Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

vegan, vegetarian, omnivore? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: are you vegan, vegetarian, omni, other?
    vegan
    27
    17.31%
    vegetarian
    38
    24.36%
    omni
    85
    54.49%
    other
    6
    3.85%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    indeed, you're correct



    the transition to veganism will be extremely gradual, and animal agricultural conditions will worsen before they improve, simply because humans aren't yet aware of what's happening in the industry and more and more countries are becoming industrialised and westernised. once awareness increases, we'll see more and more people transitioning to organic/high welfare diets until eventually we won't raise animals for slaughter anymore. yes i am against people hunting animals in england unless they have no other option which as i said is extremely extremely unlikely.
    But in your hypothesised future we won't raise animals for slaughter - will meat still be in the supermarket? Will it still he affordable? And if it isn't affordable or even available you are still against hunting to get it? Would you still call that unnecessary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    "Unnecessary" is pretty much irrelevant, considering how many aspects of modern life (that have all sorts of negative impacts) could be dismissed in the same way.

    A lot of shooting is done for pest control, for things like agriculture, forestry and conservation purposes. Not "unnecessary" by any sensible definition of the word.
    i agree that a lot of what we do in our society is harmful. the system is corrupt. the economic system is corrupt, the political system is corrupt, the law system is corrupt, the agricultural system is corrupt, the education system is corrupt/severely lacking and yeah, systems are corrupt by their very nature because a system is a construct and therefore not real. systems exist in the minds of humans rather than in physical reality. money is the sustenance of systems. we need to move from valuing money over Life to Life over money. we can quite clearly see that all the ills of the world are created by money. if someone doesn't have money, they aren't taken care of by the system. a lot of our self-image and therefore image of others is dependent on how much money one has. the more money someone has, the more they want. greed is a spiral and an unfortunate symptom of our society. the environment is destroyed for profit, those in power rule over us for profit, war is for profit, intensive agriculture is for profit. so yeah my point is that a lot of what we do is unnecessary and harmful, i agree, and hunting is part of that. we all have to do our bit to transform our home/local environment into somewhere worth living. we're a part of the system and we can't escape it so we have to face it and walk through it. think globally, act locally.

    to be honest we need to leave nature alone. it's really not up to us whether or not a fox eats a chicken. if we keep chickens for food, why can't they eat those chickens too?conservation is about conserving and preserving, not destroying. we breed so many pheasants every year just so shoot them in the winter for sport. i's pretty ****ed up imo. imagine if we were bred and then let out into the wild to enjoy only months before we're mercilessly shot by someone with an inflated gun/ego.

    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    And what proof do you have? What is your daily macro breakdown? :rolleyes:
    i like you Jimbo and i'm going to give you lots of reps because you like Cartman and i don't think you deserve to have red bars

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Nice to meet you Doctor Doolittle. Worth noting that chickens really don't care and happily resort to cannibalism. Also, they're small, stupid, aggressive and try to start fights with everything despite having no real chance of winning. By rearing them we're actually giving them a better life than they would have got, because they'd pretty soon get ripped to shreds by a fox.
    don't breed them, i'm sure they wouldn't mind not existing if they were never born
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    don't breed them, i'm sure they wouldn't mind not existing if they were never born
    Or we could breed them, they get medical care and the world turned into their feeding grounds, and we get delicious, delicious meat.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    But in your hypothesised future we won't raise animals for slaughter - will meat still be in the supermarket? Will it still he affordable? And if it isn't affordable or even available you are still against hunting to get it? Would you still call that unnecessary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i like the idea of transitioning to synthetic meats. first we need to go entirely local, high welfare and organic; then we need to move into synthetic meats. from there it doesn't matter if someone eats synthetic meat or is vegan as no animals have to die for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Or we could breed them, they get medical care and the world turned into their feeding grounds, and we get delicious, delicious meat.
    would you mind eating chicken that was grown synthetically?
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    would you mind eating chicken that was grown synthetically?
    I honestly couldn't care less, but synthetic meat is far too expensive for the majority to afford.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    i agree that a lot of what we do in our society is harmful. the system is corrupt. the economic system is corrupt, the political system is corrupt, the law system is corrupt, the agricultural system is corrupt, the education system is corrupt/severely lacking and yeah, systems are corrupt by their very nature because a system is a construct and therefore not real. systems exist in the minds of humans rather than in physical reality. money is the sustenance of systems. we need to move from valuing money over Life to Life over money. we can quite clearly see that all the ills of the world are created by money. if someone doesn't have money, they aren't taken care of by the system. a lot of our self-image and therefore image of others is dependent on how much money one has. the more money someone has, the more they want. greed is a spiral and an unfortunate symptom of our society. the environment is destroyed for profit, those in power rule over us for profit, war is for profit, intensive agriculture is for profit. so yeah my point is that a lot of what we do is unnecessary and harmful, i agree, and hunting is part of that. we all have to do our bit to transform our home/local environment into somewhere worth living. we're a part of the system and we can't escape it so we have to face it and walk through it. think globally, act locally.

    to be honest we need to leave nature alone. it's really not up to us whether or not a fox eats a chicken. if we keep chickens for food, why can't they eat those chickens too?conservation is about conserving and preserving, not destroying. we breed so many pheasants every year just so shoot them in the winter for sport. i's pretty ****ed up imo. imagine if we were bred and then let out into the wild to enjoy only months before we're mercilessly shot by someone with an inflated gun/ego.



    i like you Jimbo and i'm going to give you lots of reps because you like Cartman and i don't think you deserve to have red bars



    don't breed them, i'm sure they wouldn't mind not existing if they were never born
    Just a quick question - do you think a chicken outside captivity will be happier than one in it?

    It's just with captivity, not only is their life determined to be so long (few months) the upshot is that farmers will try their best to keep them alive for a minimum time. Will chickens have this same luxury in the 'real' world? Survival isn't paradise. Disease and starvation as well as the seasons are very real dangers (I'd also argue if you're consistent with a good ecosystem you'd need to reintroduce predators for livestock)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    I honestly couldn't care less, but synthetic meat is far too expensive for the majority to afford.
    what if it were widely available and the same price as animal raised meat currently is?

    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Just a quick question - do you think a chicken outside captivity will be happier than one in it?

    It's just with captivity, not only is their life determined to be so long (few months) the upshot is that farmers will try their best to keep them alive for a minimum time. Will chickens have this same luxury in the 'real' world? Survival isn't paradise. Disease and starvation as well as the seasons are very real dangers (I'd also argue if you're consistent with a good ecosystem you'd need to reintroduce predators for livestock)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i don't think we should breed chickens. the transition to synthetic meats/veganism will be gradual and any chickens that are alive after the transition will go to shelters to be taken care of until they die. i don't suppose that a chicken would survive comfortably in the wild after his or her domestication on a farm, nor do i think that modern chickens are suited to survive in the wild.
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    what if it were widely available and the same price as animal raised meat currently is?
    .
    Then I'd go depending on which tastes better.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    It's just with captivity, not only is their life determined to be so long (few months) the upshot is that farmers will try their best to keep them alive for a minimum time. Will chickens have this same luxury in the 'real' world? Survival isn't paradise. Disease and starvation as well as the seasons are very real dangers (I'd also argue if you're consistent with a good ecosystem you'd need to reintroduce predators for livestock)
    In a world in which the factory farms have been shut down and the slaughterhouses outlawed, speciesism is rejected and nonhuman animal suffering is taken seriously, it's highly doubtful that we would introduce domesticated animals into the wild. What would most likely occur is that they will be kept in sanctuaries (which already exist to look after animals rescued from the meat industry) and phased out of existence.

    It's also highly unlikely that wild-animal suffering won't be taken seriously, and I suspect we'd be much more inclined to intervene in nature to phase out, at the very least, predation, as some moral philosophers have already suggested.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    In a world in which the factory farms have been shut down and the slaughterhouses outlawed, speciesism is rejected and nonhuman animal suffering is taken seriously, it's highly doubtful that we would introduce domesticated animals into the wild. What would most likely occur is that they will be kept in sanctuaries (which already exist to look after animals rescued from the meat industry) and phased out of existence.

    It's also highly unlikely that wild-animal suffering won't be taken seriously, and I suspect we'd be much more inclined to intervene in nature to phase out, at the very least, predation, as some moral philosophers have already suggested.
    can you name the philosophers please? i've always been interested in this subject. i imagine that as we sort humanity out, we'll simultaneously assist and support the animal kingdom to eventually also reach a point where there's no suffering. as a kid i couldn't watch those nature shows where lions eat other animals. we're all still evolving and there's infinite potential for humanity and nature
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    i like the idea of transitioning to synthetic meats. first we need to go entirely local, high welfare and organic; then we need to move into synthetic meats. from there it doesn't matter if someone eats synthetic meat or is vegan as no animals have to die for it.
    Organic animals are barred from the use of antibiotics and end up suffering as a result.

    Do you use antibiotics?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    can you name the philosophers please? i've always been interested in this subject. i imagine that as we sort humanity out, we'll simultaneously assist and support the animal kingdom to eventually also reach a point where there's no suffering. as a kid i couldn't watch those nature shows where lions eat other animals. we're all still evolving and there's infinite potential for humanity and nature
    Absolutely. Most of the philosophers are, as I am, utilitarians, so they wish to reduce net suffering to the greatest extent possible. All of them, of course, are vegans.

    David Pearce is one of the main proponents of this idea, and promotes abolishing all involuntary suffering both humans and nonhuman animals.

    The best summary of his views is contained in this article, in my view. As he states in his typically sophisticated manner: "I tentatively predict that the world's last unpleasant experience in our forward light-cone will be a precisely datable event — perhaps some micro-pain in an obscure marine invertebrate a few centuries hence. "

    Jeff McMahan is another philosopher who has written on this topic, in this New York Times piece. He responds to some of the typical objections to phasing out predators in this follow-up piece.

    Brian Tomasik has founded the Foundational Research Institute, which aims to research how we can best reduce suffering in the far-future. One of the main concepts it focuses on is how to reduce and eliminate wild-animal suffering.

    All of this has led Animal Charity Evaluators, an independent charity evaluator looking at animal charities, to discuss wild-animal suffering too.

    Peter Singer, a more familiar utilitarian philosopher and perhaps the father of the animal liberation movement, is more cautious, but obviously states that if "in some way, we could be reasonably certain that interfering with wildlife in a particular way would, in the long run, greatly reduce the amount of killing and suffering in the animal world, it would, I think, be right to interfere."

    Obviously, making predators extinct - or genetically engineering them in order to turn them into herbivores - would be a massive technological project, and we would have to continually painlessly sterilise some herbivores in the wild, too, to prevent overpopulation and therefore starvation. But, I'm reasonably confident that, in a few centuries time, it wouldn't be too difficult to achieve this. I would agree with the ethicist Oscar Horta that “our job now is to prepare the grounds for forthcoming generations to take action where we may be currently unable to act.”

    This mainly includes, at the moment, reaching out to vegans and vegetarians who have already acted rationally in rejecting speciesism.

    For an overview, the wild-animal suffering Wikipedia page is good. There's also a Facebook group called "reducing wild-animal suffering".
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    “What we do know is that avoiding red meat in the diet is not a protective strategy against cancer,” said Robert Pickard, a member of the*Meat Advisory Panel*and emeritus professor of neurobiology at Cardiff University.

    Dr Elizabeth Lund – an independent consultant in nutritional and gastrointestinal health, and a former research leader at the Institute of Food Research, who acknowledges she did some work for the meat industry in 2010 – said red meat was linked to about three extra cases of bowel cancer per 100,000 adults in developed countries.

    “A much bigger risk factor is obesity and lack of exercise,” she said. “Overall, I feel that eating meat once a day combined with plenty of fruit, vegetables and cereal fibre, plus exercise and weight control, will allow for a low risk of colorectal cancer and a more balanced diet.”



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/2/286.long

    'Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns'
    Vegans had a 16 percent decreased risk of all cancers, and vegan women had a 34 percent decreased risk for other specific cancers including breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers, compared with nonvegetarians.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Absolutely. Most of the philosophers are, as I am, utilitarians, so they wish to reduce net suffering to the greatest extent possible. All of them, of course, are vegans.

    David Pearce is one of the main proponents of this idea, and promotes abolishing all involuntary suffering both humans and nonhuman animals.

    The best summary of his views is contained in this article, in my view. As he states in his typically sophisticated manner: "I tentatively predict that the world's last unpleasant experience in our forward light-cone will be a precisely datable event — perhaps some micro-pain in an obscure marine invertebrate a few centuries hence. "

    Jeff McMahan is another philosopher who has written on this topic, in this New York Times piece. He responds to some of the typical objections to phasing out predators in this follow-up piece.

    Brian Tomasik has founded the Foundational Research Institute, which aims to research how we can best reduce suffering in the far-future. One of the main concepts it focuses on is how to reduce and eliminate wild-animal suffering.

    All of this has led Animal Charity Evaluators, an independent charity evaluator looking at animal charities, to discuss wild-animal suffering too.

    Peter Singer, a more familiar utilitarian philosopher and perhaps the father of the animal liberation movement, is more cautious, but obviously states that if "in some way, we could be reasonably certain that interfering with wildlife in a particular way would, in the long run, greatly reduce the amount of killing and suffering in the animal world, it would, I think, be right to interfere."

    Obviously, making predators extinct - or genetically engineering them in order to turn them into herbivores - would be a massive technological project, and we would have to continually painlessly sterilise some herbivores in the wild, too, to prevent overpopulation and therefore starvation. But, I'm reasonably confident that, in a few centuries time, it wouldn't be too difficult to achieve this. I would agree with the ethicist Oscar Horta that “our job now is to prepare the grounds for forthcoming generations to take action where we may be currently unable to act.”

    This mainly includes, at the moment, reaching out to vegans and vegetarians who have already acted rationally in rejecting speciesism.

    For an overview, the wild-animal suffering Wikipedia page is good. There's also a Facebook group called "reducing wild-animal suffering".
    thank you that's extremely interesting and i'm going to look into all the philosophers you mentioned. i've done some research into effective altruism in the past and i've donated quite a lot of money to animal equality which animal charity evaluators say is the most cost effective animal rights charity. i was wondering, what's your perspective on the abolitionist approach vs the welfare reforms approach in regards to animal agriculture?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Omni

    I have never known anyone who is a vegetarian (uncommon where I'm from)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    i've done some research into effective altruism in the past and i've donated quite a lot of money to animal equality which animal charity evaluators say is the most cost effective animal rights charity.
    Great, nice to see another effective altruist.

    (Original post by fairytalecolours)
    i was wondering, what's your perspective on the abolitionist approach vs the welfare reforms approach in regards to animal agriculture?
    I tend to prefer the welfarist approach, because I think it has a greater probability of succeeding and therefore reducing the suffering of nonhuman animals, but such an approach should always be designed to ensure that suffering is actually reduced in the long-term too (i.e. not making people feel better about themselves because they're eating "free-range" which are largely marketing terms, not a measure of the welfare of the animals), and usually designed with the end goal - veganism - in mind. So, welfare organisations such as Animal Equality, the Humane League and others generally encourage people to go vegan as well as campaigning, with quite a few successes, for better conditions in animal agriculture, and I think that such a combination is the best approach.

    My fear with some gradualist campaigns like Meatless Mondays campaign is that people will eat more meat on other days instead, or feel like they've done their bit on the Monday so they get an extra animal product on another day. The Reducetarian movement, by contrast, explicitly focuses on reducing consumption of animal products, so may be better.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Then I'd go depending on which tastes better.
    I always find it bizarre when socialists (proper ones) make fun of veggies and vegans so much. Like you should have sympathy for fringe idealists as you walk in their shoes all day everyday...

    I always feel the need to stick up for vegetarians for this reason even though I am not one. :-/

    I recognize something of myself in moral vegans etc
    • TSR Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I always find it bizarre when socialists (proper ones) make fun of veggies and vegans so much. Like you should have sympathy for fringe idealists as you walk in their shoes all day everyday...

    I always feel the need to stick up for vegetarians for this reason even though I am not one. :-/

    I recognize something of myself in moral vegans etc
    Following that though I should have sympathy for the tea party as the fringe idealists of the republican party in the US. Besides, I have sympathy for them, if not their ideals (I truly feel sorry for anyone who will never know the joy of a perfectly cooked steak or a BBQ)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Following that though I should have sympathy for the tea party as the fringe idealists of the republican party in the US. Besides, I have sympathy for them, if not their ideals (I truly feel sorry for anyone who will never know the joy of a perfectly cooked steak or a BBQ)
    I have never heard that tedious joke before.

    Tea Party grassroutes types should be targeted by the american left. Or you can drive them further into the Republican right by laughing and ridiculing them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.