Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 12:11 PM

Speaking of terrorists...

Posted by: Porco Dio | June 3, 2009 12:13 PM

as Penn would call them: "Assholes"

Posted by: chgo_liz | June 3, 2009 12:14 PM

I've been a vegetarian since the late 1970s, and (like MOST vegetarians) cannot stand PETA. They are terrorists, plain and simple.

It does not surprise me in the least that they would pull a stunt like this. It's so like them.

Posted by: Alverant | June 3, 2009 12:15 PM

Deepak Shetty: sentience

Ontopic, I do like the "Pro-life? Go vegetarian." billboard. Makes them think a little bit more about what "pro-life" really means and exposes their not-so-secret attitude that they're only concerned with human "life" from conception to birth.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 3, 2009 12:16 PM

What looks like a crime turns into an opportunity.

They see the glass as half-full, you know.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592

Posted by: Tangent | June 3, 2009 12:16 PM

Probably once plants started developing a central nervous system similar to our own.

Posted by: RM | June 3, 2009 12:25 PM

I can hardly wait to see into what tasty treat bacon evolves.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 12:29 PM

I can hardly wait to see into what tasty treat bacon evolves.

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

Posted by: Chris Davis | June 3, 2009 12:33 PM

Also - I assume we're in a trasition period: most people are at least uneasy about the fact that those luvverly steaks had to be cut out of a beeve.

In time, I'm hoping, we'll be able to grow our meat, thanks to the likes of Venter.

Anyone remember Chicken Little, the giant vat of cultured chicken heart tissue grown on Luna? Sturgeon, perhaps, or Pohl.

Posted by: jeff | June 3, 2009 12:37 PM

I don't NEED to eat/use animal products so I choose not to. While I am not thrilled with some of PETA's tactics, I appreciate their voice.

If I did NEED to eat/use animal products to survive and be healthy, I would. Just so happens that I enjoy the thought of animals not dying as a result of my dietary and consumer choices.

Posted by: Jason | June 3, 2009 12:42 PM

having become vegan just recently (after years of being vegetarian), I can tell that it is absolutly not hard to abandon eating meat over night. I did so as I became vegetarian and did it likewise with dairy products some time ago

All it needs is sentience about animals and some determination. And one day we won't have animal mass slaugther just because we like their taste

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 12:43 PM

A good alternative to PETA, made up of people too decent to pull stunts like this, are Friends of Animals at http://www.friendsofanimals.org/

They operate a refuge called Primarily Primates, Inc., and PETA has been trying to shut down their refuge, apparently out of jealousy or some crazed Highlander ethic:

http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2009/march/petas-ongoing-assaul.html

After the first two lawsuits instigated by PETA against PPI failed, PETA went knocking door to door in PPI’s neighborhood to recruit additional plaintiffs for yet another lawsuit. They found two—Virginia Baker, an elderly woman with brain cancer, who has since dropped out of the suit, and Carl Hensley, a retiree.

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 12:44 PM

having become vegan just recently (after years of being vegetarian), I can tell that it is absolutly not hard to abandon eating meat over night. I did so as I became vegetarian and did it likewise with dairy products some time ago

All it needs is sentience about animals and some determination. And one day we won't have animal mass slaugther just because we like their taste

It's not hard to magically abandon rational thought overnight, either. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | June 3, 2009 12:46 PM

Perhaps pigs will evolve someday To Serve Man. Apparently they are a close analog to humans.

Posted by: Brian R | June 3, 2009 12:48 PM

I just love that you referenced Yojimbo. Freaking awesome film and a good relation to this.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 3, 2009 12:50 PM

This seems apropos...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTog_NtCEio

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 3, 2009 12:51 PM

I would never eat fishes, except they're delishes,
And lead my poor stomach to growl.
And one of my vices, with handfuls of spices,
I think that it's fair to eat fowl.
I find an appeal in a meal of sweet veal;
I'll eat all that my funds will allow.
And I will not lose sleep while I keep eating sheep,
Or a goat, or a bear, or a sow.
I've eaten grilled squid, and I'm glad that I did,
I think whale meat might give me a thrill--
If you don't like my menu, be careful, cos when you
Say "bite me!", the odds are... I will.

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/06/bite-me.html

Posted by: Jason | June 3, 2009 12:51 PM

#27 Paul: I don't see how both might be interconnected, since I base my choices on reason alone. We don't need meat nor milk (it even seems to be harmful, but there it not (yet) conclusive proof for that), so all that remains as reason to eat meat is personal taste. And that is not a very good reason to kill...

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 12:52 PM

That makes sense, what with the truck bombs and the random shootings and all that.

/not impressed by over-the-top rhetoric

Yeah PETA and Newkirk's support of Rodney Coronado and other ALF folks doesn't count I guess.

Posted by: Otto | June 3, 2009 12:53 PM

I have no problem with
People Eating Tasty Animals.

Posted by: Die Anyway | June 3, 2009 12:54 PM

Other than the timing, I don't see anything on the (proposed) billboards that relates to Tiller. Just seeing the billboard I would not have made a connection. But that aside, I don't get it. The sign mentions vegetarianism but shows pictures of tasty little chickens. Shouldn't it show some carrots or broccolli or something? I'm reminded of those stupid Chik-fil-a ads with all the cows. After seeing one of those ads all I can think is "oh yeah, cows. I haven't had beef in a while, I should buy a steak or a roast on the way home and grill it for dinner." So to me, the PETA sign is totally ineffective for what it aims to do. Which is a good thing since I'm generally opposed to their goals.

Eat well (including meat), stay fit, Die Anyway.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 12:56 PM

cuttlefish oh how I love you

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 12:57 PM

Lets focus on not killing each other first,

This is as flawed as the argument against gay people that we should wait for racial equality before seeking our own rights.

Nothing about the pursuit of equality for people requires you to hurt animals. You create this false dichotomy in order to avoid the conversation.

From the assumption that animals deserve to be killed, we open up debate to the arguments that some class or race or caste of people are like animals and therefore also deserve to be killed.

then let's discover a way to get all our nutrients without meat,

The existence of living vegans demonstrates that this has already been done.

I would gladly slaughter every last baby seal on earth, if it meant saving the life of another human being.

It wouldn't, of course, so all you're doing is bragging about what a big boy you are, who has no care for the suffering of the weak.

Posted by: Jared Lessl | June 3, 2009 12:57 PM

> And one day we won't have animal mass slaugther just because we like their taste

How many rabbits and squirrels and turtles do you suppose died to bring that salad to your table? How many insects were ruthlessly slaughtered to bring the crop to harvest? How many wild predators were shot to keep the egg-laying hens and milk-producing cows safe? How many cute l'il critters' habitats were destroyed to make room for farmland?

You want to argue for vegetarianism for health reasons, fine. You want to argue that it generally has lower environmental impact and ultimately results in fewer animal deaths, fine. But the fact is that for us to live requires that other things die. We can work to minimize it, but please don't act as though agriculture is an inherently eco-friendly practice.

Posted by: Adrian | June 3, 2009 1:01 PM

I'm vegetarian and have been for over a decade (ouch, that long?).

The problem with idiots like this is that they practically beg people to attack PETA and vegetarians, imagining that we're somehow represented by these buffoons. It's the same thing with organic foods and the Newage goofs who make all these weird toxins & health claims. You end up with things like the Penn & Teller Bullshit episodes where they essentially say that the entire movement is bullshit just because we're stuck with people who lack integrity, reason and common sense.

It's not our fault. Even vegetarians think PETA goes way, way too far!

Posted by: damnedyankee | June 3, 2009 1:01 PM

@34 - Cuttlefish, if you publish these in book form I am so buying me a copy or five.

Posted by: priya Lynn | June 3, 2009 1:03 PM

I'm not a vegetarian, and I feel a bit weak and guilty about that. I suspect that's the underlying motivation for most of those who dislike PETA as well - deep down inside you know you're a bit evil.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 1:04 PM

Sexism? How so? PeTA is barely on my radar, so I honestly have no idea what you are referring to.

They ran (run?) a series of adds with naked or mostly naked women to try and lure in support.

Posted by: BeckyWS | June 3, 2009 1:06 PM

@ strange gods before me #25

Thanks for that link, I've not heard of Friends of Animals before, but they pretty much sum up my own perspective (vegetarian 9 years, vegan 18 months).

Especially good quote from their website:

"No being who is conscious of being alive should be devalued to thinghood, dominated, used as a resource or a commodity. The crux of the idea known as animal rights is a movement to extend moral consideration to all conscious beings."

I can't see how anyone can argue against this from a rational standpoint.

Posted by: divalent | June 3, 2009 1:07 PM

Although I am not at all sympathetic to PETA's goals and extreme tactics (ummm, bacon...), this does not strike me as particularly ghoulish or even inappropriate.

Relative to some of the what they have done in the past, it seems pretty reasonable and low key, and the point they make (if you are pro life ...) is not illegitimate.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 1:07 PM

How many rabbits and squirrels and turtles do you suppose died to bring that salad to your table?

Since growing plants to eat is thermodynamically less wasteful than growing plants to feed to cows and then eating the cows, the answer is "as few as possible." And greater public interest in that dilemma is likely to drive markets toward even less destructive agricultural practices in the future. So it's nice that you bring the question up, but don't think that it's a trump card.

How many wild predators were shot to keep the egg-laying hens and milk-producing cows safe

Pretty sure Jason said he was vegan.

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 3, 2009 1:08 PM

deep down inside you know you're a bit evil.

Fuck you. There's nothing evil about eating meat. Take that sanctimonious attitude and shove it up your bacon-greased ass.

Posted by: dNorrisM | June 3, 2009 1:09 PM

An episode of Better off Ted (Portia DegeneresRossi had meat being grown in a beaker. That show is OK but I hope it gets better.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 3, 2009 1:10 PM

Paul,

What reason do you have for not eating meat? You prefer taking vitamin supplements?

Where do you get the idea that vegetarians have to depend on vitamin supplements? They don't, with the possible exception of vegan children needing B12 supplementation.

Is it due to animal welfare? Do you grow your own food so that you are not contributing to all the field animals killed unceremoniously by threshers?

Are you saying that because we can't avoid some killing, it doesn't matter how much, or what conditions the animals live in before their death?

Quite aside from animal welfare concerns, vegetarianism (and far more so, veganism) reduce the amount of land, water and other resources required to grow food, and the greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants produced.

Full disclosure: I am not a vegetarian, but do not eat tetrapods. None of the above should in any way be construed as disagreement with the content of the post.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 1:11 PM

Speaking of plants...

Rev. BigDumbChimp my hops vines are over 12' high now. And about three tree swings from your lair is this:
http://blog.oregonlive.com/thebeerhere/2009/06/double_mountains_the_vaporizer.html

Posted by: Nominal Egg | June 3, 2009 1:12 PM

Rev. BDC & Spyderkl:

Thanks for the info! Good stuff.

Posted by: Lyle | June 3, 2009 1:18 PM

PeTA has not killed anyone, yet! But they do terrorize people! They have given their "Mommy kills animals" comic books and "unhappy meals" to children in order to traumatize them. They hassle people who do things they do not like, such as going to the circus, or going to eat at restaurants which serve meat. They have given tens of thousands of dollars to known, convicted terrorists such as Rod Coronado.

They claim to have the interest of animals at heart, but they kill hundreds of animals every year (PeTA killed 95 percent of adoptable pets in its care during 2008), even going into North Carolina and getting dogs and cats from shelters, saying they will take them back to Norfolk to be adopted out, but they kill them and dump the bodies in dumpsters before leaving the state of North Carolina.

As I live about 10 mile from PeTA's world headquarters, I run into their whack-job employees from time to time. Most of them claim they don't know about the animal killing and terrorist support, or they try to justify it.

All in all, I think PeTA does more harm than good for their cause. But that's fine, because they are not in it for the cause, they just what the headlines and the donations. Ingrid Newkirk (PeTA's president) has said she is a "media whore" and I believe her.

Posted by: Muffin | June 3, 2009 1:19 PM

Eh, I'm not sure. PETA's doing a lot of idiotic stuff, to say the least, and while I consider myself both an ethical person (i.e., someone who actually thinks about ethics and justifies his actions in ethical terms) and an animal-rights advocate, I often don't agree with them (for instance, I have no a priori problem with eating meat); nevertheless, though, this seems like... well, a regular ad campaign.

Honestly, what's wrong with those slogans? Outside of the fact that I don't think that vegetarianism is necessary, I don't see why they shouldn't be advocating it, or - for that matter - why they shouldn't be using the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" there. Yes, it means they are attempting to "cash in" (in terms of attention, not money) on the whole abortion "debate", but I simply fail what's so particularly outrageous about that.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 1:20 PM

Nominal egg said

Fuck you. There's nothing evil about eating meat. Take that sanctimonious attitude and shove it up your bacon-greased ass.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Readers please note that Priya Lynn is not a vegetarian or a vegan, and would be an abusive asshole regardless of diet.

Posted by: SteveM | June 3, 2009 1:22 PM

speaking of hearts beating in vats...
http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/nc-state-gurus-keep-hearts-beating-outside-of-the-body/

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | June 3, 2009 1:24 PM

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Got any other psychic powers to show us? You certainly seem to think you've got mindreading down.

Posted by: emote_control | June 3, 2009 1:25 PM

Just thought I'd leave this here, for all the animal lovers:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 1:28 PM

speaking of hearts beating in vats... http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/03/nc-state-gurus-keep-hearts-beating-outside-of-the-body/

Wooo hoooo! Cheers for my Alma mater

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 3, 2009 1:28 PM

Hey, have you seen what farm animals can do to each other?

Why is this relevant? Would you say that since cats torment mice, it's fine to torture cats?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 1:29 PM

A better slogan might have been:

Pro-Life? Join PETA, we're a bunch of assholes too.

Posted by: rimpal | June 3, 2009 1:30 PM

you can be anti-choice and pro-war and pro-death penalty and non-vegetarian.

similarly you can be vegetarian and anti-PETA, anti-choice-except-for-emergencies anti-war and anti-death penalty (my mother)

and yes there are quite a few moderately anti-choice religious people (clergy included) who are vegetarian and spend more time - much more time - on anti-war anti-death-penalty and pro-labor and pro-universal healthcare. and you won't find them in the 1st group ever. extremism shocks people of compassion.

Posted by: Red John | June 3, 2009 1:33 PM

OT, But there is a new poll at One New Snow:
Is the mainstream media ignoring the fact that literally tens of thousands of unborn children died at the hands of Dr. George Tiller?
Yes - 48.49%
No - 51.51%
2844 responses

When I found it it only had ~500 votes, but I've set up 2 computers with voting scripts. It looks like someone else might be helping too, but I thought "Why hog all the fun?"

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 1:35 PM

I eat meat, and will continue to do so; I participated in the slaughter of a cow at a small ranch owned by some associates of mine, and I found nothing terribly upsetting or disturbing about it, as the boys took great care to be humane. The animals there were very well treated, and there were not many of them; they seem to have a fairly affectionate relationship with all the animals in their care, and the boy who does the butchering is a vegetarian. I wish that I could afford to eat, exclusively, meat from animals who had been treated with the same care and respect, but I don't yet have an income. I think that while vegetarianism is probably the best option for animals right now, maintaining the meat-eating population might drive research into growing meat. Unfortunately, I can't quite convince myself that growing meat isn't really, really yucky; I'm not usually a technophobe, but the notion really disturbs me.

Posted by: Evinfuilt | June 3, 2009 1:36 PM

I don't see how PETA thinks they can turn people Vegeterian by telling them meat comes from Animals. I know it, thats why I eat it. It was smart, but it was also tasty and I am smart and hungry.

I also eat Offal, and wear leather and use Gelatin. I don't waste any part if I can help it. I should also have a couple hens (via a battery rescue program) in my backyard later this year, supplying me with my favorite form of protein, the egg.

Posted by: Deepak Shetty | June 3, 2009 1:39 PM

too many replies to address while at work , thanks for the replies. Im vegetarian(by choice) myself but have no real convincing arguments either way.

Arguments of the sort I'll kill every baby seal to save a single human life sound wrong though (e.g. what if its a sentient alien lifeform instead of a seal.

P.S.
I dont like PETA either

Posted by: cicely | June 3, 2009 1:44 PM

The problem with vegetarianism is that you have to eat vegetables.....

Posted by: priya Lynn | June 3, 2009 1:46 PM

Nominal egg said

Only when you try to tell me "what I really feel, you know, deep down."

Fuck you.

LOL, its pretty clear from the spittle on your monitor that I hit the nail on the head - truth hurts, doesn't it.

Strange gods before me said

Readers please note that Priya Lynn is not a vegetarian or a vegan

Yes, that's what I said in my first post, idiot.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 1:49 PM

I'm with Deepak Shetty on the baby-seals thing... partly because I'm pretty sure killing all the baby seals would be sufficient to kill off a lot of populations and really, really unbalance a lot of ecosystems.

Posted by: Orson Zedd | June 3, 2009 1:51 PM

I have nothing against vegetarians or vegans. I personally like meat and I won't give it up for one simple reason.

My ancestors didn't slaughter and compete their way to the top of the food chain to eat nuts and berries and veggies all the time. I like those things, but dammit, I'm an omnivore, and I'm not going to be a discriminatory eater.

That said, I do like Veggie Burgers better than the genuine article. Call me when you guys figure out veggie sirloin.

Posted by: Evinfuilt | June 3, 2009 1:52 PM

Animals are not humans, please just stop trying to attach human emotions and politics to animals. This is why I actually get upset with Veganism, they try and make it all seem the same.

Its why they attack and try to kill us scientists for doing research that saves their lives.

I don't know what it is, but I've never met a Vegetarian that upset me, who didn't have a good heart felt reason they gave up meat. Yet I've not met a single Vegan who wasn't acting like an Evangelical trying to save us poor deluded meat eaters from our sin and eternal damnation. Then when two of them get together they get into lil Vegan battles, on who does less harm to cute lil creatures (oh, you eat sugar? poor fool didn't you know they burn down crops and kill all the rodents every season, be like me and only use Maple Syrup for sweetening.)

For me, I choose to eat everything as my body seemed designed for. Will you be upset while I enjoy my taco's stuffed with Chapulines (please look it up)? Or is it just furry creatures you're upset I eat (I also love rattlesnake and gator of course.)

Please stop pushing your emotions and your life experiences on animals. Stop trying to outlaw Foie Gras, the method to feed those Geese is actually natural (it wouldn't hurt you too, if you breathed in a totally different fashion and had a leathery surface in your throat, but you don't... so don't compare it.)

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 1:52 PM

Priya Lynn, stop trolling. You know perfectly well that "argument" is stupid.

Posted by: Funnyguts | June 3, 2009 1:54 PM

I'm a animal-rights supporting vegan who also hates PETA. How do I legitimately condemn their shit without feeling like I'm just spouting the same false apologies like Operation Rescue did Sunday?

Posted by: priya Lynn | June 3, 2009 1:54 PM

Angel, I'm not clear on exactly what you're referring to.

Posted by: charley | June 3, 2009 1:58 PM

PETA was in our local news last night for objecting to a proposal to offer horse-drawn carriage rides for tourists in a nearby town. They complained that the clydesdales would suffer from pulling such a heavy load LOL.

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 1:59 PM

Then you shouldn't vote, either, because it's very unlikely that your single vote will affect the outcome of any given election.

Weak. My point was simply that I cannot affect supply and demand for meat on a large scale. There is zero chance the grocery store I shop at will note that one pound of beef was not purchased last week and conclude that it is due to my protest to the way animal farms are handled, and decide to put pressure on them to overhaul the treatment of animals. It's not a vote by any means.

Posted by: Gevaudan | June 3, 2009 2:03 PM

Why is the contents of MY dinner plate a source of concern for anyone else? Tell you what...you put what you like in your plate, I'll put what I like in mine and everyone is happy.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 2:05 PM

http://chetday.com/vegmyths.htm

veg myths

Byline says "Stephen Byrnes, ND, RNCP"

That's "Stephen Byrnes, Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine, Registered Nutritional Consulting Practitioner."

And what is a "Registered Nutritional Consulting Practitioner"? http://www.livingproofnutrition.com/itoolkit.asp?pg=RNCP_info

Registered Nutritional Consulting Practitioners (RNCP) are professionals trained in holistic nutrition and complementary therapies. RNCPs can educate you about the benefits of a sound nutritional program and healthy lifestyle to encourage your body to achieve optimum health and energy. RNCPs follow a code of ethics.

Did you know that every person is biochemically unique? RNCPs can assess individual nutritional imbalances and weaknesses to enhance your immune system and recommend specific diets and nutritional support to help you build and maintain well-being.

No thanks. I think I'll take the word of honest, professional dieticians at the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, over the word of your one quack "doctor of naturopathy."

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 2:07 PM

It is possible to eat sustainable meat, if you pick carefully. There are areas not suitable for growing crops other than pasture due to rough weather, meager soil, uneven ground (making the use of machines impossible) and the like. We have lamb once in a while that is nurtured on the levees along our lovely Elbe river or the North Sea. Not a chance to grow crops there.

I'm fully aware I did not adress the ethical concerns. I just want to point out that not every single acre of land can be converted from "ineffective" pasture to "effective" fields. Actually, there is quite a lot of land that can not be farmed properly using only crops (this is, of course, dependent from the specific countryside).

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 2:09 PM

Gevaudan,
Because what you put on your plate affects the environment everyone else lives in?
Priya Lynn,
Your "I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AND FEELING" shit is amusingly unfalsifiable (I know that's not necessary for an argument, but think about it - no matter what anyone says, you can't possibly be convinced you're wrong, regardless of exactly how wrong you are) and infuriatingly patronizing.

Posted by: Red John | June 3, 2009 2:11 PM

"I may be the only person in the world who just made a resolution to eat more red meat"

Nah, I make that resolution about once a week :)

Posted by: RickD | June 3, 2009 2:15 PM

I'm sorry, I'm still not seeing that the label "terrorist" is appropriate for PETA. I think it's clear that PETA is run by self-satisfied media whores, but it doesn't help anybody to blur definitions of words like "terrorist".

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 2:16 PM

And that's without even getting into issues of climate, location, and nutritional needs. For instance: I support the native people hunting seals in northern Canada.

Yeah, yeah, and they're not the ones reading this blog right now.

Posted by: solenadon | June 3, 2009 2:19 PM

Kafir #112

You state

"They never address the moral implications of snuffing a life (let's restrict it to sentient, conscious life in this case) without the consent of the slaughtered"

How many plants consent to being slaughtered so you (or other vegans/vegetarians) can feel good about yourselves?

By the way, what constitutes sentience/consciousness? That's an interesting restriction you have there.

Whether Carnivore, herbivore or omnivore, things must die for something to live.

Claiming moral superiority because one decides to slaughter and eat plants rather than animals has always struck me as vacuous.

Posted by: H | June 3, 2009 2:20 PM

I was remarking the other day how the tactics and rhetoric used by the pro-liars and PETA were essentially the same. Both indulge in intimidation and the occasional act of violence (I don't think PETA has stooped to murder yet though), both are less than honest in their presentation of information, both tend to hideously emotive argument and both endlessly co-opt Holocaust imagery and language (the American Holocaust!/Holocaust on Yer Plate!) for their political ends.

Now, PETA has taken the whole thing to a meta level by co-opting the language of the abortion issue. Where will this end? PETA is pretty much a joke on all sides of the political spectrum. Let's hope that the forced-birth brigade will be perceived exactly the same way in a few years.

Posted by: maddyhatter | June 3, 2009 2:20 PM

This is the same shit they pulled in Edmonton when that poor guy was murdered via decapitation on a bus.

PETA is so fucking vile they might as well be a false-flag op.

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 2:21 PM

Modern inventory management systems that read the barcodes get very specific about buying recommendations. If you buy one less pound of meat every week, the store has to buy less meat from their suppliers, who in turn have their own inventory management systems. Livestock producers have to respond to market pressures by raising fewer -- and thus killing fewer -- livestock.

Your argument about how little you can do applies equally to voting. In both cases, your effect is small, but not zero.

I still respectfully disagree. I understand how you are framing your argument; however, even if the producer responds by raising fewer livestock, there is no reason to postulate that that would result in better conditions for the livestock being raised (which is the real point of contention here, for me). My buying or not buying has no effect on that, it only has a small chance to affect the scale on which it occurs. Whereas at least with voting, I have a reasonable assurance that my 1 vote actually counts for what I am casting it for (laws of large numbers aside). Meat manufacturers don't exactly have a site where I can vote for better working conditions for the animals, and the best they could get from less meat being bought is "demand is lower".

Also, thanks for the link.

Posted by: Richard | June 3, 2009 2:22 PM

How can you be against torturing animals if you don't believe it's a moral issue?

I am against young men wearing their pants around their knees. Damn kids!

But I don't think it's a moral issue. I don't harass them young'n's to wear their pants proper.

Just because one has a preference for or against something, doesn't make it a moral issue.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 2:23 PM

strange gods,
Maybe it's just an empathy thing? I feel much the same way; I wouldn't tag it as necessarily a moral issue for me, I just feel sad when I think about animals suffering, so I'd rather they didn't.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 2:23 PM

I may be the only person in the world who just made a resolution to eat more red meat

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 2:24 PM

By the way, what constitutes sentience/consciousness? That's an interesting restriction you have there.

The vegan argument from sentience is actually the exact same reasoning I use as a pro-choicer when I talk about abortion: under no circumstances can abortion be wrong before the fetus is sentient.

If you're worried about plants, you'd better join the anti-abortion crowd, because you're just as irrational as they are.

Posted by: rob | June 3, 2009 2:26 PM

As animals continue evolving , at what point do you think it would be wrong to kill them for food?

Deepak Shetty: sentience

And sentience is....what again? Can you even define it non-circularly without invoking the supernatural (i.e cartesian dualism)?

Posted by: Matt H. | June 3, 2009 2:28 PM

Why doesn't PETA stand up for plant life? I mean, they are living things too! Surely munching on a lettuce is just as bad as munching on a slice of bacon?

Oh, and that goes for all you 'ethical' veggies here, too. I have no problem with people who are vegetarian because they don't like the taste, but I despise the high and mighty types who think eating meat is cruel and look down on those who do it.

Posted by: solenadon | June 3, 2009 2:29 PM

Strange gods...

What, exactly, in my post made you think I was worried about plants?

Was it irrationality or reading problems?

Posted by: damnedyankee | June 3, 2009 2:29 PM

pdferguson @122: Where are the People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables? Why aren't they speaking out more loudly?

News organizations find their acronym too hard to pronounce. ;)

Muffin @77: Honestly, what's wrong with those slogans?

Aside from the fact that they were specifically put up in reaction to a murder not two days before?

priya Lynn @105: LOL, its pretty clear from the spittle on your monitor that I hit the nail on the head - truth hurts, doesn't it.

People getting angry at you for acting like an asshole is not proof that you are right, only that you are an asshole.

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 2:32 PM

Angel Kaida,

That is a good point, and one reason I did refer to my position as somewhat of a cop-out in a previous post. A sample size of 1 doesn't change a lucrative market, and it's here that strange gods' voting comparison makes more sense. I simply have little faith that any reform could happen until there is a large grass-roots campaign on the issue. However, I am neither a social type nor do I have time to try to organize such a thing. And past organizations that might have at one time had reasonable demands (e.g. PETA) tend to go off the deep end down roads that I cannot support on principle. But still, even in the absence of such a movement cutting back on meat consumption is an easy move to make with no real downsides.

Posted by: Kafir | June 3, 2009 2:34 PM

You're assuming that life has an intrinsic value, or a right to not be snuffed. Perhaps that can be demonstrated before you talk about how there is a moral high ground in your alternative.

For my purposes it is sufficient enough to point to the laws we have regarding death, torture, cruelty to animals, etc. These laws are founded upon some rational position for safeguarding life. We label the most basic rights as 'inalienable'. That's about as close to intrinsic as one can get, and sufficient for this discussion.

Killing humans, bad. As humans, we have a vested interest in holding this true. What is the argument for extending this to other animals? Don't take me as an animal torturer or anything, I'm all for minimizing suffering to anything with feelings. But I don't frame it as a moral issue. What morality are you basing this on?

It exposes the double-standard in the emotional appeals that we ground part of our reasoning on to abhor death - appeals to consequences like suffering, violating the right to life, etc. The point at which we limit these appeals to apply to humans only becomes a form of special pleading, and they can be thrown out the window as valid reasons because suddenly the focus becomes not how much a being suffers, but how many chromosomes they have when they do. Yet I'm pretty certain that conscious animals defend their lives and can be subject to torture like we are. Ostensibly, I say it undermines the type of morality that is seemingly touted by most people to limit the ways in which our sense of empathy can be applied by imposing artificial reasons like how many chromosomes there are.

Posted by: Priya Lynn | June 3, 2009 2:36 PM

Angel said "Your "I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING AND FEELING" shit is amusingly unfalsifiable".

Oh, I'd agree with you we can rarely know for certain what another person is thinking, but in some cases we can be reasonably assured what some people are thinking is not what they are saying.

In this case, nominal egg's hysterical

Fuck you. There's nothing evil about eating meat. Take that sanctimonious attitude and shove it up your bacon-greased ass.

is overly defensive and betrays that he doesn't entirely believe what he's saying - he's saying it adamantly in part to convince himself. I think most honest people can admit it would be preferable not to kill anything that can feel pain for no reason and that if there were some way to eat the meat they enjoy without killing any animals they'd prefer to do that. Thus it strikes me that very few people can say "there is nothing evil about eating meat" and be 100% sincere. Could Nominal Egg be one of those people? Possibly, but I sincerely doubt it and I'm confident that most of the people making such a statement are at some level insincere.

I can admit that all else being equal a vegetarian is a better person than I. It seems that people like nominal egg are afraid to admit that to at least a slight degree all of us meat eaters are a bit evil. Doesn't change the fact of it, none of us are 100% moral. I can live with the inevitable truth, some can't face it.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 2:37 PM

Richard,

they have some other neeeeeaaaat ideas to test your DNA. I ALWAYS wanted to know my earwax-type. :D
https://www.23andme.com/health/earwax/

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 2:37 PM

Personally I don't see it as such. If only because without the need/want for meat there would be no animal in the first place. Well, with the possible exception of a small number kept in zoos or some kind of animal parks. Which is better, a good quality life of indeterminate length, or no life at all?

John, it follows that contraception is morally wrong, because there are potential people who are being denied lives they could have otherwise lived.

Posted by: CEO of Misery | June 3, 2009 2:39 PM

http://www.thegreatcanadianmoo.ca/

Posted by: Priya Lynn | June 3, 2009 2:42 PM

Damnedyankee said "People getting angry at you for acting like an asshole is not proof that you are right, only that you are an asshole.".

You're assuming your conclusion. To some stating the truth makes a person an asshole, it may be in fact that some people simply can't stand the truth. Your assertion isn't proven by the simple fact that you've made it. That's a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

I assert that me, and everyone who eats meat is a little bit evil because animals can feel pain. You have done nothing to refute that assertion.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 2:43 PM

I was under the impression that vegans were against eating eggs, but if they use the argument from sentience it should not matter? Surely a chicken embryo is no more sentient than a human embryo?

The objection to eating eggs is that supporting the egg industry is supporting the meat industry. Those laying hens are slaughtered and sold for meat as soon as they stop laying. Most of the male chicks are ground up alive and added as a protein supplement to animal feed.

Posted by: Kafir | June 3, 2009 2:47 PM

How many plants consent to being slaughtered so you (or other vegans/vegetarians) can feel good about yourselves?

If you think plants have a right to life, let's hear it. If they don't, let's hear why they don't on par with animals like say, homo sapiens.

By the way, what constitutes sentience/consciousness? That's an interesting restriction you have there.

My human experience gauges this. It's not so interesting. Rather ordinary, I think.

Whether Carnivore, herbivore or omnivore, things must die for something to live.

Do you place equal value on plants and animals?

Claiming moral superiority because one decides to slaughter and eat plants rather than animals has always struck me as vacuous.

Perhaps you should tell me then why your emotional appeals for protecting human life stop at humanity. Or, if you extend these appeals to certain animals such as pets, why not to other animals, in the same way that we do extend these appeals to humans we will never come across in our lives.

Posted by: Animal consciousness | June 3, 2009 2:49 PM

Many vegetarians and vegans have argued that because animals are sentient, they deserve sympathy (and so we shouldn't eat them). I have mixed feelings about this statement, and because sentience has multiple definitions, I am going to ask questions specifically avoiding that word.

Do you believe farm animals such as pigs, cows and chickens are self-aware? That is, do they realize their own existence (or does that question even have meaning)?

A test to determine self-awareness has been constructed, the "mirror test". Look it up if you haven't heard of it. Only humans (at about the age of 3 onward I believe), elephants, dolphins, and some apes pass the mirror test. Do you think the mirror test is apt at determining self-awareness?

Clearly all organisms do not possess consciousness. At what point in the evolutionary tree of life do you believe animals began to exhibit consciousness? I don't think anybody would argue the case for bacteria, plants, or even insects. What about fish? All reptiles? All birds and mammals? I suppose it's hard to answer without a precise definition of consciousness, and certainly consciousness could develop independently on branches of the evolutionary ladder, but I think you have enough to answer the question to some extent.

Personally, I find it hard to have sympathy for something that doesn't realize its own existence; thus, if a cow doesn't have the capacity to acknowledge its own life and ability to die, then I have no qualm in consuming it. However, along this train of thought, it doesn't appear to even deserve common courtesies or observances of how they feel. That personal feeling may be operating under a logical fallacy, or just arrogance. If so, could somebody please point out my mistakes? Bear in mind this all operates under the assumption that the cow is not self-aware, so if you disagree with that assumption... just pretend it's not self-aware for now.

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 2:50 PM

"We think we would be irresponsible if we don't talk about how we're all guilty of extreme cruelty to animals every time we sit down to a meal that includes meat."

Uh, yeah, way to make sense. Lump every single thing from a factory farmed downer cow to a swiftly-killed wild deer into one "extreme cruelty" flavor. Credibility - they r doin it rong.

Oh, and I hope that they're trying to wipe out all those sadistic carnivores, too. Last I checked, Hyenas weren't the most humane killers. Heck, herbivores will sometimes brutally kill the offspring of another male.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 3, 2009 2:50 PM

Strange gods,
Not... exactly. I'm too aware that my "moral" feelings here are all bound up with variable, strongly emotional responses to confidently assert that it is universally *wrong.* (Variable: A kid torturing flies strikes me as less wrong than a kid torturing a bird, which strikes me as less wrong than someone torturing my dog, which strikes me as about the wrong-est thing that anyone could ever do aside from torturing a person or another primate, and perhaps even wrong-er than that. And I know that's an extremely irrational way of dealing with morality - that's my point.) I'd be glad to hear an argument that helped me decide that it is.

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 2:53 PM

For my purposes it is sufficient enough to point to the laws we have regarding death, torture, cruelty to animals, etc. These laws are founded upon some rational position for safeguarding life. We label the most basic rights as 'inalienable'. That's about as close to intrinsic as one can get, and sufficient for this discussion.

Laws don't define morality. Laws define legality. They may have been rationally argued when passed, but that does not mean that if something is enshrined in law it is either rational or moral. You're begging the question here. I was also unaware that there were inalienable rights extended to non-humans. I must have missed that one in the Constitution.

It exposes the double-standard in the emotional appeals that we ground part of our reasoning on to abhor death - appeals to consequences like suffering, violating the right to life, etc. The point at which we limit these appeals to apply to humans only becomes a form of special pleading, and they can be thrown out the window as valid reasons because suddenly the focus becomes not how much a being suffers, but how many chromosomes they have when they do. Yet I'm pretty certain that conscious animals defend their lives and can be subject to torture like we are. Ostensibly, I say it undermines the type of morality that is seemingly touted by most people to limit the ways in which our sense of empathy can be applied by imposing artificial reasons like how many chromosomes there are.

Special pleading? Please. You're pleading that we have some moral need to treat other animals the same way as we treat our own species. Why? Please show your work, I'll admit you lost me. Ability to suffer does not mean a right to not suffer. Regardless of chromosome number. As I said before, I'm all for limiting suffering. It's a noble goal, rooted in empathy. But I'm still not sure where you're claiming these "rights" come from. Our laws were passed by humans, with the intent on coming to a common understanding of acceptable behavior and enforcing group standards. What does that have to do with animals? Let alone morality (unless defined as group standards).

Posted by: Noadi | June 3, 2009 2:55 PM

I know I'm going to take heat from people on this but I'm going to say it anyway:

Vegetarians who don't eat meat for "moral" issues clearly have never lived on a farm. I do. I'm currently raising a pig named Porkchop and you can guess his fate along with the roosters (hens get a pass they provide eggs) and my dad has been talking about getting a beef calf. I have no problem eating meat, no problem slaughtering my chickens myself, or cleaning a fresh caught fish. This attitude in people who have been separated from the realities of life by living in a world of supermarkets where they never have to get up close and personal with their food is honestly infuriating to someone who does.

Posted by: shamar | June 3, 2009 2:57 PM

We all just need to remember that people who argue that there is a moral reason to not kill animals for food are retarded, and leave them to their irrational thoughts before they cause your IQ to drop from simply trying to comprehend their rationale....

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 3, 2009 3:01 PM

"I've been a vegetarian since the late 1970s, and (like MOST vegetarians) cannot stand PETA. They are terrorists, plain and simple."

For all those who hate PETA:

The basic problems they document don't go away because you don't like PETA's tactics.

I think a lot of people use hatred of PETA as an excuse not to do anything, as an excuse to ignore the awful animal abuse that goes on in this country at factory farms.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 3:02 PM

If you say so. I only asked a question and didn't mention morality. My question was purely from an utilitarian point of view. E.g. if I was the animal would I prefer an indeterminate length good quality life or no life at all.

:)

But you are already a sentient being, and inserting yourself into the question breaks the analogy. An already sentient being certainly has an interest in living, but before it existed, it had no interests at all.

It's like the response I give to pro-lifers when they ask "but what if your mother had aborted you?" Well, it's nonsensical. "I" wouldn't be here to wonder about it. (Actually I usually reply "at least I wouldn't have to listen to your bullshit," but that answer doesn't apply to you, John, who I respect.)

I'm only glad I'm alive as a result of already being alive. That kind of interest can't be extended to any potential person or animal who does not yet exist.

Posted by: craig | June 3, 2009 3:05 PM

Doesn't the fact that some (certainly not all, but definitely some) of the arguments against meat eating are pretty much indistinguishable from anti-choice arguments make any of the people using those arguments stop and think for just one fucking second?

"meat eaters are all guilty of extreme cruelty," "tiller was a mass murderer' "meat is murder" "abortion is murder?"

Religious extremists.

Posted by: rob | June 3, 2009 3:07 PM

Animal consciousness....I don't see how the "mirror test" is the least bit meaningful. If the next generation of Roomba has machine vision and is able to use information from mirrors in the room to determine its relation to its environment, does that make it "self aware" in any way that relates to whether it is ok to "kill" it?

As for your cow comment, I think cows might be considered "self aware" in the sense that they can suffer (i.e. they have an aversion to bodily trauma), in much the way a human does, so torturing a cow is wrong. I don't think they have an aversion to death per se (at least not in the higher levels of processing their brains do), so killing them is not so wrong.

Still, it's all very murky. Consciousness and awareness is not easy to define, at least not if you want it to map well to our intuitive idea of it.

Posted by: shamar | June 3, 2009 3:11 PM

The only reason we don't kill and eat humans is the same reason that we don't steal from one another, hurt each other, etc, etc, etc...because it is bad for the procreation of our species, and if everyone treated other humans that way, it would inevitably happen to me....we are all human beings, and we have to look out for one another, that's where most of our rules come from.

If cows evolved into more intelligent beings, and could talk, and tell me that they didn't want to die....I'd still slaughter the bastard and have steaks that night.

I'm human. I look out for other humans. the rest can kiss my ass, lol.....

Posted by: Uerba | June 3, 2009 3:15 PM

We share pretty much nothing in common, but at least PZ and I can agree on a mutual distaste for PETA...even if it is for different reasons...

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 3:16 PM

strange gods before me, having grown up in the country and spent a large part of my childhood on relatives and friends farms I know that animals can 'enjoy' life. Thus, from a purely utilitarian point of view I have no problem with eating the meat from well treated animals who in the meantime have had a 'good' life. Similarly, I have no problem with hunting and preparing my own food. Additionally, while I don't believe in causing unnecessary suffering and treat animals with respect, I don't morally equate them in anyway with humans. Yeah, I know, how specist of me :)

Posted by: Funnyguts | June 3, 2009 3:17 PM

Papa Zita: "Some of the insufferably self-righteous among the commenters ought to find out how chimps eat in the wild. They aren't vegans. They hunt, among other animals, monkeys. They even occasionally indulge in a little cannibalism, though it's rare."

Shouldn't the part about cannibalism show you why an argument from nature doesn't work?

Also to the Reverend: I'll just get my cow eggs from local sustainable producers. They will be delicious.

Posted by: nokin24 | June 3, 2009 3:19 PM

@198

Central MN - http://www.yak-man.com/
http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/May-2007/Rare-Breed/

Man, now I'm hungry for a Yak Burger!

Posted by: Dead Guy Kai | June 3, 2009 3:20 PM

This explains it all:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/HealthSci/Eating_veggies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms

Vegetarianism shrinks the brain.

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | June 3, 2009 3:22 PM

What this thread is missing is a good Godwin.

so...

"HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN!"

Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 3, 2009 3:28 PM

What this thread is missing is a good Godwin.

so...

"HITLER WAS A VEGETARIAN!"

Nothing more here to see. Move along.

Posted by: Danielle | June 3, 2009 3:29 PM

PETA actually came out with these billboards originally to coincide with Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame. When that happened I thought the pro-life billboards were kind of on the right track - it could make people realize that it is ridiculous to feel it is a crime to "kill" an embryo/fetus, but not a fully developed and fully functioning, animal. It does make you think a bit.
All the same, using them in relation to the Tiller murder is pretty much inexcusable - exploiting someones death like that is a horrible thing to do.

With that said, I've been a vegetarian for a little over a year now, and am making the transition to veganism (although I do eat hunted meat). While I agree with what PETA is trying to do (in a lot of cases, not all) I (as most vegeterians/vegans) do not agree with how they do it. They have no respect for how other people feel, and some of their supported have taken actions that are sickeningly similar to the actions that resulted in Tiller's death.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 3:30 PM

strange gods before me, having grown up in the country and spent a large part of my childhood on relatives and friends farms I know that animals can 'enjoy' life.

I agree. I'm just saying that's not an argument for making more animals. Human animals can enjoy life too, but that's not an argument against using contraception.

Thus, from a purely utilitarian point of view I have no problem with eating the meat from well treated animals who in the meantime have had a 'good' life.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, at any point in time, the animal has an interest in the good life continuing. You are reducing utility by ending its life.

You've got an argument for giving animals good lives and then eating them when they get old and drop dead of natural causes, though.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 3:33 PM

I like the implication that plants aren't living things.

I like how you pretend that anyone was saying that.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 3:34 PM

if I was the animal would I prefer an indeterminate length good quality life or no life at all.

But such an animal has already been born. If you want to give animals better "rights" or provide better treatment to them or whatever, then that happens in the future. Future changes can't affect whether an already born animal is born or not.

Should a child born out of rape support rape?

Posted by: E.V. | June 3, 2009 3:35 PM

What this thread is missing is a good Godwin.

Posted by: Thumpalumpacus | June 3, 2009 3:36 PM

I'll take PETA seriously they protest shark attacks on us humans. We're animals too, and to neglect our suffering is clearly evidence of bias.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 3:37 PM

At which point you flew right off the handle.

Excuse me, solenadon, I did nothing of the sort. You are being irrational, but me pointing that out is not "flying off the handle."

If your going to get all moral about killing animals (taking a life) why the ho-hum attitude toward killing plants?

You know the answer: plants don't have brains and cannot experience pain.

It's either dishonest of you to keep pretending that you don't understand, or irrational of you to make that simple error.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 3:38 PM

Alex Deam???

Posted by: Noadi | June 3, 2009 3:39 PM

Since someone has implies meat eaters are equivalent to anti-abortionists please answer this: Have any of us said you shoudl be FORCED to eat meat? No. We have every right to be critical, dismissive, etc. of your choice all we want. The difference is non of us think you SHOULDN'T have the choice. Please learn the difference between criticism and forcing your belief on others.

By the way I see PETA as the ones equivalent to anti-abortionists as if they had their way they would force everyone to be vegans.

Posted by: Funnyguts | June 3, 2009 3:41 PM

@DeadGuyKai: The study had the vegetarians start with much higher brain sizes than the meat eaters. The meat eater's brains didn't shrink much because they had already hit the floor.

To me, the study suggests that vegetarianism helps until you hit 60, and then everything equalizes out.

Posted by: shamar | June 3, 2009 3:42 PM

@Funnyguts#214

@Shamar #199: So you're going to be the guy that ruins First Contact for the rest of us, huh?

Nah, it would not be beneficial for humans not to do that, in fact it would probably be bad for us.....however, I probably would wonder how they tasted, lol :-)

Posted by: AlexG | June 3, 2009 3:44 PM

@ #6

When they become Triffids and start eating you!

Posted by: Clever Roomba | June 3, 2009 3:44 PM

@Rob

Well, intelligently designing (heh) a Roomba to pass the mirror test doesn't say anything about the functionality of the mirror test, it just shows that any experiment has a bounds. Some studies show that the AIDS test has a 70% false positive rate. Does that mean if I have sex with a hooker I shouldn't have myself tested? If I gorge myself with poppy seeds and receive a positive on a heroin test, does that make the heroin test useless? Surely the mirror test is bad in that it depends on sight as the means for determining self-awareness, but that doesn't make it absolutely useless for all animals that can see.

Also, I agree with your point that it is doubtful that cows have an aversion to death. However the argument itself can be used to justify murder of humans. I wish to live. But if I was dead, then... I wouldn't have much of a say in the matter. Therefore if you killed me without my knowing, I wouldn't have an aversion to my own death (I no longer have the capacity to be aversive). Therefore it's ok to kill me (When I'm not looking).

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 3:48 PM

strange gods before me: Yep, I am reducing the utility for the animal but increasing it for me. I did say I was a specist :). After all, it takes resources to produce an animal so there will always be a trade off. Thus as I want meat in my diet but don't like unnecessary suffering, I get it from known sources that treat their animals well.

Posted by: Spud | June 3, 2009 3:55 PM

This thread must hold the record for the greatest ever number of lame-ass comments along the lines of "but what about the plants - don't they count, don't they have feelings too, you lettuce-butchering bastards?" or some variant thereof.

Weak.

Posted by: Glucagon | June 3, 2009 3:57 PM

Quite a number of terribly reasoned arguments here.....where to begin.

Jafafa Hots seems to be defending meat-eating for financial and health concerns....which is strange, since meat is much more expensive, takes longer to prepare, and far worse for your health.

News flash: there is protein in non-animal products. Legumes are one of the best sources.

Fruits and vegetables are the packaging plants use for their reproduction. They are sweet and colorful because the plants evolved these mechanisms to insure the spread of their seeds..... so those making the extremely tired argument that vegetarians are slaughtering plants can perhaps remember they are on a site devoted to reason and use some themselves.

Shamar has mentioned talking cows. So do we exclude non-talking humans from moral concern? Are mutes free game?

As Sam Harris rightly noted in End of Faith, any attributes we use to separate animals from humans can be likewise used to separate humans from other humans. Cows not being intelligent enough for our moral concern immediately makes a case for the killing of stupid humans.

Craig made an interesting observation: many pro-animal arguments being made sound eerily like the anti-choice arguments. I could make the opposite observation as well: many of the meat arguments sound eerily like rehashed homophobic arguments, or pro-slavery arguments. It's simple exclusion from one's moral sphere based on attributes that one deems worthy or not worthy. Most of the reasons being offered for exclusion are rather arbitrary and clear products of social constructs.

Most people who frequent this site probably consider themselves reasonable and ethical. Apply those to the manner in which you choose to eat and you may surprise yourself.

Posted by: The Other Ian | June 3, 2009 4:00 PM

Also, I agree with your point that it is doubtful that cows have an aversion to death. However the argument itself can be used to justify murder of humans. I wish to live. But if I was dead, then... I wouldn't have much of a say in the matter. Therefore if you killed me without my knowing, I wouldn't have an aversion to my own death (I no longer have the capacity to be aversive). Therefore it's ok to kill me (When I'm not looking).

This pretty much sums up some of my own ethical opinions, except that you missed an important point -- I'm not the only person who might have an aversion to my own death. Therefore it's only okay for me to kill you when you're not looking if I can be sure that nobody else will miss you either, which is rather rare in practice (I presume).

Posted by: SebastesMan | June 3, 2009 4:02 PM

Priya Lynn:

I think most honest people can admit it would be preferable not to kill anything that can feel pain for no reason and that if there were some way to eat the meat they enjoy without killing any animals they'd prefer to do that. Thus it strikes me that very few people can say "there is nothing evil about eating meat" and be 100% sincere.

1. "Evil" is subjective at best; just as morality is.

2. My species is omnivorous and predatory. Predators don't worry about the "feelings" of their prey. Now, my society prefers to minimize suffering as much as possible, and I agree. I hope that the suffering is minimized, but I have no qualms with my food dying for the sole purpose of my nutritional intake.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 4:04 PM

As Sam Harris rightly noted in End of Faith, any attributes we use to separate animals from humans can be likewise used to separate humans from other humans. Cows not being intelligent enough for our moral concern immediately makes a case for the killing of stupid humans.

Except that cows are not humans so that particular leaping of logic is a bit silly.

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 4:04 PM

Strange Gods @ 174 - That would make sense, and I agree. Unforunately, I've seen the argument that even eggs from a totally, truly free range family farm (like where I try to always eat eggs from)are still not ok to eat, according to vegans. Which makes zero sense to me.

Posted by: Jam | June 3, 2009 4:05 PM

Abhorring vegetarians because of PETA is an ad hominim. Arguing that vegetarian diets are inferior because of PETA is poisoning the well.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 4:06 PM

since meat is much more expensive

My $1 McDouble begs to differ.

takes longer to prepare

Not necessarily (I think I can cook a pork chop about three times over while your potatoes boil), and way to go ignoring fast-food.

and far worse for your health.

Actually, a diet that includes reasonable amounts of meat makes it far easier to get all the nutrients you need. If you have anything substantive to back up that ridiculous assertion, I'm all ears.

News flash: there is protein in non-animal products.

Wowie! I didn't know that! Thanks for enlightening us!

Oh, by the way, are they the same kind, in the same amount, and in the same proportion? How about digestible B12?

Posted by: Danielle | June 3, 2009 4:06 PM

I do feel the need to say, after reading more of the comments, that all vegetarians do not force their choice down other people's throats - that's a common misconception mainly because of PETA. I have never asked/told anyone to go vegeterian, and never would. If someone asks me why I am one, I tell them, that's the end of that. I don't have a problem with other people eating meat - any kind of meat, factory farmed or hunted - I made a decision for myself an myself alone.

A lot of everyones reactions to vegetarians is exactly why PETA sucks so freaking much. They're a bunch of self righteous pricks who think people who disagree with them can't and shouldn't think for themselves.

Posted by: Shamelessly Atheist | June 3, 2009 4:06 PM

This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder what members of PETA taste like....

Posted by: Jared Lessl | June 3, 2009 4:08 PM

> You hold vegans to an impossible standard that you don't hold yourself to.

What the hell are you talking about? Straw man much? I never claimed I exclusively ate local foods, and I'm not the one claiming vegetarianism doesn't kill animals, vegetarians are! If they can't hold to that standard on the gorunds that it is simply physically impossible, then perhaps they ought to stop uttering such simplistic tripe like "one day we won't have animal mass slaughter just because we like their taste".

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 4:09 PM

Jason,

Fair enough. I think if I wanted to go full vegetarian a "cold turkey" approach would be best, as well. Otherwise I would always want to wait just one more week. I don't see myself cutting fish out of my diet ever, though :-).

whitebird,

While I appreciate an answer to my question, there have been at least a couple of people in this thread who brought up dislike of the way chickens are treated on farms as a reason to forego egg products. While I have also heard the "stealing from chickens" argument, in light of conflicting information it seems disingenuous to imply that that is the only reason vegans are against eating eggs.

Posted by: CEO of Misery | June 3, 2009 4:10 PM

>Look at all the starving human animals dying everyday, then remember the fact that for every one pound of beef, it took 20 pounds of corn, beans, soy or other food to produce

What if that "other food" is grass?

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 4:12 PM

I said:

So the fuck what? The problem is not that there isn't enough food to go around (because there is), it is that it is not getting to everyone. You obviously mean well, but it's pointless.

The retort:

Yes, and the reason that all that food isn't getting to everyone is because you're eating 4 other people's portions.

You're a fucking moron. Read again what I wrote.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 3, 2009 4:12 PM

Actually, if you put in terms of energy, the amount of energy wasted in growing a pound of meat is _nothing_ compared to, say, the energy it takes to package a head of lettuce and move it across an ocean or continent to your local supermarket.

How confused. Compare the energy resources - all of them - that hypothetically go into daily nourishment for a person, say, somewhere in Africa under various regimes of producing food. Then get back to me with the figures.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 4:14 PM

>Look at all the starving human animals dying everyday, then remember the fact that for every one pound of beef, it took 20 pounds of corn, beans, soy or other food to produce

What if that "other food" is grass?

At the rate that Americans consume beef, you cannot produce enough from grass-fed cattle to meet that demand.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 4:17 PM

Do vegetarians/vegans eat bread?

ZOMG how do you know yeast doesn't suffer????

There are some questions you shouldn't ask, because they don't reflect well on your intellect.

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 4:19 PM

@216 - "Wow. You take a group of people who consider themselves moral and rational and you suggest to them that eating less meat might be a good way to live, and watch them turn into the lunatic fringe."

Uhh, I don't think that peta suggests that anyone eat less meat. I think they suggest that the very act of eating any meat is extreme cruelty (from the quote in PZ's post).

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 4:22 PM

So please stop claiming that meat is the ebbil or vegetarians need a hookup on life support, will you?

I didn't say they needed one -- just that they looked like it. As another example, the ruddy glow on an alcoholic's face :-)

Posted by: Deiloh | June 3, 2009 4:22 PM

I joined PETA briefly about five years ago. Ethical treatment of animals sounds cool and I'm for that. I think the group takes it a wee bit too far. Then again, I've never seen eating meat as evil.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward | June 3, 2009 4:24 PM

Fucking hell... trying to cash in on someone else's death... disgusting doesn't even begin to describe it.
Also, contrary to other people on the thread, I've found myself eating more meat over the years. The primary reason is that meat used to be expensive, but food prices have dropped spectacularly. Never had any ethical problems with it; I'm from the countryside, when you've seen enough cows you simply can't feel sorry for them anymore. They're probably less sentient than your smartphone.

Posted by: The Other Ian | June 3, 2009 4:27 PM

"At the rate that Americans consume beef, you cannot produce enough from grass-fed cattle to meet that demand."

Why is that, and do you have a source? Does low-grade corn somehow make more efficient cattle food than grass?

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 4:31 PM

I didn't say they needed one -- just that they looked like it. As another example, the ruddy glow on an alcoholic's face :-)

Posted by: Joe B | June 3, 2009 4:31 PM

THIS is how you do anti-vegetarianism

For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three

Posted by: Lynx | June 3, 2009 4:33 PM

#173 - Priya Lynn

Both statements from your post
I assert that me, and everyone who eats meat is a little bit evil because animals can feel pain. You have done nothing to refute that assertion.
Your assertion isn't proven by the simple fact that you've made it. That's a logical fallacy called "begging the question".

So you're just talking to yourself now?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 4:37 PM

Having grown up on a farm, I've killed chickens, pigs, cows, turkeys, and hunted deer, squirrel, grouse, etc. Eating meat is a part of who we are. Last I checked, we're omnivores.

"We," humans, routinely kill other humans as well. Genocide is demonstrably part of who we are.

Posted by: PGPWNIT | June 3, 2009 4:37 PM

Sacred cows: We haz them.

Posted by: Barklikeadog | June 3, 2009 4:39 PM

Man! That steak I had for lunch was GOOOOD!

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 4:47 PM

Alex Deam???

That's my name: so what's your question, John?

Actually, if you put in terms of energy, the amount of energy wasted in growing a pound of meat is _nothing_ compared to, say, the energy it takes to package a head of lettuce and move it across an ocean or continent to your local supermarket.

You seriously think that more energy is used moving lettuce from another part of the world and packaging it, than raising an animal? If you do, you'd be wrong.

Never mind that there's greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Look, obviously eating meat is normal. Animals eat meat all the time and our species would not have survived if we didn't eat meat. The question is, now that we have achived a level to where many (obv not all, if you have health reasons that require you to eat meat by all means go ahead)of us can be healthy without meat it makes sense to consider this as an option.

Naturalistic fallacy. Look it up.

And since when have we "achieved a level where many of us can be healthy without meat"? Humans have long had the ability to do that.

Except that cows are not humans so that particular leaping of logic is a bit silly.

The logic was that if someone was basing their decision to eat meat on the idea that animals are stupid, then it would logically follow that there would be nothing immoral in eating the mentally ill or stupid people. If you want to base the decision on "anything not human is fair game" or similar, then that's another matter.

Are carnivorous animals murderers? Are the way they kill animals any different from the way we do? We sure as hell didn't get where we are today from being herbivores.

Naturalistic fallacy. Look it up.

Not very appreciative of your species at all.

Yes, and Democrats criticizing George Bush meant they were "un-American", right? Fuck off Dick Cheney.

My $1 McDouble begs to differ.

The veg in my McDouble begs to differ more so.

Not necessarily (I think I can cook a pork chop about three times over while your potatoes boil), and way to go ignoring fast-food.

And what the hell do you think chips (fries) are?

Posted by: Leafsnail | June 3, 2009 4:50 PM

I personally am not vegetarian, but I can see myself becomin one at some point in the future. I can see the ecological arguments for not eating meat - I can see the health arguments. However, when a militant terrorist group tries to capitalise on a random and arbitrary murder, it just makes me feel like ordering some Foie gras.

Posted by: Aquaria | June 3, 2009 4:51 PM

Being a vegetarian/vegan is impossible for me. I tried it, and nearly died of boredom, because there's so much of it I can't eat thanks to allergies (potatoes--I'm allergic to potatoes!), or won't eat (Brussel sprouts).

I'm mildly allergic to milk and dairy.

Meat, fish, seafood--I can eat it all, no problems.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 4:56 PM

Alex Deam the question marks were because I didn't see what point you were trying to make with reference to the food animals I was talking about. Maybe its because English is not my first language but I don't think so.

Posted by: Kagehi | June 3, 2009 4:57 PM

Hmm. Things that pop up in this discussion are:

a) The presumption that nothing at all will possibly change, which might derail the ability to have 200 types of vegetable on your grocery shelf, or just the assumption that **because its true in most place**, these options exist every place. This is called, "placing all your eggs in one basket." We developed a taste for, and a desire to eat, meat, precisely because, even for existing monkey species in forests, its not always 100% practical to get *everything* from plant life. We have the smarts to grow 200+ different things, with various different qualities, and thus sustain ourselves, *but* we can't do that without the stable infrastructure that provides that variety. We just can't. There are not enough "local" trees, or even any, in some places, with nuts, some people can't eat them, even if there where. Many vegetables won't grow in certain climates, etc. You "need" modern civilization to "be" vegan, and its not easy being vegetarian without it either.

Why is this an important point? Because, unfortunately, a lot of both classes of people I have met are also anti-globalization, anti-industrial, anti-city, anti-"everything that keeps those things one their plates". The best ones are the wackos that think taking a population of, lets say LA, 9,862,049 people, and moving them out of the city, into "normal" houses, isn't going to take away the farm land their bloody soy beans are being grown on. New York would be an even bigger example of such stupidity. How many acres of land for food would be lost if 19,490,297 people left to live "outside" cities? I see it as a survival issue. If something seriously catastrophic happened, having a population where 99% of the people can't stand the idea of eating an animal (and anything that would cause such a massive problem would also mean loss of the ability to ship vat grown food), the only survivors would be the 1% that don't have a problem with it, or the ones that could 1) get over it, or 2) where lucky enough to be living "close" to the food source. But, probably more than 1/2 of them would die, of shipping wasn't restored within a few weeks.

b) B12.. See, someone mentioned B12 supplements for vegan kids. Why is this necessary? Because you are born with X amount, and over time that becomes X/age. At some point it hits "not enough", and you start suffering neurological failure. But, the assertion that its only kids that need it is "dead wrong". There are reported cases of men and women, as adults, developing neurological problems, which where easily corrected with such supplements, due to having been born to vegans, and remaining such themselves. Women are likely to suffer it even worse, since every child they have "takes" some of their B12 with them, when born. In fact, if the mother had 3 times the needed amount stored up, her child might have enough to never need it, unless the child was a girl, in which case it *might* threaten her life to get pregnant, since doing so would take away part of what "she" get from her mother. B12 is a zero sum game. You either find sources of it, or you die, of slow neurodegeneration, since your body can't make it. And, there is almost no, if any, plants on the entire planet, than need, or make, it. The exceptions are some GE plants (which some of the vegans are likely to reject being in the anti-frankenfood groups too). In any case, same problem as A) above. As long as civilization has the means to "fix" the problem artificially, its not a problem. The moment you can't, you are screwed.

The first issue is why I think vegetarianism is... not entirely as sound as people think it is (I prefer something more like semi-vegetarianism, as a rule, where we get what we need, or maybe a bit more, but the overall sources are plant based, which does mean, sometimes you eat a burger, not just drink a glass of milk. Whether its practical or not, especially when you hate fixing yourself meals, are not in control of what is being bought, and can't always find what you do want (do to the all the other people buying it up, and we "do" run out of even simple things like lettuce at the store I work at, by day end), is another matter. It may be hard to make it practical. If we can't keep it on the shelf now, how do we do so when "everyone" is buying it as their main meals, not just secondary? However, the second issue is one that disturbs me a lot about veganism. Its not just a refusal to look at how complicated the situation really is, its a refusal to recognize that some of the complications are not "solvable", without industry and the modern world, and that anything that badly enough disrupted it, (heck we could have all the shippers go on strike for a month, or something, or... the guys making those supplements), would have "serious" consequences, some of them are not solvable "locally", if something did happen.

We need to change the way we look at diet and find a sane balance, which we haven't had as a society in probably centuries, but it needs to be one that considers "how" the stuff gets to the table, and even "if" it can get there, and what that means. Vegetarians take some of this into consideration, and can make compromises to stay health, Vegans... not so much. They are pretty much dependent on things remaining "as they are", and ironically, that state may mean having most of us still eating meat, because if we all gave it up over night, we probably wouldn't have enough of everything to stock produce for everyone, with our without the land, which *may not* be viable for growing crops, in the same way it is for raising cattle, at the moment.

Its more complicated that animal advocates will, often, *allow* it to be.

Posted by: maryanne | June 3, 2009 5:00 PM

PETA is a vile, extremist organization. I am an animal lover and give to animal charities but would not give PETA a penny. This latest is just typical of their obnoxious style. They lie, exaggerate, and at one time were even pushing a vegetarian diet for dogs and cats, who are carnivores and can't live on such a diet. So much for "loving" animals and respecting nature.

They are also against all zoos, even though the big zoos like the Bronx Zoo are heavily involved in wildlife conservation and in providing humane environments for the animals they keep. Yes, it is good to eat less meat and to be kinder to all animals, but PETA takes this to an extreme that makes them a bad joke rather than a force for good.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 5:05 PM

They lie, exaggerate, and at one time were even pushing a vegetarian diet for dogs and cats, who are carnivores and can't live on such a diet.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 5:10 PM

Everyone, omnivore or vegetarian or vegan, can benefit from taking a multivitamin.

The jury is most definitely still out on that one.

Posted by: zzzzzz | June 3, 2009 5:10 PM

As animals continue evolving , at what point do you think it would be wrong to kill them for food?

Biology fail. Evolution is not directional.

My ancestors didn't slaughter and compete their way to the top of the food chain to eat nuts and berries and veggies all the time.

Biology fail. "compete their way to the top" is Spencerian nonsense that has nothing to do with biological evolution.

I don't know which is worse in this thread, the ignorance about biology or the childishly naive moral arguments offered with great righteousness. Clue 1: Bot flys and tapeworms are animals too. Clue 2: the sorts of arguments you're all making won't change any of your minds. But do carry on.

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 5:12 PM

@299 - "The veg in my McDouble begs to differ more so."

Are you referring to the lettuce and tomato or whatever, or implying that there is actually not 100% USDA beef in McDonald's patties? I would appreciate citations.

For the record, I personally eat very little meat, and support local/sustainable/cruelty-free etc. Eat fast food maybe twice a year when on the road.

What is frustrating is people making arguments that don't make sense or are outright lies. I think that's what's getting most of the non veg people hot under the collar here. Not that we necessarily want to eat meat 5 times a day and fell threatened/secretly guilty/inferior to people who eat no meat, but that there are some really questionable arguments from the "meat is murder" crowd.

In fact, with the exception of the several (hopefully) sarcastic "this thread makes me want to go torture animals!" type of comments, most of the practicing omnivores seem to also be concerned about farming practices and alleviating animal suffering. We just don't think that killing an animal swiftly is the same as either torturing them or killing a human. Amirite, omnis?

Posted by: Jared Lessl | June 3, 2009 5:15 PM

> You seriously think that more energy is used moving lettuce from another part of the world and packaging it, than raising an animal? If you do, you'd be wrong.

From "Food, Energy, and Society". "The energy needed to move food goods by truck is estimated at 1.2kcal/kg/km". Rail and barge transport is 0.1 kcal/kg/km, and air shipments is around 6. That means that trucking a kilo of lettuce the 6000 kilometers from California to Florida takes roughly 7200 kcals of energy. How many calories do you get out of that as food? And of course, that's just transporting it in a straight line. In reality it'll take all kinds of twists and turns from one processing facility to another, plus packaging and everything. Takes a fair amount of oil to make all that plastic, you know. Plus storage and refridgeration for spoilables and the like. You can _easily_ end up with transport costs in excess of the standard 10:1 biomass reduction of a step in the food chain.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 5:17 PM

But there is absolute zero proof that the benefits of a vegetarian diet outweight those of an equally balanced diet including an equally healthy lifestyle while eating meat as well.

Even comparing two people with healthy activity levels, a vegan diet will always be lower in LDL cholesterol.

Posted by: rohit | June 3, 2009 5:20 PM

I don't see what the ruckus is all about. PETA is an organization that fights for animal rights, and that's what they are doing in this case. If they are oppurtunistic in the hope of shedding light on the plight of animals in factory farms, so be it. They are in no way degrading Tiller's death, but are merely exposing the hypocrisy that goes with feeling sorry about a human's death while (indirectly) causing the death of a sentient being every day by eating meat.

PZ, I agree with you on most things related to godlessness, but the fact that you're motivated to inflict pain on a sentient being because of a mere billboard message is a stark revelation into maybe an irrational, slightly immoral side of yourself.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 5:21 PM

If they can't hold to that standard on the gorunds that it is simply physically impossible, then perhaps they ought to stop uttering such simplistic tripe like "one day we won't have animal mass slaughter just because we like their taste".

If the whole world became vegetarian/vegan, in what way would the phrase "one day we won't have animal mass slaughter just because we like their taste" not have come true?

I said:

So the fuck what? The problem is not that there isn't enough food to go around (because there is), it is that it is not getting to everyone. You obviously mean well, but it's pointless.

The retort:

Yes, and the reason that all that food isn't getting to everyone is because you're eating 4 other people's portions.

You're a fucking moron. Read again what I wrote.

Wow, your retort floored me. I have no responses to that ad hominem. My argument is completely torn apart. Well done.

Why don't you actually respond to my argument?

I'll even break it down for you:

1. You agree that there's enough food on the planet to feed everyone, including those who are starving.

2. You responded to the phrase "So every burger is like 5 people's daily meal" with a "So the fuck what?". So you don't dispute the claim that the average Westerner probably eats more than his fair share of food.

3. Conclusion: There's enough food to feed everyone, but it isn't reaching the mouths of the starving because Westerners are eating too much. Hence, "the reason that all that food isn't getting to everyone is because you're eating 4 other people's portions".

Get old and "die happy"? I know they get slaughtered. I think that slaughter is much more humane than letting a chicken die a long, painful death of disease/old age. Or is a happy death for a chicken letting it loose in the wild once it's old and near death so that it can have a truly natural death at the fangs/talons of predators? I don't understand.

Glad to see you factored in the wishes of the chicken when you decided to humanely kill them.

Posted by: rohit | June 3, 2009 5:22 PM

I don't see what the ruckus is all about. PETA is an organization that fights for animal rights, and that's what they are doing in this case. If they are oppurtunistic in the hope of shedding light on the plight of animals in factory farms, so be it. They are in no way degrading Tiller's death, but are merely exposing the hypocrisy that goes with feeling sorry about a human's death while (indirectly) causing the death of a sentient being every day by eating meat.

PZ, I agree with you on most things related to godlessness, but the fact that you're motivated to inflict pain on a sentient being because of a mere billboard message is a stark revelation into maybe an irrational, slightly immoral side of yourself.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 5:24 PM

Even comparing two people with healthy activity levels, a vegan diet will always be lower in LDL cholesterol.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 5:25 PM

We just don't think that killing an animal swiftly is the same as either torturing them or killing a human.

Well, there's another misrepresentation of the vegan position.

No one is saying that killing a cow is the same as killing a human.

Only that killing an animal in the prime of health, when you don't need to, is wanton violence.

Posted by: Spud | June 3, 2009 5:27 PM

"I really don't care what happens to my food animals before they arrive on my plate"

Yup, same old same old. Any horrific shit can happen to sentient creatures provided I don't have my conscience troubled or - even worse - my appetite spolit by seeing it.

Posted by: Li'l Innocent | June 3, 2009 5:31 PM

I haven't read all of the comments, but I've gone through quite a few, and it seems odd to me that none of them say anything about the most common way that animal protein gets into our stomachs: factory farming.

I read a New Yorker article a few years back about the "origins", as they say in the comix trade, of the founder of PETA: in some research or professional capacity (forget what it was) Ingrid Newkirk investigated factory poultry-raising facilities, and that experience turned her radical. The New Yorker article gave a brief, subjective word-description of such a facility that made a radical response seem very understandable to me.

I mean "radical" in the sense of hewing to a root idea, devoting actions strictly to promoting that idea, and not deviating therefrom: an MO that is obviously very prone to veering toward extremist methods. PETA's radicalism is reminiscent of the radicalism of many anti-war organizations in the late 60s/early 70s. Or the radicalism of Greenpeace. It's an approach that rises out of a sense of urgent, even desperate need for change.

Industrialized production separates most people in developed countries from any direct contact with or personal knowledge of the sources of their meat, eggs, etc., and therefore any sense of the reality of that aspect of nature.

There's a lot of I'm a Big Bad Carnivore So Bite Me snark in some of the comments above, which to me has an air of reverse-protesting too much. But it's easy to get away from rhetoric with a simple, realistic premise. How many here have watched an animal killed for the table they'll sit down to later in the day? I'm one generation removed from farming relatives, and on several occasions watched my uncle catch and behead a chicken for the dinner pot. (On the curious little "death-aversion" conversation above: chickens aren't super-smart, but there was no doubt the chickens didn't want to be caught. Most creatures will put up a fight if they can. If they hadn't been confined in a yard, my uncle never would have captured them.) I then helped my aunt clean (i.e. disembowel and de-feather) the carcase, and we had delicious roast chicken for dinner. I remember the struggling bird, the thunk of my uncle's axe and the severe expression on his face, and the head falling off the chopping block very well.

As a little kid, I took it all in stride. My relatives cared for their animals in the old-fashioned family-farm way that goes back to neolithic times and with some modern additions continued up thru WWII; they housed and fed them personally, helped nurture the young ones, cleaned their living quarters, called in the vet when necessary. The animals weren't pets, but they were definitely co-beings; and when it was time for death, my aunt and uncle took personal responsibility for that, because that was what being a farmer was.

That's not what factory meat or dairy or milk production is. Factory methods, basically, eliminate the concept that the beings being dealt with are alive like people are alive. It seems to me this is a basic point in this debate.

I contribute to PETA sometimes. I am not a vegetarian, but I do what I can to avoid the products of factory farming.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 5:35 PM

I contribute to PETA sometimes. I am not a vegetarian, but I do what I can to avoid the products of factory farming.

Don't contribute to PETA. Give to http://www.friendsofanimals.org/ instead.

Posted by: Keenacat | June 3, 2009 5:37 PM

@ strange gods:

I just wanted to let you know I'm going to bed now (it's surely bed-time where I live), so excuse me from going on about the health issue tonight.
I hope I got my point across without stepping on your feet, since I'm firmly positive that a vegetarian diet is absolutely healthy and suitable applied with appropriate care.
On the other hand I'm as sure about the effects of having a certain, in general healthier and more active, subset of a population choose this way of eating more regularly and therefore distorting the outcomes of epidemological studies.

Posted by: Rev. bigDumbCHimp | June 3, 2009 5:38 PM

I don't see what the ruckus is all about. PETA is an organization that fights for animal rights, and that's what they are doing in this case

In other cases they give money to terrorists and excuse their actions.

If you're going to be an "animal rights" person, I'm sure there are better, less hypocritical and less scummy groups to contribute to. I think strange gods provided a link to one above.

Posted by: quux | June 3, 2009 5:40 PM

One argument for being a vegetarian I haven't seen mentioned here is the most common I run in to in my daily life, which is cultural. Most of the people I work with are from India, and were raised without meat, and hence consider meat to be a foreign and "icky" food. Many of them have no ethical problems with the killing of animals for human use, but still would never actually eat meat.

Posted by: Terry Small | June 3, 2009 5:43 PM

Those of you making "plant-killer!" "arguments" are intellectually bankrupt.

As soon as one of you offers testable evidence that plants possess the neural capacity to experience pain or suffering the way we understand many members of kingdom Animalia to, then your gleeful attempts at a "gotcha!" moment are simply idiotic.

The people who choose vegetarianism for reasons other than animal suffering only curl their lips at you, and the people who choose vegetarianism because of animal suffering do the same.

Do the rest of us a favor and grow some rational thinking skills before you post again.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 3, 2009 5:45 PM

Factory methods, basically, eliminate the concept that the beings being dealt with are alive like people are alive.

Which of the following species beings qualify as being "alive like people are alive"?
orangutans; rats; pigs; chickens; starlings; iguanas; toads; salmon; sharks; octopuses; shrimp; lobsters; mushrooms; jellyfish; wheat; snails; carrots; spirulina?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 5:46 PM

ORLY? Checked the craigslist vegan message board lately? Maybe YOU aren't saying that, maybe nobody on THIS THREAD is saying that, but I've seen it said by plenty of times by AR people.

Then it still wasn't appropriate to categorize the animal rights position that way. I'm giving you another view right here, so you know there's more to it than the strawman.

Posted by: critter | June 3, 2009 5:47 PM

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/t/tom_paxton/dont_slay_that_potato.html

Posted by: Terry Small | June 3, 2009 5:48 PM

#345 ought to read, "Until... then..."

Carry on.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 5:51 PM

strange gods before me #336, but to go back to a point I obviously hadn't made previously, or at least not clear enough. The animal is only alive in the first place because it is a food animal destined to be killed for food at some point. As I said previously, each animal consumes resources and the farmer has to strike a balance between the cost of production and the price he can afford to charge. Admittedly, most 'ethical' farmers usually keep their animals considerably longer than factory farming methods which usually has the advantage that it is better quality, over and above that due to just the better conditions. However, this results in a considerably more expensive product that not all can afford. I'm lucky in that I can afford to be fussy about where my meat comes from and can afford the higher price.

Posted by: Funnyguts | June 3, 2009 5:56 PM

@quux: Culture and religion don't make good arguments for anything. Bible-God declared meat-eating to be acceptable (Genesis 8, I believe), so it's Hindu traditions vs Christian traditions. This gives nothing to make an actual moral decision one way or the other.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 5:59 PM

I'm still thinking about yak

just being honest.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 3, 2009 6:03 PM

OT:

Marriage bill passes both houses of the NH legislature today, and the Governor has signed it. (This is the watered-down one with the unnecessary special rights for religious bigots language.) Same-sex couples will be eligible to marry there next January.

wOO?! Half-clenched-tentacle salute?!

Posted by: Wolfhound | June 3, 2009 6:05 PM

Hey, Patricia, OM:

When I was in my teens, I had white Cochin bantams (once took a Champion of the Show on a pullet I bred), black D'Anvers, silver duckwing Old English Game Bantams, standard white Sultans, standard buff Cochins, and standard black Ameraucanas. I now have just standard Ameraucanas in buff, white, black, and blue. Just starting over in these and am raising my first batch of chicks to show next year. I'm pretty serious in the dog showing so that takes most of my time and energy but I've really missed the birds. I've had hatchery bred fancy breed pullets for years strictly for the pleasure of watching them do their chickeny thing on my property and give the eggs away to my clients, most of whom are below poverty level.

Posted by: estetik | June 3, 2009 6:07 PM

(This is the watered-down one with the unnecessary special rights for religious bigots language.) Same-sex couples will be eligible to marry there next January.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 6:09 PM

Chimpy, you have to be careful with that yak. It turned Gomez Addams into a sleep walking cat burglar.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 6:09 PM

Eep! I'm going to hug a yak today. ;)

hahahaha

Posted by: chgo_liz | June 3, 2009 6:11 PM

From Danielle @ #259:

A lot of everyones reactions to vegetarians is exactly why PETA sucks so freaking much. They're a bunch of self righteous pricks who think people who disagree with them can't and shouldn't think for themselves.

This.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 6:13 PM

I think humans should just eat our own young. [...] Besides, we are atheists, right?

What the hell are you talking about? Is this an attempt at humor, or have you been hitting the bong water early today?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | June 3, 2009 6:14 PM

Susan #354

However, many of the commenters here are spiteful, which is one of the most unpleasant of all human characteristics.

The problem most people have with vegetarians can be paraphrased from a line in Gilbert & Sullivan's The Gondoliers:

He became a vegetarian of the most bigoted and persecuting type.*

Being told that something one has done for years is immoral is one thing. Most people will at least consider the argument and weigh the evidence before making a decision. However, being told that one is immoral in shrill, strident tones is something else. That is what people are finding annoying about PETA.

*The line is actually "...that misguided monarch abandoned the creed of his forefathers, and became a Wesleyan Methodist of the most bigoted and persecuting type."

Posted by: Kel | June 3, 2009 6:15 PM

What else can you expect from the likes of PETA? Being opportunistic ghouls comes with the territory.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | June 3, 2009 6:19 PM

The Yak
By Hilaire Belloc

As a friend to the children commend me the Yak.
You will find it exactly the thing:
It will carry and fetch, you can ride on its back,
Or lead it about with a string.

The Tartar who dwells on the plains of Tibet
(A desolate region of snow)
Has for centuries made it a nursery pet.
And surely the Tartar should know!

Then tell your papa where the Yak can be got,
And if he is awfully rich
He will buy you the creature - or else he will not.
(I cannot be positive which.)

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 6:21 PM

strange gods before me: I don't accept your moral equivalence between animals and children. As I also said previously, it is purely an utilitarian matter for me, not a moral one. And yes, of course I am exploiting the animal as a food source. Otherwise, why else would I or anyone let it be bred in the first place. The only proviso is that while it lives I, or the farmer acting as my proxy, should treat it well.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 6:23 PM

@Carlie, LOL.

Posted by: Walton | June 3, 2009 6:27 PM

I can't envision any alternative to meat in my diet. As I weight-train regularly, I would find it very hard to put on muscle and build up enough energy without eating meat. I realise there are high-protein vegetable alternatives, but I don't like most of them (in fact, I don't enjoy fruit and veg in general). Given that I'm naturally skinny and weedy anyway, I need to concentrate on building more body mass and getting stronger. For that, I have to eat meat.

Plus, I find the ethical arguments unconvincing. Tbh, animals are not moral agents and don't have any particular "rights"; the purpose of a system of reciprocal rights and responsibilities is to establish rules which apply to everyone and maintain general peace and order. Since animals are incapable of understanding such rules, this consideration doesn't apply to them. While it's certainly wrong to abuse animals wantonly - simply because causing unnecessary suffering is a bad idea - I would say that animals have no "rights", and that we are fully entitled to override their interests where it is in our interest to do so. (Just as a woman is entitled to override the interests of a foetus. It's exactly the same type of ethical issue.)

Posted by: Walton | June 3, 2009 6:30 PM

(I acknowledge that my argument above is not fantastic. However, in my defence, having recently celebrated my 20th birthday, I'm slightly drunk. I'll explain myself better in the morning.)

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 6:32 PM

strange gods before me: I don't accept your moral equivalence between animals and children.

I'm not making one. To say that your argument would imply something about parents owning children is not to make a moral equivalence between children and animals. It's just a problem with the logic. It may be that the argument would not apply to similar relations among people, but then some reason must be given why it would not.

As I also said previously, it is purely an utilitarian matter for me, not a moral one.

Do you apply this consistently, treating humans to your utilitarianism as well?

The only proviso is that while it lives I, or the farmer acting as my proxy, should treat it well.

Until it's slaughtered, at which point it is not being treated well.

As I already said, you gave a good argument, which I am not sure I could argue against, for giving food animals a good life and then eating them when they die of natural causes, perhaps with humane euthanasia when disease or old age becomes a great burden.

Posted by: Sara Andrews | June 3, 2009 6:35 PM

Uh, long time reader, first time poster.

No one will probably read this way down here... but.. yeah. I also dislike PETA for their tactics, and some of their more extreme view points among other things - though I do generally agree with their general stance against cruelty to animals. I do believe diet should be a choice and not a law, and I also believe people should be able to make their own reproductive choices.

It's unfortunate that many animal welfare advocates are often lumped in with the tactics of PETA - because I don't think there's anything wrong with advocating for vegetarian or vegan diets - with tact and compassion towards all animals (including humans).

For disclosure, I am a vegetarian leaning vegan, but I also have cats and feed them meat. We draw our lines in different places.

Posted by: maureen Brian | June 3, 2009 6:36 PM

Happy Birthday, Walton!

Posted by: chgo_liz | June 3, 2009 6:40 PM

Walton is only 20 years old?

*facepalm*

Happy birthday to you, Walton!

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 6:41 PM

Walton:

I acknowledge that my argument above is not fantastic. However, in my defence, having recently celebrated my 20th birthday, I'm slightly drunk.

Quite cogent anyway, lad. Happy birthday, and just think: next year you'll even be able to order a drink in the States!

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 6:43 PM

Backwards. The animal clearly has an interest in living. There must be proposed an equivalent or greater interest to override that. Starvation clearly is such an interest. Taste, OTOH, does not appear to rise to the challenge.

You keep saying that. Could you please show your work? "The animal has an interest in avoiding pain" is something that could be shown for pretty much any animal in question. But an interest in living? Can you show where they are even shown to be self-aware? The vast majority of animals in question are not capable of passing the mirror test, for one. We do not have too much of an understanding of their introspective faculties. Unless you have access to a body of work I've yet encountered (not to say that is unlikely, but citations would be nice) I think it's a bit premature to say "the animal clearly has an interest in living". I wouldn't mention it, but you've made the assertion several times in this thread.

Posted by: Kagehi | June 3, 2009 6:43 PM

If something seriously catastrophic happened, having a population where 99% of the people can't stand the idea of eating an animal

This is another bizarre and irrelevant objection.

because if we all gave it up over night,

That's how. By magical thinking, a refusal to look at how complicated the situation really is.

Ok, first, want to bet some of them wouldn't starve first? Seriously, you may be right, but it undermines the whole argument that there is something ethically wrong with animal products. What, the ethics stop being an issue when you "can't make the choice"? Either it is, or it isn't. If it is, then PETA are right, and we should all just die. If it isn't, then the question is, "Where do the real ethics in the practice fall?"

As for my "magical thinking", sorry, but I am not talking about what *I* perceive as a solution. Logically, any such solution has to be taken a step at a time, safeguards arranged, and matters considered so as to "avoid" the consequences. Try telling that the either PETA's leadership, more Vegans, or all the various "meat is murder" types running around. They want it to end now, via legislation that just declares it "illegal", over night. Its stupid, idiotic, short sighted, and flat out not even rational.

As for the B12 issue, and the associated. Again, its not "my" magical thinking, you can and do get people that think:

1. Cars are bad, and trucks worse.
2. Cattle land should be allowed to revert to grass land.
3. People should move out of the horrible horrible cities.
4. Global markets are evil.
5. All vegan diets are the answer to all health issues.
6. There is no fundamental disconnect between 1,2,3,4 *and* 5, despite the fact that 1 and 4 prevent you **getting** the food, and 2 and 3 prevent you growing enough, since you can't move people out of cities, and simultaneously both revert land to wilderness, and "still" grow *more* food than you have already.

Talk about "magical thinking". They are full of it.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 6:44 PM

Alex Deam, fair enough. See my various replies to strange gods before me.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 6:46 PM

This allows the abuse of mentally ill or retarded people who cannot participate in a reciprocal system.

I think everybody with a position similar to Walton's will readily admit to being speciest (and many have already done so). Can you please stop flogging that dead horse?

Posted by: FlameDuck | June 3, 2009 6:47 PM

This is as flawed as the argument against gay people that we should wait for racial equality before seeking our own rights.

Nothing about the pursuit of equality for people requires you to hurt animals.

You create this false dichotomy in order to avoid the conversation.

You're the one crusading for animal liberation or animal rights, when the truth is even if we did give animals rights and liberty, they'd end up in jail, because they don't understand that murder and defecating in public is illegal. You can't have rights without having obligations, and if you don't have the ability to understand those rights and obligations, society is going to take away those rights, when you kill someone to survive.

From the assumption that animals deserve to be killed, we open up debate to the arguments that some class or race or caste of people are like animals and therefore also deserve to be killed.

The existence of living vegans demonstrates that this has already been done.

It wouldn't, of course, so all you're doing is bragging about what a big boy you are, who has no care for the suffering of the weak.

Since growing plants to eat is thermodynamically less wasteful than growing plants to feed to cows and then eating the cows, the answer is "as few as possible."

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 6:50 PM

I'm pretty sure some southern US men had a similar sort of argument about an even bigger issue about 150 years ago...

Let's not go there, if at all possible, Alex. One thing I have learned from having these conversations many times is that certain topics are triggers that produce more heat than light. Make comparisons to rape, slavery, the Holocaust, and then many people who -- very legitimately -- have powerful emotional reactions to those topics will start focusing on the trigger -- not wrongly -- and for the duration they will feel unable to learn more about whatever was originally supposed to be the topic of conversation.

Posted by: King of Typos | June 3, 2009 6:55 PM

apparently i didn;t proof very well

your = you're and I'm not even going to go through the rest

If there are typos, what did you expect from the king?

KoT

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 6:57 PM

@360:"Is this explanation intended to allow the exploitation of the animal? Then parents own their children even into adulthood, at least until the parents' deaths, because the children would not be alive without the parents' choice."

Now who's comparing farm animals to humans?

Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 6:59 PM

I would say that animals have no "rights"

Good thing humans aren't animals.

What do you think rights are?

Rights didn't just poof into existence ex nihilo. That popular language about "inalienable rights" existing doesn't mean what a lot of people seem to be implying it does. There isn't some magical, intrinsic force in existence that enumerates rights.

We, as introspective human beings, have over the years developed a system of rights and responsibilities. These are useful constructs. Law, a useful construct. Nothing more. We use them because it is in our interest to have a shared understanding of acceptable behavior. Enumerating and recognizing human rights is a very useful tool to this end.

Being that there is nothing intrinsic about rights, the burden is to show that there is utility to be gained by granting them to other species. Yes, I realize that you can draw parallels to treating other races as inferior in the past. But when you're saying that non-human animals have rights, you're just begging the question. What rights? Why? Where did they come from?

I think the neurological explanation is a good start. But just because something can feel pain does not mean it somehow has the "right" not to be hurt. Perhaps that is a logical conclusion to come to, that due to our sense of empathy we should reduce harm to all creatures capable of feeling harm. But it is not something that is accepted universally, so time would be better spent trying to develop a case for that line of reasoning and gaining consensus instead of just begging the question.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 7:03 PM

This is as flawed as the argument against gay people that we should wait for racial equality before seeking our own rights.

What? You're seriously arguing that homosexuals and domesticated animals are equal?

Some people are not worth responding to. The simple reason why you are not:

Using an analogy to point out that an argument is logically inconsistent does not mean the analogy used was also claiming moral equivalence. It only demonstrates the logical inconsistency.

But for the record, I am gay, and fairly well domesticated. I have been known to knock over the rubbish bin, though. I am free to a good home.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 7:04 PM

Rev. BigDumbChimp - If you simply must have your hairy ol' yak, the next time you visit your secret lair stop here:
http://www.schreinerfarms.com/yak.htm

I'll bring my camera. ;)

Posted by: SC, OM | June 3, 2009 7:08 PM

Walton,

I disagree with you, as always, but the happiest of birthdays to you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTU8Q0paSzk

:P

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 7:09 PM

@360:"Is this explanation intended to allow the exploitation of the animal? Then parents own their children even into adulthood, at least until the parents' deaths, because the children would not be alive without the parents' choice."

Now who's comparing farm animals to humans?

Jesus Christ on a dildo.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/opportunistic_ghouls.php#comment-1678821

Allah willing, I'm done replying to simplistic failures of logic now.

Rev BDC, I'm getting back to you real soon. Thread's been moving fast, and I may have missed other good, smart replies. If I'm overlooking anything, let me know.

Posted by: bonze | June 3, 2009 7:11 PM

Walton: Tbh, animals are not moral agents and don't have any particular "rights"; the purpose of a system of reciprocal rights and responsibilities is to establish rules which apply to everyone and maintain general peace and order.

strange gods before me: Fail, Walton. This allows the abuse of mentally ill or retarded people who cannot participate in a reciprocal system.

Mentally competent folks who cannot participate in a reciprocal system (along with many who simply offend conventional mores) wind up in prison.

Folks in these places may (or may not) have a better standard of living than an animal in a factory farm, but they enjoy damned little in the way of "rights".

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 7:14 PM

sgbm:

I can offer perfectly good reasons to give rights to mentally ill and retarded people. However, those reasons necessarily are not based in reciprocity.

Fair enough -- forget reciprocity.

Posted by: gingivitis | June 3, 2009 7:16 PM

"Oy, vey. If you can explain why an animal (the prey) would prefer to be killed by a non-human predator to a human predator, I'm all ears. I would think that people who are against killing animals are against it for the animal's sake that is being killed, not the killer."

This is #8765 on the Oldies list. The vast majority of animals consumed in the US come into existence solely to be killed. So that dichotomy ain't relevant.

Paul, in his latest post, really gets a key point.

Posted by: Stu | June 3, 2009 7:17 PM

By the way:

As humanists we must reduce the suffering of others, including other animals.

Why? Says who? You just made inclusion up.

http://tinyurl.com/q4no3s

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 7:22 PM

...fairly well domesticated.. free to a good home.

I'll be the judge of that, thank you. When you come home at three o'clock in the morning, howling drunk, do you only piss all over the draperies, or is the vegetable bin in the fridge more attractive?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 7:24 PM

Dammit, why can we not live in a world in which all the good people agree on everything, and only the bad people disagree?

BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD.

(I've always wanted an appropriate time to yell that.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | June 3, 2009 7:29 PM

Happy birthday, Walton. I dedicate my next game of Civ IV to you. I'll play the English with Churchill as the leader.

Posted by: Walton | June 3, 2009 7:37 PM

Happy birthday, Walton. I dedicate my next game of Civ IV to you. I'll play the English with Churchill as the leader.

Sound!

And thank you to everyone for the birthday wishes above.

Posted by: thinker | June 3, 2009 7:40 PM

Just what I would expect from these people. Very bad taste!

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 7:49 PM

Posted by: gingivitis | June 3, 2009 7:16 PM

"Oy, vey. If you can explain why an animal (the prey) would prefer to be killed by a non-human predator to a human predator, I'm all ears. I would think that people who are against killing animals are against it for the animal's sake that is being killed, not the killer."

This is #8765 on the Oldies list. The vast majority of animals consumed in the US come into existence solely to be killed. So that dichotomy ain't relevant.

Paul, in his latest post, really gets a key point.

So it's okay for me to eat venison? Good, deer's some good eats!

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 7:55 PM

@417 " Using an analogy to point out that an argument is logically inconsistent does not mean the analogy used was also claiming moral equivalence. It only demonstrates the logical inconsistency."

Well, it would help my feeble mind if you could give an example of that. If you weren't making a moral equivalent between humans' offspring and the livestock that some humans keep, what was the logical inconsistency? You basically said that since it's ok for people to own chickens, it stands to reason that people can own children, because both come into existence by choice of the farmer/parent.

Please elaborate..?

Posted by: Brendon Brewer | June 3, 2009 8:02 PM

I've been a vegetarian for two years, before that I was a keen meat eater. Rather than just getting angry because of what appears to be cognitive dissonance, I will simply state my opinions.

- Healthy and unhealthy vegetarian diets exist.
- Healthy and unhealthy omnivorous diets exist.
- It is possible to eat meat from sources that are relatively sustainable and do not cause much suffering to the animals.
- Most meat does not come from such sources.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 8:04 PM

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 7:31 PM

For all the vegans out there: Please explain to me where I'm supposed to get Vitamin B-12 from a plant. Chemical supplements don't count. When you can do that I'll consider that a vegan diet is somehow healthful.

Uh? Chemical supplements don't count? Then you can't take synthetic pharmaceuticals either.

We cannot biologically survive without animal products absent the industrialized synthesis of nutrients and food distribution networks. As someone else upthread said, there's no way native peoples in the arctic could be vegan and survive.

And when you live in a post-apocalyptic wasteland or the Arctic -- same thing as far as I'm concerned, brrrr -- then that'll be a good argument for not being vegan.

I expect that in the absence of civilization, and thus the absence of police, I may have to kill people in self defense fairly often. That doesn't mean that while I still live in civilization, I have any right to shoot folks who step on my lawn. Certainly not until the shambling nuclear zombies come.

I don't take chemicals to supplement my diet. Why in the world would I choose a lifestyle that was inherently unhealthy? If you choose a diet that requires artificial supplements that's your business, but I don't think it's a good idea.

What about not wanting to choose a lifestyle that, by its very nature, requires an artificial supplement means I shouldn't get pharmaceuticals? I choose to benefit from medical science. The science shows that nutrients from food are more efficiently absorbed by my body. That's why I choose to get my nutrients from food. Science also shows the benefits of antibiotics. I'm going to go with both.

BTW I don't take any vitamins. When my doctor found out she insisted on testing me for several common deficiencies and found that I was just fine. I eat a balanced diet of approx. 80% calories from plants and 20% from animals and animal products.

As far as post-apocalyptic life is concerned, do you really think it's sustainable to keep shipping foodstuffs around the world. We don't have a good substitute for diesel and oil won't be around forever (probably not the rest of my life). An omnivorous lifestyle focused on locally produced foods is far more sustainable than a vegan lifestyle which invariably requires transportation of perishable foods across long distances. I'm not saying we're looking at a post-apocalyptic situation, but one where our current behavior is not sustainable, nor is a vegan lifestyle. Assuming the continuation of our current industrial lifestyle is dangerous. All civilizations fail. Ours will too.

Posted by: Mike Olson | June 3, 2009 8:08 PM

RE: Bacon evolving.

Would it evolve into a republican or devolve into a republican? I'm not sure which would insult the pig more. :D

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 8:10 PM

@Strange gods -

"1 Human Life....
5 Ben Stein"

LOL:b

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 8:15 PM

You can't have rights without having obligations, and if you don't have the ability to understand those rights and obligations, society is going to take away those rights, when you kill someone to survive.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Rights only come with one obligation: don't break the law. Even then you don't get them all taken away.

If you kill someone to survive, society generally sees that as self-defense and doesn't take any rights away from you.

And it matters not whether you understand your rights. I suspect most people in the UK don't understand the Human Rights Act (having been fed bullshit about it by the MSM). Does that mean they should get less rights than a lawyer who does understand it?

The mentally ill or retarded who cannot participate in a reciprocal system wind up in secure hospitals.

Mentally competent folks who cannot participate in a reciprocal system (along with many who simply offend conventional mores) wind up in prison.

Folks in these places may (or may not) have a better standard of living than an animal in a factory farm, but they enjoy damned little in the way of "rights".

In my country (the UK), they still get quite a fair amount of rights. The European Convention on Human Rights lists the main rights we enjoy here, and the ones those incarcerated don't get are partly 4, the liberty part of 5, 8, and it could be argued the mentally ill don't get part of 9. I reckon they get all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

There's a reason anthropologists have never found an entirely vegan culture

But isn't that more to with our evolutionary impulses, rather than any any absolute need to eat meat?

You may be right that an entirely vegan society is impossible, but doesn't that ignore the idea that the even a 20% vegan society is better than a 10% one, if you agree with the arguments for veganism?

Let's not go there, if at all possible, Alex. One thing I have learned from having these conversations many times is that certain topics are triggers that produce more heat than light. Make comparisons to rape, slavery, the Holocaust, and then many people who -- very legitimately -- have powerful emotional reactions to those topics will start focusing on the trigger -- not wrongly -- and for the duration they will feel unable to learn more about whatever was originally supposed to be the topic of conversation.

Sorry about that, I was trying to make my point succinctly, and when that happens, it's usually analogy time. I hope that people understood what I meant, and didn't get offended.

Jesus Christ on a dildo.

You're taking the Lord's name in vain! ;D

The world ought to be simple. The good people all ought to support good things, and the bad people ought to support bad things. Why doesn't it work like that?

Awww, our ickle Walton is all grown up!

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 8:22 PM

Concerned Marsupial, you're probably partly talking about me, maybe not. I personally think that killing non-human animals in a swift and humane manner is not inherently wrong, and nobody's shown me any reason to think otherwise.

Factory farming, animal torture, oil spills, etc, bad. I just have a problem when people try to assert that if you think raising chickens to eat on a family farm means that you must also think it's ok for parents to "own" children, or "why not just eat the reatded/mentally ill"...I didn't take no fancy formal logic classes - just a simple arts person here - but those arguments seem a little kooky and extreme. That's all I'm saying. I advocate the middle way here. Not all animal interaction/use is completely benign, nor is it always bad. Grey area.

Posted by: Marc Abian | June 3, 2009 8:25 PM

Concerned Marsupial, you're probably partly talking about me, maybe not. I personally think that killing non-human animals in a swift and humane manner is not inherently wrong, and nobody's shown me any reason to think otherwise.

It's not your position so much as the logical fallacies you used in the thread, and you were by no means alone.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 8:35 PM

The mentally ill or retarded who cannot participate in a reciprocal system wind up in secure hospitals.

That's not true. Many who are unable to understand right and wrong are nevertheless allowed to be free in society because, if they are not inherently violent. It is not lack of understanding of reciprocity that gets them locked away, it's violence, regardless of understanding or not.

Mentally competent folks who cannot participate in a reciprocal system (along with many who simply offend conventional mores) wind up in prison.

Folks in these places may (or may not) have a better standard of living than an animal in a factory farm, but they enjoy damned little in the way of "rights".

Also wrong. There are many rights extended to these people, notably including the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Even mentally competent murderers who are assumed -- wrongly, I believe -- to have forfeited their right to live, are still accorded the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 8:40 PM

Patricia, no matter how drunk I've ever been, I've never peed anywhere but the toilet, the area immediately surrounding the toilet, or the yard.

Vomiting, though, I can't make any promises.

Posted by: whitebird | June 3, 2009 8:41 PM

Eh, Mark Abian, sorry if I'm not a philosophy major. I think that if you can't get ideas across with simplicity and resort to formal logic as a "gotcha!" tactic, maybe the ideas aren't so strong and the logician is just flexing their tech muscles. You know what I mean?

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 8:49 PM

The physics of the situation are irrelevant to the consumer. Meat is heavily subsidized whereas many vegetables are not. Therefor, in many instances the same nutritional content can be had by buying meat instead of vegetables at a significant savings.

For the consumer, physics isn't as important as economics.

And who do you think pays for those subsidies?

In a vegan/vegetarian world, meat would not be subsidized anyway.

And the consumer may see the physics as irrelevant to them, but it probably isn't, since eating meat damages the environment worse than veganism/vegetarianism, which in turn will effect the consumer's lifestyle.

As far as post-apocalyptic life is concerned, do you really think it's sustainable to keep shipping foodstuffs around the world. We don't have a good substitute for diesel and oil won't be around forever (probably not the rest of my life). An omnivorous lifestyle focused on locally produced foods is far more sustainable than a vegan lifestyle which invariably requires transportation of perishable foods across long distances. I'm not saying we're looking at a post-apocalyptic situation, but one where our current behavior is not sustainable, nor is a vegan lifestyle. Assuming the continuation of our current industrial lifestyle is dangerous. All civilizations fail. Ours will too.

As has already been pointed out on this thread (at least by me anyway) the energy required to transport veg around the world is less than that needed to grow locally produced meat.

Besides, why not do both? Grow local vegetables (at least as much as possible, whether total 100% veganism is possible or not is up for debate), rather than local meat.

And talking of sustainability, there are other reasons why veg is more sustainable than meat. SC and others listed a number of them. Off the top of my head, climate change is a good example.

strange gods before me, I don't know how you keep your sanity in the midst of this idiocy complete with logic of the larder, the naturalistic fallacy and the general atmosphere of incompetence and epic fail. Kudos to you.

This.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 8:55 PM

So I checked again, and it turns out my soymilk has 50% of the US RDA for B12 per 240mL.

No pills needed.

Unless you never drink fortified milk, your argument isn't.

The B-12 in milk is a chemical that's added to it. No, I don't drink fortified milk because I never drink milk. Don't like the stuff.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 8:57 PM

Prove to me that plants/fungi/algae can't suffer. Just because you are capable of conceiving the suffering of animals because we share similar neurological functions (in fact this isn't true of the entirety of Animalia) doesn't mean they don't suffer. It simply means we aren't capable of conceiving how they suffer. Yes, I'm saying you should prove a negative and I realize that's impossible. I'm just trying to argue from another perspective.

You are aware this is a biology blog, aren't you?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 9:01 PM

The B-12 in milk is a chemical that's added to it.

I'm aware of that, but lots of healthy omnivores do drink fortified milk and fortified orange juice, and eat fortified cereals. So it's facetious to say that veganism is not a healthy diet. It's comparable to ordinary omni diets.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 9:10 PM

strange gods before me

An omnivorous lifestyle focused on locally produced foods is far more sustainable than a vegan lifestyle which invariably requires transportation of perishable foods across long distances.

No, it doesn't. Not unless you're in the Arctic.

So, you can eat a vegan diet in South Dakota or the Texas panhandle based solely on locally produced foods (for the sake of argument anything w/in 200 miles) and remain perfectly health? You can't.

You can't use "it's unsustainable" as an argument against veganism now unless you are also going to stop doing all those other things right now which might be unsustainable later.

Well, I'd like to stop doing those things. There are a few problems I'd have to work out since I don't own enough land to be independent and I don't live somewhere that walking to work (or riding a horse) is feasible. I also don't have enough money to buy solar cells. It is my eventual goal to do these things though.

Alex Deam,

In a vegan/vegetarian world, meat would not be subsidized anyway.

I think you're assuming a whole host of political actions that are not intrinsically part of veganism/vegetarianism. There is nothing about not eating animal products that would preclude the massive agribusiness subsidies we already pay.

As has already been pointed out on this thread (at least by me anyway) the energy required to transport veg around the world is less than that needed to grow locally produced meat.

Besides, why not do both? Grow local vegetables (at least as much as possible, whether total 100% veganism is possible or not is up for debate), rather than local meat.

I believe you were already refuted on that one, so there ya go. Also, you're assuming the energy required to grow meat could be otherwise harnessed by humans. Do you have a method for turning grass into consumable protein that doesn't involve an animal intermediary or a massive input of industrial energy? As I and others have previously stated not all land that can be grazed can also be farmed. Ungulates are the most efficient way of getting consumable food from that land.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 9:12 PM

Alex,

Sorry about that, I was trying to make my point succinctly, and when that happens, it's usually analogy time. I hope that people understood what I meant, and didn't get offended.

Certain comparisons are especially problematic, because of past abuses of groups of people treated as animals. If you have to approach this in a roundabout way, see my post at 12:57 PM for an example of how to "go there without going there," if you see what I mean.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 9:18 PM

So, you can eat a vegan diet in South Dakota or the Texas panhandle based solely on locally produced foods (for the sake of argument anything w/in 200 miles) and remain perfectly health? You can't.

Are you telling me irrigation and water pipes have not yet been invented?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 9:20 PM

I'm actually more concerned about soy and corn than meat, because the massive monocrops of the agribusinesses are so ecologically destructive.

Most food animals are fed with monocrops...

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 9:22 PM

Alex Deam,

Of course I'm aware this is a biology blog. I'm a biologist. I'm not making an argument that plants/fungi/algae suffer. My point was that anyone throwing around the term specieist (sp?) is just being obnoxious and I was being obnoxious in return. If you want to be all "biological" about it, my offspring will be more fit if I consume animal products than if I'm a vegan (see #460). Therefore I'm going to consume the animal products and encourage my offspring to do so too. Ultimately it's all about getting my DNA into the next generation. Hmmm...I really ought to think about procreating...

Anyway, back to suffering: I think an important aspect of suffering is the ability to think about it beforehand. Thus, I'm not going to eat animals that have shown an ability to do that. All of the evidence I have shows that cows (for example) don't have the ability to contemplate their own deaths and that as long as the slaughter conditions don't prolong suffering, there's nothing wrong with it. Chimps do have the ability to contemplate their suffering so I won't eat them.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 3, 2009 9:28 PM

Let's Act Now:

Which do you think is more responsible for global warming:

a gas-guzzling SUV, or a hamburger? Surprise! It’s the burger!

Hard to believe? A United Nations report demonstrated that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars, trucks, SUVs, trains, planes and ships in the world combined. How much more? An impressive 40% more. A study done by two geophysicists at the University of Chicago said that just one person reducing his or her meat consumption by only 20% would be the equivalent of switching from a Camry to a Prius. Think about that! With simple changes to our everyday food choices, we can actually make as much a difference as the guy who just purchased a hybrid car - easily. We CAN make big differences.

Many of us already know that a plant-based or meatless diet is good for our health, and obviously, it is good for the animals. But there is much, much more. Not only is meat consumption a major source of land, soil, air and water degradation, and other environmental problems, it’s also a main cause of the current world food crisis, as nearly half of the world’s grain is used to feed livestock instead of humans.

All lives on earth are interconnected. Just imagine the power we have when we make our simple daily decisions. We can determine our own well-being and the well-being of others; we can choose to protect or threaten the welfare of animals; and most of all, we can choose to save or destroy the planet we all live on. We have come to the critical moment when we have to decide which direction we want to go. Time is running out. Be green, be really green -- go Veg! We CAN help save the planet, one meal at a time. Let’s act now!

http://www.letsactnow.org/

Posted by: Sniper | June 3, 2009 9:31 PM

The good people all ought to support good things, and the bad people ought to support bad things. Why doesn't it work like that?

This feeling gets worse as you grow older. Happy birthday, Walton!

Seriously, though, happy birthday. If it makes you feel better, I'm an omnivore married to a vegan, and we get along fine.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 9:32 PM

I think you're assuming a whole host of political actions that are not intrinsically part of veganism/vegetarianism. There is nothing about not eating animal products that would preclude the massive agribusiness subsidies we already pay.

I didn't say that there wouldn't be ANY subsidies in a vegan/vegetarian world, only that there would be no subsidies on meat, since meat wouldn't be being sold, and hence the argument that "meat is cheaper due to lots of subsidies" isn't relevant.

I believe you were already refuted on that one, so there ya go.

Er, can you show me where please?

I even had a source and everything!

Also, you're assuming the energy required to grow meat could be otherwise harnessed by humans. Do you have a method for turning grass into consumable protein that doesn't involve an animal intermediary or a massive input of industrial energy? As I and others have previously stated not all land that can be grazed can also be farmed. Ungulates are the most efficient way of getting consumable food from that land.

I agree, and that's why I said "at least as much as possible, whether total 100% veganism is possible or not is up for debate". Surely you realize that although 100% veganism may be impossible, it isn't impossible for human society to be more vegan/vegetarian than it already is?

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 3, 2009 9:38 PM

Rolling Stone (2006):

Smithfield's pigs live by the hundreds or thousands in warehouse-like barns, in rows of wall-to-wall pens. Sows are artificially inseminated and fed and delivered of their piglets in cages so small they cannot turn around. Forty fully grown 250-pound male hogs often occupy a pen the size of a tiny apartment. They trample each other to death. There is no sunlight, straw, fresh air or earth. The floors are slatted to allow excrement to fall into a catchment pit under the pens, but many things besides excrement can wind up in the pits: afterbirths, piglets accidentally crushed by their mothers, old batteries, broken bottles of insecticide, antibiotic syringes, stillborn pigs -- anything small enough to fit through the foot-wide pipes that drain the pits. The pipes remain closed until enough sewage accumulates in the pits to create good expulsion pressure; then the pipes are opened and everything bursts out into a large holding pond.

The temperature inside hog houses is often hotter than ninety degrees. The air, saturated almost to the point of precipitation with gases from shit and chemicals, can be lethal to the pigs. Enormous exhaust fans run twenty-four hours a day. The ventilation systems function like the ventilators of terminal patients: If they break down for any length of time, pigs start dying.

From Smithfield's point of view, the problem with this lifestyle is immunological. Taken together, the immobility, poisonous air and terror of confinement badly damage the pigs' immune systems. They become susceptible to infection, and in such dense quarters microbes or parasites or fungi, once established in one pig, will rush spritelike through the whole population. [Emphasis added.] Accordingly, factory pigs are infused with a huge range of antibiotics and vaccines, and are doused with insecticides. Without these compounds -- oxytetracycline, draxxin, ceftiofur, tiamulin -- diseases would likely kill them. Thus factory-farm pigs remain in a state of dying until they're slaughtered. When a pig nearly ready to be slaughtered grows ill, workers sometimes shoot it up with as many drugs as necessary to get it to the slaughterhouse under its own power. As long as the pig remains ambulatory, it can be legally killed and sold as meat.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/swine-flu-is-now-politically-incorrect.html

Vegetarians don't do this.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 9:41 PM

Strange Gods - I'll be damned, you are fairly domesticated! It's astounding that a male person of your refinement is free to a good home.

*eyes husband, wood chipper and rototiller*

Nope, won't work, the mother-in-law would notice.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 9:50 PM

Anyway, back to suffering: I think an important aspect of suffering is the ability to think about it beforehand.

Rats can not only understand their own suffering, they can understand their neighbor's suffering. Noted since Russel Church's experiments in the 1950s and 60s, if a rat presses a lever and sees that it administers a shock to a rat in a neighboring cage, the rat learns not to press the lever.

If rats and primates can do it, it's likely that many other animals can as well.

All of the evidence I have shows that cows (for example) don't have the ability to contemplate their own deaths

That's completely different from saying that they don't have an interest in continuing to live.

and that as long as the slaughter conditions don't prolong suffering, there's nothing wrong with it.

There are brain damaged people also unable to contemplate the future. Under this standard, it would be acceptable to kill them.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 9:52 PM

Walton said

The good people all ought to support good things, and the bad people ought to support bad things. Why doesn't it work like that?

Welcome to the real world and adulthood Walton, it's both a :-) and a :-( world. The secret is to look out for and relish the :-) moments and never take yourself too seriously. It gets easier with age, or maybe that's with senility. What was I saying... :-)

Oh, and happy birthday.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | June 3, 2009 9:56 PM

Well If you "believe" in evolution, all things being related...Then to some degree it is all Soylent Green.
Welcome to the future.

Bacon anyone?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 10:00 PM

CalGeorge @491,

That's exactly why I eat very little pork. I can't find a local source of pastured pork. Once in awhile I have bacon when I'm out, but that's rare. I do eat ham at X-mas every year though.

I know the neighbor I get my beef and chickens from. I see how the animals are kept and treated all the time. It's important to me.

Alex (can I call you Alex?),

I'm sorry I didn't address your cite on the relative energy for long distance veggie transport vs. locally grown meat. I just don't feel like looking back through 500 comments right now. Please forgive me :)

Posted by: Dave | June 3, 2009 10:06 PM

Im going to avoid the vegetarian debate. Frankly, most of this looks like a lot of people talking past each other, some being asshats about it, some just being accused of being asshats as others mis-read them.

Anyway, I just wanted to warn Rev.BDC: If you havent had it before, Yak has a very strong taste, not quite like any other meat Ive had. Personally, I found it took some getting used to. And if I havent mis-read you, that will not be a warning as much as added incentive.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 10:12 PM

Nope, plants don't try to stay alive at all and absolutely do not respond to harm done to them.

Please.

Single celled organisms also have internal defenses. These are the inevitable effects of gene-centric evolution. Such responses imply nothing about "trying" or "feeling" or for Christ's sake John, "talking." Coordinated chemical defenses among genetically similar plants is exactly what brainless gene-centric mechanisms should predict.

Show me where there's a nervous system, or any use for a brain in an organism that couldn't flee from a predator anyway, or any behavior that cannot be explained without resorting to a nervous system.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 10:17 PM

strange gods before me

Rats can not only understand their own suffering, they can understand their neighbor's suffering.

Hence we should minimize suffering in animals. Yes, we are agreed. However, can the rat sit around thinking about that suffering if it's not occurring right now?.

I care about how my food is treated while it's alive. In fact, one of the few times I agreed with anything George Will wrote was this. But I don't think humane slaughter is all that bad and I don't have a problem ending certain animals' lives for my plate. It just doesn't bother me. They exist to be food. It's their entire purpose and, from a biological perspective, has been very successful. Think of all the copies of cow DNA out there because they were domesticated and bred on such a large scale. How many large mammals have that level of global population? I'd say only other domesticated food sources (pigs, sheep).

All I'll say about humans who either never had or have lost the ability to contemplate the future is that they're human. It's really that simple for me and I don't have anything other than a specieist (again sp?) justification.

Sometimes what I really think is that it sucks that I happen to be a human omnivore/predator. Lions and bears don't have to contemplate whether their food suffers; they just eat it. Sounds so simple to me.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 10:21 PM

Mrs. Chimp isn't going to stand for this sort of excitement in her kitchen.

What do you mean by "her" kitchen?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 3, 2009 10:25 PM

sgbm

I've consumed a few adult beverages and so I'll wait until tomorrow to respond.

in the mean time I will continue with snark and what I consider funny posts until mrs bdc tells me that SIWOTI is not a good excuse for staying up.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 10:27 PM

strange gods before me,

I just realized the obvious problem with this argument and Pygmy Loris's. If these people cannot get enough varieties of produce to be healthy vegans from local sources, then they cannot get enough produce to be healthy omnivores either. Omnivores need varied fruits and vegetables to be healthy too. Except for those vegetables used as protein sources, omnivores need the exact same kinds of fruits and vegetables that vegans need.

Except that they don't. We have numerous examples of people (as in a cultural group) living animal product heavy diets for thousands of years (just one, Inuit peoples). There isn't a single vegan example. There's a reason for this. Think about it.

Animal products aren't just protein sources, they're mineral, fat, and vitamin sources too.

Posted by: Carlie | June 3, 2009 10:36 PM

I just want to say Happy Birthday to Walton.
*ducks and runs*

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 10:38 PM

Ah-oh!

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 3, 2009 10:47 PM

Except that they don't.

So you're saying that the USDA is lying when they say you need a variety of fruits and vegetables for good nutrition.

There isn't a single vegan example. There's a reason for this. Think about it.

The reason is one of ethics. Many atrocities only began to be ended in the 20th century.

You still have nothing to show that veganism should not be practiced today. Even assuming your argument that it will be unsustainable in the future -- which you have not at all demonstrated -- that has no bearing on it today.

Posted by: cyan | June 3, 2009 10:53 PM

The things that you have done since birth, due to emulating the people in the environment you grew up in: those are easy to continue to do.

Changing your thinking due to what you have learned since then: difficult.

Then actually changing your habituated actions as a result of those changes in thinking: incredibly difficult.

Requires great integrity.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | June 3, 2009 10:57 PM

Before I go out to watch the Pullet Patrol standing in their wading pool, listen for yak grunts, and consume adult beverages...

Happy Birthday Walton, you young whippersnapper! Next year you will be 21, just say the word and we can begin fund raising to send the Lady Chablis to Oxford to help you celebrate coming of age properly.
Good night sweethearts, good night.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 10:58 PM

strange gods before me,

Cow DNA doesn't have feelings or interests.

Actually, cow DNA is the sole reason the cow exists. The cow is merely a vessel for the reproduction of it's DNA. Check out The Selfish Gene.

How can you respond to that? It's no good to say "they're human." Human embryos are human and we kill them all the time.

We already did the abortion threads. Embryos aren't human, they're potential humans. The mentally ill are actual humans.

Anyway, for me it's enough that they're human. I think we, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure all humans have the right to life because it makes it more difficult to take away our right to life.

You can make an economic argument for eliminating less productive members of society (the mentally ill, mentally retarded, senile, etc.). I won't argue that you can't. I don't think economics are everything. Morality and ethics play a role.

My argument is that any policy of eliminating some group of humans puts all groups of humans at risk. All animals don't get the same consideration because they're not human and most species don't have the same cognitive capacities (or if you will, potential, in an ideal world, cognitive capacities) as humans. I will admit that it is difficult to judge the cognitive capacity of a particular non-human animal because they are intrinsically different. So what? I'm pretty sure that lobsters don't have the same cognitive capabilities as cows.

I guess, as far as humans (and primates in general) go, I subscribe to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Posted by: azqaz | June 3, 2009 11:01 PM

@512 strange gods before me

I am never, ever going to believe that anyone bringing this up is doing so honestly, unless the questioner is a child.

Well, I am not a child, and I am truly curious.

So, what does a brain have to do with it? Neurons somehow add value to a life? What is the value that they add? How many of them do you need before the use as food threshold is crossed? I see several people comment that animals can suffer, or that they are self aware, but of what value is this? Why should a human value this so much in other animals? Simply saying "It's obvious!", or "That is a stupid question." doesn't answer it. Why is a brain so valuable, or important to the value of a life? If it is important to not make other animals suffer where do we draw the line? Insects aren't cute (USUALLY), but they do have a brain. Can they be killed? Should we give up our resources so deer don't starve in the winter?

I'm sure you will say that this is ridiculous since you hold an opinion that you feel should be obvious to everyone else, but it is asked in all seriousness. Can you answer in non circular non teleological ways?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 11:04 PM

strange gods before me,

The reason is one of ethics.

No, it's one of biology. As I noted long ago, without industrial synthesis you can't get vitamin B-12 from plants. B-12 is necessary for humans. Without it we're not successful. Also, until recently the best (for most groups only) sources for omega-3s were animals. Biology.

Posted by: Alex Deam | June 3, 2009 11:09 PM

Some quick hits before sleep (its nearly 4am here. Excuse = student):

Are you talking about more people being vegan with the rest continuing the American meat-heavy diet? Or across the board reductions in meat consumption?

Either. I don't think it really matters which one?

Alex (can I call you Alex?)

Sure thing. It's what pretty much everyone else calls me. :^)

I'm sorry I didn't address your cite on the relative energy for long distance veggie transport vs. locally grown meat. I just don't feel like looking back through 500 comments right now. Please forgive me :)

No worries, that's fine. I just thought I'd missed something.

One of the reasons I come here is that I tend to pick up things I didn't know before. So if I make some comment saying X, then I'm always open to hearing not X, or even Y, if people have a good argument for it.

Show me where there's a nervous system, or any use for a brain in an organism that couldn't flee from a predator anyway, or any behavior that cannot be explained without resorting to a nervous system.

Strange gods, it should also be noted that even if plants did have a nervous system, it wouldn't matter, since humans have to eat something to stay alive (the "self-defense" defense), so even if plants had a nervous system "less" than animals, then it still wouldn't follow that eating animals is no worse than eating plants.

More replies later today. Now for sleep.

Posted by: cyan | June 3, 2009 11:11 PM

Integrity:

meaning integrating:
- what one assumed was right due to what everyone around them was doing

with

- new knowledge

Is that way of using the term "integrity" equivalent to "self-righteous"?

Posted by: Jafafa Hots | June 3, 2009 11:13 PM

Killing plants is even worse.
They can't run.

Plants are sitting ducks.

Posted by: Steve L | June 3, 2009 11:18 PM

I'm a fisheries biologist who wishes he could totally eliminate animals from his diet. I've cut down on them and eat mostly wild animals instead of farmed. I hope most people can cut down a bit. I hope most people can try to support animal welfare, too. And I hope the fishing industry can change before it's too late. This movie may be of interest to folks here. I wish I could see it, but it's not being screened near me:
http://endoftheline.com/things_to_do/video

Posted by: MadScientist | June 3, 2009 11:25 PM

No one's taking away my bacon. Lettuce just doesn't taste right without bacon on it.

PETA's an organization of violent unintelligent beasts who want to force their delusions on the rest of the world. They have terrorized politicians with some degree of success, but they will always be a fringe loony group without any support from the vast majority of the population.

Posted by: cyan | June 3, 2009 11:44 PM

Also, RDBC,

If you are assuming that someone who integrates new knowledge with previous environmental knowledge and then actually personally acts on that integration is "self-righteous" - then aren't all of us thinking persons self-righteous?

On this issue: I do not have integrity, as I eat other animals, even though I thoroughly understand their almost identical biology. Up to now, and probably in the future, its selfish decisions that I'm making in regards to this issue; I think that selfish decisions are different from self-righteousness. Self-righteousness declares that, because I do it, everyone should. Selfish declares that I am doing it because its what I want to do, whatever my reasons.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 3, 2009 11:46 PM

strange gods before me,

You can't clone me, so that's irrelevant. But a clone isn't me (part of my person is my memories) it's wrong to kill a person. I'm not going to argue that. Read COTUS if you want.

Cows as a species (and their DNA) have been extremely successful because they provide humans with food. The reason they exist is because they have been successful in providing humans with food. Their wild cousins weren't successful and are now extinct. That was my argument. I'm going to eat them because it is in their long-term (multi-generational) interest.

Allow me to clarify. Embryos are potential persons. The mentally ill are actual persons. I really couldn't care less what the eliminationist thinks.

From a "big picture" perspective, any group that thinks the genocide of another group is acceptable creates an atmosphere where genocide is acceptable. This in turn creates the possibility that the targets of genocide will expand for any number of reasons. There is a chance that I will be in one of the groups targeted for genocide. Therefore, I should strive to prevent genocide in the first place.

Why is "do unto others..." about reciprocity. It creates an environment where I am less likely to suffer harm. Self-interest. BTW Reciprocity is an essential part of human cultures. Most cultures punish those who are capable, but fail, to be reciprocal in exchanges.

Not only that, they very recently ran the USA and things were demonstrably good for white folks;

My ethic, that all organisms with an interest in living have a right to not be unnecessarily killed,

I can make several different yet parallel arguments. Your problem with that baffles me.

I'm arguing within the framework of Western ethics/morality. If you won't allow this line of argument, I don't care.

Posted by: cyan | June 3, 2009 11:51 PM

RDBC should have been RBDC

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 3, 2009 11:54 PM

strange gods before me: I am rather disappointed, I thought you above quote mining or twisitng my words. Reread what I wrote and please show me where I said I conferred no value on them.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 12:03 AM

Mike,

Thanks for that! I love The Restaurant at the End of the Universe! :) If only I had a cow that would tell me to eat its deliciousnes.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 12:08 AM

Jafafa Hots,

I'm sorry you cannot achieve the vegetarian lifestyle you desire. Clearly I don't believe eating meat makes you immoral and I failed to realize Alex compared you to a slaveholder. That was absolutely reprehensible. Be assured that my vegetarian friends do not feel that way and I would wager most of the vegetarians here wouldn't argue that your situation is anything akin to slave holding. If they do feel that way give them the old "fuck you."

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 12:15 AM

Pygmy Loris, rereading my last comment, I am starting to get snappish toward you and you don't deserve that. I apologize.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 4, 2009 12:21 AM

Strange god: Meat animals are fed by big agribusiness' monocrops? Well, maybe yours are, but did you even read my post? What big agribusiness raises saltbush, high Himalayan pastureland, kangaroos, or my local farmers' free range pigs and cattle?

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 4, 2009 12:25 AM

strange gods before me:

As I said in an earlier post, when they are killed, i.e. how long they live, is to me an utilitarian issue decided by economic and quality reasons.

If I did actually place no value at all on them why would I have said "the only proviso being, that while they live, they should be treated well".

I am too tired to parse ever sentence I write for possible gotchas against myself so I am off to bed. Have fun.

Posted by: azqaz | June 4, 2009 12:26 AM

@strange gods

Then why is it okay to kill plants. Certainly they have "an interest" in not being unnecessarily killed.

Certainly they do not. They do not have brains, and so cannot be interested in anything. You are now effectively saying that a rock has an interest in being a rock.

Well, plants don't have brains, but plants will do things to maximize their survival, like grow towards the light if you move them to a darkened area. You make a brain sound like some magical talisman, or soul, or god. Of some mystic and intrinsic value because YOU want it to be, but can't rationally explain why. Like the dickheads that can't understand why I don't believe in their god simply because they do, and it's OBVIOUS to them that they are right. Once again, why is a brain so valuable to an entity in terms of its edibility? Why does it turn something from "food" to "not food" simply to have a brain?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 12:28 AM

strange gods before me,

I just refreshed the page after posting my comment so I didn't see your apology until after I hit post. Please disregard my name calling.

Pygmy

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 12:36 AM

I just refreshed the page after posting my comment so I didn't see your apology until after I hit post. Please disregard my name calling.

It was warranted. I'm glad you accept my apology though.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 12:37 AM

Strange god: Meat animals are fed by big agribusiness' monocrops? Well, maybe yours are, but did you even read my post? What big agribusiness raises saltbush, high Himalayan pastureland, kangaroos, or my local farmers' free range pigs and cattle?

Again, the argument is only that if you can survive without eating meat, you should. If you can't, then don't worry about it. It's that simple.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 12:45 AM

Why oh why did I say article 14 when I meant Ammendment 14, i.e. equal protection...because I'm very tired. That's the excuse I'm going with.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 4, 2009 12:51 AM

Veggies get wedgies 'cause meat can't be beat.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | June 4, 2009 12:57 AM

Last comment and then I definitely have to go. Because while they actually live they should have a decent quality of life. To ensure that, for however long it is, I am prepared to pay a premium.

Finally, Good night until another time perhaps :)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 1:03 AM

Jadehawk,

But that's vegetarian, not vegan. It's also not enough calories in a day for me. Of course food eats up most of my budget after rent and utilities which is fine with me. I'd rather eat well than dress well.

Quick question, is a box of ramen like one of the plastic packages with just noodles or the little cups with dried veggies?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 1:09 AM

Good night all.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 4, 2009 1:13 AM

Funny, you say this is about biology, literally the study of life, yet when somebody posts about plants and their reaction to stimuli it is no longer biology?

correct.

it's botany, a subset of biology.

:P

actually, most of the stuff on "plant reactions" was just poorly done nonsense.

Or did you have something specific in mind?

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:18 AM

So trees do not react to harmful (hurtful) stimuli? Is that what you're saying?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 1:21 AM

I'm going to go with article 14. (no I didn't use the internet, I've argued with my anti-choice relatives enough to know which article it is, though I cannot quote the passage).

Why oh why did I say article 14 when I meant Ammendment 14, i.e. equal protection...because I'm very tired. That's the excuse I'm going with.

Ha, actually I didn't notice that until you brought it up. I was going to congratulate you anyway.

Against genocide only because you might potentially be a victim?

I was merely trying for consistency.

I see, but I don't think it gets us where we want to go. To be honest, those of us in Western nations with strong defense forces and strong Constitutional guarantees of equality (however shamefully recent they became effective) still have less to fear from any threat of genocide than do people in war-torn areas, Bosnia, the outskirts of China, east Africa.

So we actually have less of an interest in preventing genocide than those people at greater risk do.

Ideally we would want a morally appeal that "afflicts the comfortable and comforts the afflicted."

No, I wasn't actually alive yet, I was speaking as a child of those who grew up in the lower class of the South. And lynch mobs were hardly common everywhere. Particularly uncommon in my parents' native areas.

Well, I only have state by state data, not counties. So I don't know where that might be.

Besides that, black Americans have on average always been paid less than whites for the same labor. This remains a net benefit to whites of all classes, even though poor whites don't benefit as much as the more wealthy.

A rock isn't an organism

That's a relevant objection to what I said. Now, DNA isn't an organism either though, and rocks and DNA are both inanimate.

So here's my second shot at a response. In what way can a plant have an interest in not being killed? It doesn't want anything. It doesn't know anything. Its DNA propagates, but if we call that an interest then we also have to assign interests to human DNA, and then contraception becomes morally questionable because there are potential people who are not being born.

The argument that you're helping cows' DNA by eating cows means we ought to help human DNA by not using condoms or taking birth control pills.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 4, 2009 1:27 AM

Fast-food allows a person to live on about $4-5 a day (sure, not very healthily, but there's fat, there's protein, there's carbs). Please demonstrate how to do the same on a vegan diet. Remember, your contention was that meat is more expensive.

Government subsidies make the crap that goes into junk food artificially cheap.

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:31 AM

Strange gods, I told you how trees have an interest and a reaction to not being killed. Isn't going into shock and attempting to heal analogous to animal life's attempt at survival?

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:33 AM

"Don't mistake reaction to damage for pain." You may do well to follow that advice. After all, isn't reaction to damage pain?

Posted by: Veovis | June 4, 2009 1:38 AM

"Ghouls" are those who insist on allowing the continued suffering of other sentient life for the mere sake of satisfying their taste buds, but certainly not those who try to prevent it, regardless of their _nonviolent_ methods.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 4, 2009 1:40 AM

After all, isn't reaction to damage pain?

fuck, are you dense?

NO.

pain can only be assessed with a nervous system.

there are many ways to react to damage that don't involve a nervous system, just like there are ways for a plant to move that don't involve nerves and muscles.

ever looked at a venus flytrap?

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:43 AM

So you're saying that if it doesn't do it as you do, it doesn't really mean anything? There is more than one way of going about life and saying that yours is superior is nothing more than egotism.

Posted by: azqaz | June 4, 2009 1:50 AM

@calgeorge 583

No, you have it backwards. I have friends, acquaintances, and others that have farms. The dairy and grain farmers get subsidies, but the only straight "meat" farmer I know, who raises pigs exclusively, doesn't get shit in subsidies. Maybe they are shitting me, but my second cousins in southern Missouri get paid to leave part of their croplands fallow, but the pig farmer in Southern Illinois I know gets no more than what he can sell hogs for on the futures market, unless he is really brave to try for spot prices.

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:51 AM

Look, you small minded idiots, you say that animals are sentient because they feel pain. Feeling and responding to pain is reacting to external stimuli. Both plants and animals do the same in very similar ways. It's a very simple concept, are you too stupid to get it?

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 1:55 AM

Or should that be "English Gardener" role?

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 2:04 AM

Oh, don't stop, you people can be so funny with your getting up in arms bullshit. Nobody is easier to belittle than a true believer. Keep that in mind,

BTW, I'm sure no one here knows the first fucking thing about plants other than they need light and water.

Fuck, I happen to like this blog...that is until I read the comments, ugh.

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 2:09 AM

I can't help myself...you're a higher organism, why? How? Oh fuck, here comes the sentience argument again...is it because a plant doesn't recognize itself in the mirror? LOL

Posted by: PCB | June 4, 2009 2:25 AM

Oh, don't be so boring. I tend to agree with you. I like steaks so rare they're twitching and you can't keep me away from poultry. Why so serious? (to borrow a phrase from last summers' hit movie)

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 4, 2009 2:49 AM

BTW, I'm sure no one here knows the first fucking thing about plants other than they need light and water.

Fuck, I happen to like this blog...that is until I read the comments, ugh.

dude, take your meds, seriously.

Posted by: jellay | June 4, 2009 4:00 AM

Kudos to strange gods before me for tireless argument!

On the too-often-brought-up PLANTS and their suffering:

1. Without sufficient cause their destruction is also undesirable. Stomping out a flower for fun is a malicious act with questionable motives. A concrete reason for this is the 2nd law of thermodynamics - the Earth (as well as the universe as we understand it) has a limited amount of energy, order, or negative entropy. This is a reason not to subject any object to chaos, forever losing a bit of order.

2. Non-animals are unable to suffer. They are simpler machines and lack that function. Registering damage isn't pain - the experience of a downed tree is comparable to a surgery patient under an anesthetic - both process the damage, and neither feels pain.

3. Regardless, we cannot survive without using plants for food! So we will continue eating them (at least until we magically get manna, ambrosia, or their equivalents). If we couldn't survive without eating meat, no one would be making the argument to stop eating it. But we can very easily do so.

@Stu #431
By the way:
As humanists we must reduce the suffering of others, including other animals.
Why? Says who? You just made inclusion up.

According to the IHEU, besides being for naturalism/materialism/rationalism, Humanism "stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities".

Our human society overlaps with, depends on, and encroaches on many ecosystems that include animals. There is (close-to) universal agreement that some treatment of animals is humane and some is inhumane, based on the animal ability to suffer. Making society "more humane" thus means improving the way animals are treated, at least within human society.

Ergo, when animal suffering is reduced, Humanism is advanced.

Posted by: Biologeek | June 4, 2009 5:54 AM

I can't believe I waded through this whole thread O_O.

First off: PETA are a bunch of sexist, attention-whoring pricks whose tactics are more often than not silly, stupid and utterly tasteless.

On to the meat of this comment...
I'm not goint to argue against the environmental reasons for going vegetarian, because honestly, there is no arguing against those. The health arguements aren't so water-tight, because it's entirely possible to live healthy on an omnivorous diet. As for the ethical reasons, well, not going to go into it. Ethics and moral philosophy are tricky business. Also, everybody tends to assume that their moral philosophy is the best and most enlightened ever. Myself included.

What I am going to say, though, is: dear Alex and everybody else who says that it's so damn easy to go vegetarian/vegan, and everybody who doesn't is just a lazy, evil monster... fuck you and your priviledge. Because that's what it is, a priviledge.
Believe it or not, not everybody is healthy and affluent enough to be able to spend the time, energy and money that it takes to completely overhaul their diets. For some of us, it's a struggle to even get out of bed and eat anything at all (not, that's not called being lazy, that's called severe clinical depression).
For others, the day's chores of making money for and feeding/taking care of their families leaves just enough time to hit the store and grab the first frozen meal off the shelf, ethics be damned.

Yeah, I know that there's people who still manage to do thoughtful shopping even then, but we're not all superman. Some of us have their hands full with just surviving, and if you can't spare a bit of empathy for them but rather continue being fucking assholes because it makes you feel oh so high and mighty, you have no reason to be sitting on that moral high horse of yours.

Posted by: Walton | June 4, 2009 6:20 AM

but I've had times in my life where there wasn't this choice, and $2-$4 was all I had to live on; and for the purpose of this discussion, that's the circumstances I was assuming (i.e. living with food insecurity)

Jadehawk, I'm horrified - I really am - that you've had to live like that.

It makes me realise how lucky and privileged I am that I live in economically secure circumstances, and have never had to worry about being able to afford good food.

And I feel guilty for constantly complaining about my life, when you've suffered a lot more than I ever have. I apologise if I've been annoying. I have a tendency to be very self-absorbed, but this is not intentional; please don't get the impression that I'm unconcerned with the wellbeing of others.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 4, 2009 6:26 AM

Just a quick comment on a few things I've seen claimed in this thread that seemed odd to me.

An awful lot of people on both sides are arguing about "animals" when they clearly mean "moderately large mammals". Leaving aside the issue of mice getting sliced up in combine harvesters, I was under the impression that insects are animals and that no large-scale or even small-scale agriculture can proceed without pest control, specifically the elimination of a vast horde of insects, slugs and snails which otherwise will chow down on your crops. At the moment we're growing some beans, tomatoes etc. in the back garden, and it's impossible without taking steps to suppress aphids, blackfly, whitefly, slugs and snails.

Those of you taking the line that eating plants is fine and eating animals isn't because of the _nervous system_ have clearly not considered this. Insects and molluscs have nervous systems! Ganglia! They respond actively to pain and damage. And all of the plants that we depend on for food would not grow if we didn't systematically eliminate a tremendous amount of _animal_ life in order to protect _plants_. It doesn't matter if you're a vegan, a vegetarian or an omnivore, your food comes to you through the death of animals.

So our vegetarian cohorts, peace be upon your bean-filled houses, need to acknowledge that you haven't achieved any hard and fast line regarding killing animals for food. You have simply set a _relative_ line whereby you favour the deaths of _these_animals (the loathsome crunchy hexapods) but not _those_ animals (the warm and furry). There is clearly some finite level of brain required before you feel empathy for animals and want to save them, and I don't think you get to yell at other people whose empathy line is set at a different level from yours. I wouldn't eat chimp but I happily eat ruminants. And yes, I have on occasion actually _met_ the sheep twenty minutes before it became shashlik. Everybody hear who isn't actually advocating farming humans for food is somewhere on the same sliding scale, not on opposite sides of some utter moral divide.

On another point, there's a strong-US centrism in the argument that meat animals are being fed on grains with the attendant thermodynamic inefficiencies. There's a lot of pasture in the world. You can't grow sustainably grow very much except grass in a lot of places- the mountains of Kyrgyzstan, say- and unless you can actually eat grass, the only way you're getting food value from it is by feeding it to animals. Chickens and hogs will eat stuff that we can't and transform it into tasty, tasty meat. That's why we domesticated the damn things.

Finally, I've seen several repetitions of a claim that if we think it's bad to torture animals for no reason then we are somehow conferring rights on the animals and that this makes using them for food somehow inconsistent or unethical. I had rather thought that our disapproval of torturing animls for fun was a restriction we were placing on ourselves, not anything to do with rights for the animals, much as the placement of a "no walking on the grass" sign does not actually give the grass the right not to be walked on. So, better arguments there, please.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | June 4, 2009 7:23 AM

I think a cladistic perspective on food “isms” might be interesting — it seems to me that we each implicitly pick a common ancestor and only consider things outside that clade as candidate food. Vegetarians appear to be (mostly) “chordatists”, the “fish-eaters” appear to be “mammalists”, and it seems that I'm merely a “primatist”.

I'm surprised something like this hasn't been mentioned already.

In this interpretation, it seems that the snobbery of, say, strict vegans who look down on fish-eaters, can be cast in terms of picking a common ancestor as far down the tree as possible, excluding as large a clade as possible from “food”, which leads me to Emmet's Umpteenth Speculation — that the tree of life is isomorphic to the “food morality” hierarchy ;o)

Posted by: dab | June 4, 2009 7:34 AM

"What I am going to say, though, is: dear Alex and everybody else who says that it's so damn easy to go vegetarian/vegan, and everybody who doesn't is just a lazy, evil monster... fuck you and your priviledge. Because that's what it is, a priviledge.
Believe it or not, not everybody is healthy and affluent enough to be able to spend the time, energy and money that it takes to completely overhaul their diets. For some of us, it's a struggle to even get out of bed and eat anything at all (not, that's not called being lazy, that's called severe clinical depression).
For others, the day's chores of making money for and feeding/taking care of their families leaves just enough time to hit the store and grab the first frozen meal off the shelf, ethics be damned."

Ah, the good old "Vegetarians are classist!" argument. Tell that to the indigenous peoples whose forest will soon be felled to create pasture. Also, calm down. Anyway…

Perhaps if cruelly reared and gratuitously processed meat-based foods weren't so heavily subsidised and pushed on everyone, their price would reflect their ecological cost--and as we all know, price tends to get even the most apathetic people thinking. But the large powers in the meat/agribusiness industry can't let that happen, of course.

Artificially low prices aside, it's not difficult to eat vegetarian. Especially when so many people, particularly those on a shoestring whom you refer to, just grab ready-made stuff off the shelf. There are cheap, ready-made vegetarian meals available, and a tin of beans or a salad never hurt anyone. Vitamin/protein deficiencies are incredibly simple to avoid.

Posted by: Kendo | June 4, 2009 7:59 AM

Vegetables!? Feh! That's what food eats. If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 8:02 AM

or, relatively safe places to sleep

Posted by: Adde | June 4, 2009 8:24 AM

My atheism, or my philosophical materialism, was the main reason for me to go vegan. When I thought about it, I did not see any reason why humans would be the top of the evolutionary tree. To me, the thought of humans being far more superior than other animals, and that it is worth to sacrifice thousands of animals for one human, is kind of religious, or at least supersticious.

However, I do not agree with PETA:s methods. This particular event did not bother me that much, however, their sexism is absolutely outrageous. Fortunately, the animal rights organisations in Sweden, where I live (forgive my English, by the way, since I am only nineteen and writing this in a rush) tend to be more mature in their struggle.

Then again, I would say that some of the commentators here are the PETA of meateaters. Citing extremely old jokes and proclaiming that they will eat two animals for every animal that we eat, and so on. I think you would be far better off if you tried to convince us vegans with real arguments. Indeed, it would be very nice to read a post by PZ about why he is not a vegetarian. :) Great blog, anyway.

Posted by: Biologeek | June 4, 2009 8:51 AM

africangenesis,

meh, that's hardly an arguement. Meat has to be cooked, too.

dab,

reading comprehension. I said that the environmental reasons for going veggie, which include deforestation, can't be countered. That's just plain fact.
All I'm asking for is that people spare a bit of their empathy not only for cow and chicken but also for those people who simply can't manage to go veg, even if they want to. And comments of the "carnivores/omnivores are just like mass murderers/slave owners" are asshattish, plain and simple.

Posted by: Biologeek | June 4, 2009 8:56 AM

*And comments of the "carnivores/omnivores are just like mass murderers/slave owners" variant are asshattish

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 4, 2009 9:11 AM

Vegetables!? Feh! That's what food eats. If God didn't want us to eat animals, He wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Jim Motavalli:

Going by the numbers, eating meat is pretty hard to justify for the even moderately health-conscious. A National Cancer Institute report released last March found that people who ate the most red meat were, as the New York Times put it, "most likely to die from cancer, heart disease and other causes." The biggest abstainers "were least likely to die." Those who eat five ounces of meat daily, (the equivalent of one and a half Quarter Pounders or Big Macs) increase their risk from cancer or heart disease by 30 percent compared to those who eat two-thirds of an ounce daily -- a stark difference.

http://experts.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/03/meat_the_slavery_of_our_time

Enjoy your killer lifestyle choice.

Posted by: John B. Hodges | June 4, 2009 9:14 AM

On all this ethical debate, I invite folks to read my own humble opinions on the subject.

http://civic.bev.net/atheistsnrv/articles/definition.html

IMHO Rights come from peace treaties; there are reasons for expanding the treaty to include all persons; there are reasons to grant some rights to former persons and to "adopted honorary persons"; there are reasons to mandate some minimum standard of compassionate behavior toward living nonpersons. Personhood, however, is the primary boundary of who/what is entitled to ethical consideration and who/what is not. Sentience by itself does not entitle a being to ethical consideration.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 9:19 AM

meat does not have to be cooked, and for those that do cook it as a matter of preference or sanitation

That is, practically everyone who eats it. There really is absolutely no doubt that a diet with a large meat component requires far more energy than one without. That's why there are fewer carnivores than herbivores in every ecosystem.
Really, the lengths you will go to in attempting to support an idiotic position never cease to amaze.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 9:34 AM

Calgeorge,

The correlation of risk with meat is not causation. Meat is correlated with high calorie diets as well, and many studies don't control for calories. Too many calories is mainly a concern of the western industrial nations. There is some risk to red meat associated with the oxidative stress from the high iron content, but that is easily balanced by drinking tea which reduces the absorption of iron. In fact in some cultures where tea drinking is high, iron deficiency anemia is a problem instead.

Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space | June 4, 2009 9:42 AM

Rev., The opportunity to sample Yak is only one of the many benefits of a trek in the Nepali high country. Yak, or rather Nak (=female Yak) cheese is quite good as well. The scenery as among the most amazing I've ever seen. The moonlight shining down on the snow-covered Himalayan peaks is a sight I still see in my dreams. Then again, I emerged with bacillic dysentery, two trashed knees and bronchitis. Still worth it.

Yak meat does taste very similar to beef or bison. If you find yourself in Africa, I recommend the bush rat--quite tasty--and guinea fowl.

My wife and I describe ourselves as non-obligate vegetarians. We mostly eat vegetarian (and quite well) at home. A couple of years ago, we had her nephew--a vegan--staying with us. He won't even eat honey. We got pretty good at vegan cooking, even developing a recipe for vegan pesto that was to die for. Outside the house, we'll eat whatever is put in front of us--a habit born of many years on the road.
I don't think there really is a "moral" way to nourish onesself, especially when food comes from massive agribusinesses. Ever think about all the critters that die in farm machinery during harvest. Even gardening ourselves, we are killing earthworms and other insects no matter how careful we are. I don't know how Jains, with their vows of ahimsa do it (other than self delusion). To live is to kill. To die is to kill.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 9:44 AM

Knockgoats,

" There really is absolutely no doubt that a diet with a large meat component requires far more energy than one without."

But does that energetic advantage hold for beans which are indigestable unless cooked for hours? The answer isn't obvious at least, so the calculations would probably have to be done. I can cook a steak in less than 6 minutes from a cold start on a Foreman grill.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 9:47 AM

strange gods, are you actually claiming to feel empathy for the insects that die that your crops might live? Really?

Yes. I feel empathy for the insects I capture under a glass and transport outside. So I don't do that during the winter.

It's a good idea to err on the side of caution.

Re the rights issue, you're once again assuming that our saying it's wrong to torture a cat has something to do with the cat's rights or interests. Why? I think the restriction's there because we find the torture of cats unpleasant, not because the cat does. Do you see the distinction?

Following that, we only have laws against torturing infants because we find the idea unpleasant, not because the infant has any right not to be tortured; they can't speak up for their rights either.

Unless you actually do hold that that's the only reason for having a law against torturing infants, you have no basis on which to say that the laws against torturing cats are somehow different, and only there for our pleasure.

Flameduck was right in his post as you did specify "flee" a predator. Sloths don't flee so well.

No, Flameduck was trolling as usual. Any honest engagement would have looked past a quibble of language to the obvious underlying idea, that brains give animals the ability to evade or fight, while an immobile organism can have no use for such abilities.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 10:00 AM

Prove to me that plants/fungi/algae can't suffer. - Pygmy Loris

Don't. Be. Silly.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 10:16 AM

Idiot africangenesis, you're only proving once again that you are a troll.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 10:18 AM

I think the restriction's there because we find the torture of cats unpleasant, not because the cat does. Do you see the distinction?

Of course I see the distinction, but if you care to look at the campaigns that preceded the passing of laws against animal cruelty, the primary motivation of campaigners was indeed the suffering of animals. Is that really so hard to grasp? If these laws had been aimed at preventing people being distressed, then the laws would have been against torturing animals where anyone who objects is exposed to it, wouldn't it?

If animals suffer in the course of becoming food, tough. Stephen Wells

You callous bastard.

Posted by: John Morales | June 4, 2009 10:22 AM

Cripes, AG is at it again; arguing in that annoying sophistic manner he uses in AGW or libertarian discussions.

[I input one search term - "meat energy input" - and look at the second hit] Here. Or here.

PS I'm an omnivore - I probably get about 1/4 of my calories from meat or dairy. One of my sisters is an ethical vegetarian, though will eat my chicken eggs from our happy backyard chookilies.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 10:29 AM

It's a fact that you cannot use "because we don't like to see them suffer" as an argument for why cats get protection if the same reasoning would apply to babies.

Actually, like I said, you could, but most people would probably be shocked by the resulting implication that it's okay to torture a baby if there's no one else around to hear it scream.

Posted by: John Morales | June 4, 2009 10:32 AM

In fact, AG, I consider you primarily a contrarian. You might try exercising some discrimination, should you actually care about what people think of you.

</unsolicited opinion>

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 10:41 AM

Counting down to some boasting from africangenesis about how he makes us all rethink our preconceptions in 3, 2, 1...

Oh my gods, he doesn't actually believe that, does he? The poor thing.

I've had to rethink my assumptions many times from conversations at Pharyngula, but never because of an idiot troll.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 10:55 AM

a ray in dilbert space,

I did mistakenly address you instead of that other long name guy. Apologies.

Knockgoats,

That high pressure cooker technology does seem to save energy, apparently due to use of higher temperatures and much less water, I should consider one. The energetic considerations are probably less clear for the more broadly distributed technology and methods, where the beans are covered in the water.

strange gods before me,

"Idiot africangenesis, you're only proving once again that you are a troll."

Aren't your posts with so little substance, mere spamming?

Posted by: Stephen Wells | June 4, 2009 11:02 AM

You know, if the house were on fire, and I had to choose between rescuing the cat and rescuing the baby, I wouldn't have any difficulty making the choice. Yet strange gods, you seem to find it odd or inconsistent that I cheerfully privilege humans over non-humans in terms of how they get treated and what rights we think they should have. You seem to find it perfectly reasonable that humans should have a moral obligation other animals don't, yet not that we should treat other animals differently from the way we treat each other. Why?

And just to dispose of a straw man, I _don't_ think it's morally OK to gratuitously torture a cat, because it's sick to get your jollies from inflicting pain to no purpose. But unless you're going to systematically condemn all carnivores, I don't think that "food" equals "no purpose".

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 11:06 AM

That high pressure cooker technology does seem to save energy, apparently due to use of higher temperatures and much less water

No shit, Sherlock. Maybe a hint to actually think before posting contrarian bilge in future?

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 11:10 AM

He does indeed. If you can find the "vote for the troll to be dungeoned" threads from a couple of months ago (AG was a candidate), you'll see this belief laid out in all its ghastly lack of self-awareness.

Oh yes! I remember that! I was giddy when Africangenesis made it onto the list. I will be surprised if he lasts another three months.

Posted by: dab | June 4, 2009 11:12 AM

@#627:

I have every sympathy for people for whom a veg[etari]an diet is impossible, thought I wager that if they could be counted, their number would be far lower than you'd think.

I have not likened meat-eaters to slave owners or suchlike. Sure, keeping animals in tiny stalls, unable to move or fulfill their most basic instincts, submerged in their own excrement, being pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, to give the company the most pennies for their pounds and keep the Joneses accustomed to their comfortable lifestyle, etc. is quite horrible, but can one make a direct analogy between both groups?

I'll shrink from doing so, but note that both have used the argument "They're dumber/ lower than us, so it's OK", which seems to me to be transparently immoral and fallacious.

If anyone else has any more moronic arguments a la "Plant killer!" or "Why are animals made of meat then?". Handy hint: It's not the veg[etari]ans you're making look stupid.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 11:13 AM

By the way, Food, Inc. premieres in New York today, and I believe will be in some theaters on the 12th.

Here's the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqQVll-MP3I

(Eric Schlosser was on Colbert last night talking about it.)

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 11:18 AM

Knockgoats,

"No shit, Sherlock. Maybe a hint to actually think before posting contrarian bilge in future?"

One technical oversight and you accuse me of not thinking before posting? That doesn't qualify as an inference. You'll have to do better than that.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 11:20 AM

A pressure cooker is a pretty standard item of kitchen equipment in the UK. Has been for at least 50 years - I remember being scared of my mother's. Is that not so in the US?

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 11:24 AM

a ray in dilbert space,

"As to vegetarian food, I strongly recommend South Indian cooking."

I don't have regional specific knowledge of Indian cusine. I know I like curry dishes, but usually they had meat as the protein source, although they are so strongly seasoned that beans without too strong a flavor of their own would still be appealling.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 11:28 AM

Stephen, read http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/opportunistic_ghouls.php#comment-1678934

I'm not even as patient as Knockgoats. I am not going to carry on a conversation I've already had, point for point, if you aren't going to read the thread.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 11:32 AM

knockgoats,

"A pressure cooker is a pretty standard item of kitchen equipment in the UK. Has been for at least 50 years - I remember being scared of my mother's. Is that not so in the US?"

I've never seen one in use, my mom owned one but was afraid of it, so only used it like any other pot. I've also never seen one at another home. I probably should get one since I live at altitude (over 7000 ft).

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 4, 2009 11:34 AM

When you reply as if there is no difference between (perceived or real) rights between humans and non-human animals,

I've never said that.

I think I'm done with this thread. There were interesting conversations earlier, but they are over.

I'm not going to explain over and over and over again that I don't hold humans and nonhuman animals to be morally equivalent.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 11:41 AM

Knockgoats,

"Besides, why do you think meat eating was a rare treat for all but the very rich until recently, while beans were available to everyone?"

Well I thought beans were available because of cheap female labor and plenty of wood or cow patties for the energy. I recall beans as being a lot more effort to prepared Many impovished areas are deforested because of the need for wood for cooking and heating.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 4, 2009 11:45 AM

Actually, this is the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0&feature=fvw

Are people not reading sgbm's posts at all?

Well, that's fine if you like the feeling of being virtuous. But it misses the point: the single biggest problem facing the earth today is over population. I am getting so's I refuse to consider the end problems until society is willing to face up to the fact that unlimited breeding of humans is a bad thing. Meanwhile, if someone asks me what I did to promote a better world, I reply that I chose to have only one child. Even so, that one child was born in America and by definition is a super consumer of world resources.

Way to make a silly nonargument and then blow it out of the water yourself, Lee. The "real" problem "facing the earth" isn't overconsumption or unsustainable and immoral production/distribution regimes, over which we have control, but simply overpopulation, over which we also have control and to which you contribute by producing not only another person but a super-consumer. Way to go.

Another recent example - suggesting that if the Himalayan and Andean glaciers melt, water supply for getting on for 2 billion people can be guaranteed by dam-building - without, as became clear, any thought about whether this would be feasible. Or maybe you can now tell me how many dams would be needed, where they would be sited, how long it would take, how many million tons of concrete and how much labour would be required to build and maintain them, what the dangers would be?

Hey! Now you can watch FLOW: For Love of Water, which I've been recommending for a while now, on Wootube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2o4RniDCOE

(And once again I recommend Vandana Shiva's works on these issues.)

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 11:55 AM

africangenesis,

Pre-industrial societies were, almost entirely, dependent on the sun for energy. This is true even though some of that energy was transformed into human (and animal) labour, and the amount that could be captured was a major limiting factor. Wood was a valuable resource in such societies, as was dung - as fertiliser. You can be damn sure that if meat was less energy-intensive than beans, the poor would have been eating meat every day.

Posted by: whitebird | June 4, 2009 12:06 PM

@541 - (good morning!) "Basically, the (il)logical argument Salt refutes in his essay is that animals should be grateful for the "gift of life", and that the mere fact of being alive outweighs the suffering of being slaughtered."

I simply don't see slaughter as necessarily equivalent to suffering. I don't think that chickens can experience "grateful", or a host of other emotions. I've spent time around them, and seen them slaughtered both by very concerned farmers and killed by each other. I know, I know, just because they peck each other to death doesn't mean that it's ok for us to freak them out for a few seconds as we hold them down to slaughter them...but why?

I don't buy the killing/death = suffering thing one bit, and, like someone WAAAY above (I'm not even going to try to find it, I haven't even had coffee yet)said, if I were to be suddenly killed without knowing that it was coming (give or take a minute or so, I'm sure my brain would release a nice cocktail of "omfgI'mgoingtodie!" stuff if I were falling or a truck was coming at me and I couldn;t move or whatever), I, as a very self-aware and death-contemplating human, am sure that I wouldn't "care" (because I'd be dead).

Anyway, I think that the quote in your above quote ascribes very unchicken-like (very human, though) mental and emotional faculties to chickens.

And regarding the severely retarded and mentally ill that Strange Gods keeps asking about (at least in the part of the thread that I've gotten up to), here's my answer. I think that the reason that "we" don't kill them (since they are a drain on society, right? Fair enough)is because, yes, humans are specieist (how do you spell that word?), and, like someone else responded above, if "we" can condone killing them, it's perceived as one step towards killing, say, ugly or just kind of stupid people, etc., until we're practicing full-blown eugenics (by whose standard?) and then we're suddenly living in some sci-fi dystopia, oh no!

Another reason that was stated by someone else, is that someone else probably cares about that individual and would not want them to be killed.

But if we're just going with some kind of pure, "well, if chickens are dumb, why not kill people with IQs below 20?" argument (besides the fact that we eat chickens and don't eat people, for the most part), assuming that said severely retarded/mentally ill person has nobody with any vested interest in personally caretaking, then, sure, why not euthanize them (I'm talking about people who are one step away from being vegetables, unable to care for themselves, who would die without intensive caretaking)? Like I said before, I wouldn't mind a swift death and I'm very self-aware. So, sure, from a totally un-emotional POV, go ahead and kill the completely dependent yet unwanted along with the food chickens, I guess...?

Ugh.

Posted by: whitebird | June 4, 2009 12:13 PM

@541 - Sweet Jesus on a ritz!! I FAAAIIILLLEEEDDD!!

I apologize heartily...I am in great need of coffee and as soon as I reread your post saw my imbecilty in not comprehending what YOU were saying.

appy-polly-logies, and here's to hoping that I can do reading a little better in the future.

But as for the whole retarded thing...eh...I don't know, it's just such a weird analogy.

Posted by: whitebird | June 4, 2009 12:19 PM

@541 - oh, wait a sec, maybe I did get what you were saying...jeez.

Yeah, I DO think it would be "ok" to "raise humans to be eaten as long as their life is relatively happy and (to make it more or less equivalent) they don't know they are going to be slaughtered until it actually happens."

But how the hell would you achieve that without said humans knowing their fate? And how big would the market be for comatose-raised human? Eh..this is kinda fun?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 12:22 PM

I am getting so's I refuse to consider the end problems until society is willing to face up to the fact that unlimited breeding of humans is a bad thing. - Lee Picton

What makes you think "society" doesn't "face up" to this? Most countries with rapid population increase have government programmes aimed at halting it. globally, the rate of increase has declined from a peak of about 2.4% p.a. in the early 1960s, to about half that now. Since sometime in the 1990s, the absolute yearly increase has also fallen. World population growth is projected (with considerable uncertainty) to end around mid-century. But then, looking at the facts would remove this handy excuse for selfishness, wouldn't it?

Posted by: Keenacat | June 4, 2009 12:38 PM

(I think it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy:
Health-concerned people pick up a lifestyle that therefore seems to be "healthy" at an epidemiological scale, therefore more health-concerned people chose this lifestyle, therefore it appears to be even healthier and so on ad infinitum.)

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 12:51 PM

keenacat,

"You might want to read this:

Vegetarianism by Donna Maurer

The author is a vegetarian herself and took a lot of time to explain the vegetarian subset of your population regarding said issues."

Thanx, well worth reading.

Posted by: Matty Smith | June 4, 2009 12:57 PM

I'm a vegetarian, for ethical reasons at that. I grew up on a meat farm, I've no time for such a cruel business anymore, as if 'humane slaughter' existed to be exacted in the first place! But PETA makes my skin crawl all the same. What fools, and it is good that someone calls them on it.

Posted by: Dave | June 4, 2009 1:25 PM

Knockgoats@690:

Erm, where do you think trees get the energy to make wood?

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 4, 2009 1:29 PM

On diet, the American Institute for Cancer Research advises limiting red meat to 18 oz/week, and avoiding processed meats, in order to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer Reducing your risk of colorectal cancer. This recommendation is based on systematic review of the scientific literature. But I'm sure they don't know as much as all the experts here assuring us there's no good evidence on this point.

/snark

Posted by: Canary | June 4, 2009 1:41 PM

In terms of sheer population numbers, farm animals are doing VERY well and are nowhere near extinction, like many other species today. Tell Lions they are 'immoral' for eating meat and being part of the Carnivora clade. It was the consumption of meat that fueled the power hungry brains of hominids that gave us our start. Vegans will be the first to go extinct and do they think plants aren't alive, they are plant predators.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 1:42 PM

strange gods before me,

So here's my second shot at a response. In what way can a plant have an interest in not being killed?

You can't possibly be serious. Right? How does the plant not have an interest in not being killed. Does it not have an interest in continued life. That's the basis for all of this, isn't it? Animals have "an interest" in continued life. That interest cannot be based solely on their cognitive capabilities since many species have very little in the way of thinking about their own mortality. Otherwise killing them swiftly and humanely, while none of their conspecifics have to watch isn't a problem. It eliminates the suffering aspect, which is what you're basing your argument on.

If your argument is that animals have "an interest" in continuing to live, then plants also have "an interest" in continuing to live. Brains and neurons and all that are a nice way of talking about pain, but humane slaughter (indeed, a good hunter can kill an animal with a single shot to the head) minimizes pain. Therefore, the animal's death is little different than the plant's. You're basing far too much of your argument on an animal's ability to feel pain, which is only a good argument for humane and sustainable husbandry. It really doesn't work against killing them for food. Once they're dead they can't feel pain anymore.

It doesn't want anything. It doesn't know anything.

Posted by: CalGeorge | June 4, 2009 1:48 PM

These studies are usually poorly designed,...

Meat Intake and Mortality

A Prospective Study of Over Half a Million People

Rashmi Sinha, PhD; Amanda J. Cross, PhD; Barry I. Graubard, PhD; Michael F. Leitzmann, MD, DrPH; Arthur Schatzkin, MD, DrPH

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(6):562-571.

Background High intakes of red or processed meat may increase the risk of mortality. Our objective was to determine the relations of red, white, and processed meat intakes to risk for total and cause-specific mortality.

Methods The study population included the National Institutes of Health–AARP (formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study cohort of half a million people aged 50 to 71 years at baseline. Meat intake was estimated from a food frequency questionnaire administered at baseline. Cox proportional hazards regression models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) within quintiles of meat intake. The covariates included in the models were age, education, marital status, family history of cancer (yes/no) (cancer mortality only), race, body mass index, 31-level smoking history, physical activity, energy intake, alcohol intake, vitamin supplement use, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption, and menopausal hormone therapy among women. Main outcome measures included total mortality and deaths due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, injuries and sudden deaths, and all other causes.

Results There were 47 976 male deaths and 23 276 female deaths during 10 years of follow-up. Men and women in the highest vs lowest quintile of red (HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.27-1.35], and HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.30-1.43], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.12-1.20], and HR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.20-1.31], respectively) intakes had elevated risks for overall mortality. Regarding cause-specific mortality, men and women had elevated risks for cancer mortality for red (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.16-1.29], and HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.12-1.30], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.19], and HR, 1.11 [95% CI 1.04-1.19], respectively) intakes. Furthermore, cardiovascular disease risk was elevated for men and women in the highest quintile of red (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.20-1.35], and HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.37-1.65], respectively) and processed meat (HR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.03-1.15], and HR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.26-1.51], respectively) intakes. When comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of white meat intake, there was an inverse association for total mortality and cancer mortality, as well as all other deaths for both men and women.

Conclusion Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/6/562?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=vegetarian&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Why even bother doing these kinds of studies if they aren't reliable guides to behavior? I guess researchers just like to waste people's time?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 1:52 PM

Biologeek,

The health arguements aren't so water-tight, because it's entirely possible to live healthy on an omnivorous diet.

It's not just possible, but easier to maintain a healthy, omnivorous diet because it's what our bodies have adapted to over the course of the last few million years. In fact, I can't think of a single primate species that doesn't eat some animals. Most folivorous primates also consume small numbers of insects (and fruit, etc.), both by accident and on purpose. All of our closest relatives exploit animal food sources to some degree. Primates as an ORDER are omnivores. The only primate that doesn't have an omnivorous diet is the tarsier. Most tarsiers (all that I'm aware of) subsist exclusively on live animal prey. This is one of the reasons they're so difficult to keep alive in captivity. They won't eat kibble or dead things.

Posted by: africangenesis | June 4, 2009 1:57 PM

On second thought switching from chickens to cattle does reduce death by the same reducing (chicken) birth mechanism. My bad.

Posted by: jellay | June 4, 2009 2:09 PM

Stephen Wells @ #624
the restriction's there because we find the torture of cats unpleasant, not because the cat does
That's no moral reasoning. The feeling of repulsion isn't an ethical reason not to act. It's just a feeling. That's also rather egocentric. Other animals have wants, wishes, and desires that have some weight as well.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space @ #639
I don't think there really is a "moral" way to nourish onesself, especially when food comes from massive agribusinesses. Ever think about all the critters that die in farm machinery during harvest. ...
Stephen Wells @ #624
feel empathy for the insects that die that your crops might live? Really?
The lives of these animals matter too! But obviously making choices that lead to deaths of X animals is better than making choices that lead to deaths of X + Z animals. Some morality is better than none!

Ideally and in the future we should retire a lot of these practices and minimize animal deaths even further - continually favoring organic farming etc. while fighting overpopulation.

Stephen Wells @ #629
there are areas of grassland in the world which make fine pasture but to convert them to, say, potatoes or some other direct food crop would be unsustainable. "Veggie is better" is not a global argument even in environmental terms
There is a world of difference between factory farming and grassland grazing. Ending the former would free up lots of plant matter for human consumption -http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/08/970812003512.htm. The latter, if conducted sustainably, could be used by certain groups, when necessary, but is on the whole avoidable if population is controlled and humans concentrate in places where it is easier for them to survive.

whitebird @700
minimize deaths by minimizing the birth of animals that would be used for food, right, since the only way to minimize death is to minimize birth in the first place..
but what's so bad about death, per se?
Minimize both deaths and lives full of suffering. Also, most seafood we eat is born freely in the ocean.
And perhaps death itself isn't so bad, besides the accompanying entropy. However, death is painful and for many creatures also upsetting. Once you think of it as subjecting billions of animals to painful lives and death for your gleeful satisfaction, you'll see why a minimization of this occurrence is due.

Pygmy Loris: If you need to eat meat to survive, please do! There is nothing ethical about forgoing meat when it's a necessity. My friends and I have agreed that we'll eat each others' flesh if starvation is an issue ;-)

Canary @ #707, #710
Your argument is lazy and unsophisticated. Vegetarians are "plant predators" - care to read the thread at all? Animal lives can be judged not only by quantity, but by quality - if you were raised in your own shit in a cage, I doubt you'd care that your species are actually very numerous and therefore doing well. Are you now implying that hominids that don't consume meat have weaker brains? And no one is proposing that lions go on a vegetarian diet...

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | June 4, 2009 2:12 PM

Knockgoats,

You can be damn sure that if meat was less energy-intensive than beans, the poor would have been eating meat every day.

Please specify a time and place for this assertion. For the poor in the rural South during the late-19th century, meat at home was a near daily occurrence according to my great-grandmother. This was not industrial meat, but chicken and pork. Beef was very rare. Also, you're ignoring other animal protein sources, dairy and eggs. Even the poor had access to these regularly in the US.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 4, 2009 2:19 PM

But does that energetic advantage hold for beans which are indigestable unless cooked for hours?

someone failed home economics! beans don't need to be cooked for hours, they need to be soaked for hours (24 hrs for best results); that takes advance planning, but no energy.