjoys doing we can reword the quote as:
Here we have a combination of argument from ignorance, goalpost moving and shifting of the burden of proof. Not to mention Nociception deals with the nervous system. Something we have established that plants lack. You are asking for the impossible.
As another poster aptly put it, plants cannot feel pain in the same way we can. If that is your standard that is fine and I respect it. Everyone has their line somewhere. Some would eat an orangutan but not a human. Personally I am a level 5 vegan.
I'm using peat humus and composted leaves in my garden.
QueenOfThorns
Member
pro tip to vegans: it is possible to make a good argument for the morality of not eating meat and killing animals without comparing eating animals to the rape of human women, or slavery, or the holocaust.
thanks
thanks
To be fair, to someone that is a vegan, omnivorous diets aren't solely a personal choice. There are other beings, that objectively feel pain and suffering and pleasure and all those other things, that must die and/or suffer for it. That is why you may find debates over it rather than just leaving bygones to bygones.
Not to mention the impact that diet may have when assumed by a large number of the population on the planet.
Granted, but comparisons are useful literary tools to try and relate more abstracted thoughts or ideas people don't have much experience with. They are very helpful, and in terms of animal consumption ethics, often correct (IMO).
Not necessarily similar unless you think Fish and Humans are similar for example.
Because vegetarians do not necessarily view animals as subordinate to humans and consider their right to life equally important. For example my dog's life is as important as any one else in my family. Now I do not know anyone killing dogs to eat them for meat but I would obviously be upset if this were happening. I just gave a dog as an example. It could be any creature.
Dietary demands among large populations have a very real impact on economy and environment, so I get it. There's going to be passion. Why people are getting nasty about it, however, I don't get. Life is short, people are diverse, and this is the Internet. It's just not worth the stress. Take these tit-for-tats to Twitter or someplace.
I mean, taking myself as an example of someone who has never eaten meat/fish. When i do get cravings, my first thought certainly isn't 'oh i need meat', since i have no idea what meat tastes like, and i usually fill those cravings satisfactorily with something else (for me it's usually something sugary and terrible for you).
Mango The Magician
Banned
The only thing I'm taking right now is some Folic acid for my hair, other than that though I'm fine without supplementing. Likewise, I kinda doubt a average Joe's meat including diet somehow includes every needed nutrient for everyday, or that to be healthy you need to buy the shit ton of food that would give you the needed nutrients.
Also, whoa this thread has changed since I was here last.
I wonder if someone who never or rarely eat meat might have a gut that is much more efficient at breaking down and extracting needed stuff from a vegetarian/vegan diet. No clue about biology, but is the "craving" in the article a result of a bacterial colony cultivated by years of regular meat suddenly having to adapt to a changed diet?
Raven Prime
Member
Well that article you posted simply uses sensationalist language, if you look closely there is not a single description of a mechanism remotely similar to pain perception.
Basically what the plants are doing is communicating. Releasing a gas that is audible, is not the same thing as crying out in pain as the article suggests, far from that.
See if we define pain as one thing, and have a firm understanding of how it works, and even what it's evolutionary purpose is. Then it's just odd to use a term in a context where that whole definition is meaningless.
So basically you are asking me to accept pseudo-scientific claims? Indeed I'm asking for the impossible, because it simply does not exist. Now we can argue that plants are aware when something damages them, and I would say the data can support that claim. However we should then be very cautious about how we use and understand the term awareness within that context. The awareness of the plant very likely would be similar to how we process unconscious information. It's simply communication on a cellular level with the adequate responses, without ever giving rise to something even remotely similar to the subjective experience of pain. See evolutionary it doesn't make sense for a plant to experience pain, assuming for the sake of argument, that the plant would have such a complex psychological experience of the world, the psychological stress of being eaten would drive a plant insane since it can't move away from the stimulus and there is very little in it's defense that it can do. This is very different from let's say an antelope that has pretty good chances to flee the harmful stimulus. Considering how evolution works and that plants precede the appearance of animals, I just can't see why nature would be so cruel as to equip plants with pain perception. Again such a claim would require very strong evidence to be taken seriously.
That's very probably the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flora#Gut_flora_and_diet
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Weird how this is where it always goes when talking about nutrients and vegetarian diets. Why not compare to a health-conscious meat eater's diet? Just by the virtue of vegetarianism being a health conscious decision, it will most likely provide better results than the average fast food and soda diet, but that's no argument for it being the best choice for great health.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
We understand pain through the context of humans and then project onto other living beings. Since plants cannot feel pain as we define it, then we say it's all good. That doesn't mean there isn't something else going on there that we can't comprehend. Something equal or even more tortuous to experience if we had the capacity to do so. It's pure speculation, but no one knows what it's like to be a plant. Saying they don't experience pain is true in terms of how we define it, but I don't think that's all there is to the story.
There is no compassion in nature.
shinobi602
Member
Lol, thread is filled to the gills with "Well I don't crave it!"
Hence the "some" in the title...
Hence the "some" in the title...
reggieandTFE
Member
Why do vegetarians piss you off so much? Did one steal your girlfriend? You dominate all of these threads. Go proselytize in a Paleo thread about all that weight you lost.
Raven Prime
Member
You are free to believe what you want, no matter how ungrounded it is.
Humans are part of nature, humans experience compassion, thus there is compassion in nature.
Besides I think you are talking about the way life feeds on life, this has nothing to do with the evolutionary mechanisms within a specific creature. If something doesn't work properly or is inefficient evolutionary processes tend to eliminate it. Plant defenses can be explained and devised in many ways that don't require the experience of pain (or pain-like processes). We shouldn't project features unto nature that don't follow from reason or aren't required to explain a phenomenon, I would say this is a clear case where the law of parsimony applies.
AbsolutBro
Member
Find a local farmer whose ideals match your own? "Find a local farm" is pretty much my answer to most food questions/issues though.
As someone who collapsed a (fortunately empty) mole tunnel in his garden bed over the weekend, it's not just during harvest time. ;_; Industrial tillers are pretty dangerous.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What gave you the impression that I was angry? You certainly seem to be.
Considering the amount of dissenting opinions and discussion, I think you've got a tough argument that I'm dominating anything in this thread.
It's not about believing. It's about not knowing. Obviously you need to make decisions based on what you do know, but that doesn't mean that you should make definitive statements about something to justify a lifestyle and paint as more morally sound than any other.
FriedConsole
Banned
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
I don't see the allure for meat personally. The only value I see is high protein. Been vegetarian for pretty much my entire life, but decided to have eat meat for a while to meet protein requirements for bulking. Apparently there's a debate on the effects of eating too much soy protein as well :/
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It's really good advice to people who care at all and have access to a local farmer.
Well, you kind of pointed part of it out with the protein. Most people find it to be delicious and satisfying, too. It's full of the nutrients that your body needs to maintain and repair itself and none of the crap that it doesn't.
Raven Prime
Member
Look, we know that animals experience pain, we understand the mechanics, we know the behavioral signs etc. These are clear facts.
We also know that plants lack these same mechanics, lack these behavioral signs etc. These are also clear facts.
Now we can hijack, or expand on, the meaning of the term pain. But as it stands now plants can't possibly experience pain as we know it.
We can argue that plants experience something that is akin to pain, but there is not a single shred of evidence to base these assertions on.
It's one thing to be open-minded, but it's another thing completely to entertain things that have no single indication of being true, we tend to classify that as wishful or even delusional thinking.
So on one hand we have animals that eat plants, and these animals clearly experience pain and are capable of suffering. Then on the other hand we have plants that according to scientific understanding do not experience pain and are incapable of suffering.
If one wants to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their diet (and lifestyle), then it's very clear that they should prevent the killing and suffering of animals.
If one wishes to believe that plants in some miraculous way are still possible to experience something similar to pain, then it still follows one should not eat animals, because you waste many pounds of plant protein in order to get a single pound of animal protein. (Eating plants would cause far less plant deaths than eating plants and animals, or animals alone,)
Basically it seems to me you are arguing for fruitarianism, because fruit is actually 'intended' to be eaten by the plant. If you are not arguing for fruitarianism, then what is your point?
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
There are also seem to be consequences when having a diet too reliant on meat, especially red meat. I'm testing some alternatives right now and I'm definitely going to continue being vegetarian in the future.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not arguing that they *do* experience something akin to pain, I'm just saying that we really don't know. It's clear that there are many plants that fight back against would be predators, indicating that they, through whatever means we can't comprehend, do not desire to be eaten.
Now, you'd be right that eating plants and not animals seems like the preferable option if we want to reduce overall suffering as we humans perceive it. I'm just hypothesizing that it may not be that simple.
We'd also have to then look at the reality of modern agriculture and how absolutely devastating it is.
I don't agree with your point about plant protein vs. animal protein. In an ideal environment, the animals would be part of the system. They would eat the plant product that we as humans cannot get all of the nutrients from. Their digestive systems allow for them (technically their gut bacteria) to fully utilize those resources. They give back to the system via their waste products and by walking all over the ground. We then eat these animals and fully absorb the nutrients from their flesh, and ideally we would give back to the system through our waste products and by using the leftover parts of the animals as a kind of fertilizer. It's only a wasteful system in the context of factory farming where we cram tons of animals in a small space and have them live in their shit and piss while being force fed grains that are being overproduced.
And no, I would never argue for fruitarianism. It's ridiculous, and I doubt anyone who practices it is carrying out the "wishes" of the fruit by eating the seeds and shitting them out somewhere else.
There are consequences for everything, but are they negative? I haven't seen any compelling evidence that isn't in the context of a grain-heavy "balanced diet" that most modern folks eat.
bigsnack
Member
Check this family out:
http://zerocarbzen.com/2015/03/09/zero-carb-interview-the-andersen-family/
They have been living on nothing but rib eye steak for almost 20 years.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Jesus... I wish I could afford to spend between $1,000 and $2,000 on ribeyes every month.
And damn... Charlene does not look 42, but the guy being interviewed *really* does not look 57.
Raven Prime
Member
All organisms are evolved in ways that favor reproduction and survivability. Again this is simply 'selfish' gene logic. This has very little to do with suffering however. We are basically concerned with the subjective quality of life of animals here, there is very little sense in discussing the quality of life of plants, since they exhibit 0% subjectivity, 0% personality.
Modern agriculture certainly has it's problems, and luckily there are many technological options on the horizon.
I don't consider that to be an ideal situation at all. It would still involve anthropogenically induced suffering. To be honest it sounds like some sort of 'atavistic' paleo fantasy, that isn't feasible for feeding 7.4 billion people at all. We wouldn't be able to support these amounts of people without modern agriculture. On the other hand, if we eliminate animal husbandry we will free up a lot of land, because plant-based diets are far more efficient.
I wouldn't call it ridiculous, but it's perhaps unnecessary, admirable nevertheless. Anyway this seem to suggest your concern about plant suffering is ingenuine at best.
You invoke unlikely hypothetical suffering as an argument, just to justify the suffering of animals. This is something that happens a lot, but it just doesn't make sense. Either you care about suffering and act accordingly, or you don't. If you don't act accordingly, why pretend you do?
There are plenty of negative consequences associated with eating meat, and I've produced multiple of these in direct response to you. But it seems you willfully ignore all these facts and arguments.
http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/march2012/03262012meat.htm
Oh, you can survive on a diet of mainly animal products for quite a while, just don't expect to be truly healthy, age gracefully or live long at all.
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-do-primitive-peoples-really-live-longer.html
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Admirable sentiment, perhaps, but ridiculous in that anyone would think it was a reasonable idea. Also, I never said I was particularly concerned about plant suffering. Sorry that I gave that impression.
Not sure justify is the right word. Obtaining optimal health for me and mine is enough justification for me. Doesn't mean I'm cool with conventional factory farming or grossly cruel behavior towards livestock.
As with many things in life, I don't think it's that black and white. There are degrees in between. I prioritize the survival and health of me and mine, but that doesn't mean I have no care for the general well being of animals, even if they are being kept and bred as livestock.
http://www.nih.gov/researchmatters/march2012/03262012meat.htm
I'm sorry, but there are just way too many variables to draw any meaningful connection between meat consumption and mortality (all-cause at that). An uncontrolled epidemiological study is only going to give you interesting glimpses of things to further research. No one should draw conclusions from them. Note that even the report you linked is careful to use words like "may" and "suggest." You need to account for all factors. It could easily just be that people who lead generally unhealthy lifestyles also happen to be those who eat the most meat (in addition to all sorts of other junk).
Define "truly healthy," "age gracefully," or "live long at all" before proceeding, please.
The source in this link doesn't seem to be working. What is the primary cause of death in the group of "primitive peoples?" I'm willing to wager it isn't diabetes, cancer, and heart disease.
- Status