Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

All humans should become vegetarians Watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm veggie but I would not force my view onto anyone else, however I do hate it when my boyfriend will vow to turn veggie then cook a steak (that's a whole other rant). For me personally, I couldn't eat something I'd keep as a pet, like people think eating dogs or cats is wrong but in some cultures that's fine then I realised I'm in no place to value one life above another (my opinion, so don't jump on me for it if you disagree).

    There's a lot of difference too between a country that offers alternatives, such as Quorn or where food is at least, plentiful. I am a big believer of fitting in with locals when I travel and sampling local dishes even if that means eating meat. In some places I can't eat the main veggie options due to food intolerances and occasionally a language barrier.

    People say eating meat is "natural" and I agree, but the rest of nature does not keep or breed animals for meat, they go out and hunt, so human methods of sourcing meat is not natural.

    As for health benefits, I notice some, but after starting to monitor my food I've noticed my iron intake is low and I really sometimes struggle to get what I need nutrient-wise. Keeping my weight down is easier though and I do feel better for not eating meat which did tend to make me ill. My friend recently stopped being vegan as she was becoming so ill with it, she is able to remain veggie though.

    Linking back to the original question "all humans should be vegetarians" I disagree, not all humans live in equal conditions, I've been places where the food is what is reared/grown in the back yard however I do think that more people could make effort to not eat animals due to their own selfish reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MalteseMalteser)
    If lions eat antelopes in nature, if whales eat kryll in nature, if meerkats eat worms and bugs in nature, why should we be any different in our approach to eating meat? They provide us with proteins to help our development therefore being a vegetarian is not beneficial to us at all.
    But they do not factory and intensively farm their prey; they also do not treat their prey unethically or eat more than they need. People don't *need* to eat as much meat as they do.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarinaAlex)
    Didn't know what forum to post this in, but I am doing my Russian A2 Level and the issue I want to debate on is 'all humans should become vegetarians.'

    What do you think? Personally I think that yes, it would be very beneficial for many reasons such as health, environment and ethical reasons. However I see the problems in culture etc, and would appreciate different points of view.

    P.S. This is not my point of view, I am only doing this topic because I have many things to say and can show off good vocabulary: no negs
    Not healthy.

    Not unethical.

    Might help the environment a bit but there are far better ways of going about it than not eating meat.

    Vegetarianism is a little bit silly really but to each their own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    We can't really know how much suffering an animal goes through when we kill them, but it is still remains that killing an animal before it would naturally die is depriving them of life.
    Yes we can know how much animals suffer when they are slaughtered. We can measure heart rate, corticosterone, nociceptor response, wing flapping etc.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Let's compare it to a hypothetical scenario. If we were 'built' to require torturing children, what would be your reaction to it? Would you use the same retort that you use here: "If we were built to require something only available from torturing children, it makes no sense to say that is immoral"?
    Of course I'd have the same attitude. I doubt it would even be questioned if we fundamentally required to do it for survival. Just because it's abhorrent now when we don't need to do it doesn't mean it's abhorrent if we did need to do it for SURVIVAL.

    Thankfully that is not how it turned out, but in such a scenario I would like to think I would simply refuse. I would still class it as immoral.
    I don't think you would. For your continued survival I imagine we would have developed less defence mechanisms that we current feel towards our children to compensate for the necessary act. I'm surprised you think we'd develop in the same way and hence would feel the same class of morals.

    However, it certainly is circumstantial now because we are not required to kill animals to get vitamin B12, so the point that we were once required to is irrelevant.
    You still can't say what I'm doing is immoral since I'm required to do it by biology. What if the technology did not exist, or if we found our process of synthesising B12 actually made it harmful? I know it doesn't, but there's another hypothetical scenario for you. Since you said above you'd resist torturing children, I likewise assume you'd just go out and get neurological damage and take it on the chin?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    So much wrong with the replies to this thread. If I had the same level of intelligence as most of the posters on this thread, I would probably come to the conclusion that eating meat makes you stupid.

    My opinion is that people should become vegans if they have the resources for it. That includes everyone in the Western world, unless that have a medical condition which means they are unable to survive without meat/dairy/eggs etc. I know that in some areas of the world it would be impossible to become vegan because of the type of land they have, but the animals they eat tend to be freer when they are alive so it is a fairer system. I don't expect that this transition would happen overnight, so any concerns about the animals currently kept in captivity should be crushed (the concerns, not the animals!) - there would just be a gradual decline in demand as more people decided eating meat was no longer acceptable. Currently the suffering of animals is only considered when humans have nothing to lose from it - I hope that one day we will put an animal's right to avoid suffering above our desire for pleasure.
    While I'm all for animal rights and I'm vegetarian myself; but if everyone turned vegan what would we do with all the chickens, cows, pigs and sheep that no body wants anymore? They would be slaughtered. And since there is little demand for these animals as pets numbers would decline rapidly. We've lots so many species already; this could cause more decline in biodiversity?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I personally could not do it. (Well, I could, but not out of choice). The majority of my meals consist of meat in one form or another, so why would I give that up? size=1]Posted from TSR Mobile[/size]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am a vegetarian, but wouldn't force my views on people, saying this, if we were all vegetarian we would have enough food to feed everyone many times over and countless hectares of land wouldn't have to be cut down for grazing pastures.
    I understand meat is tasty, but simply from a logistical point of view, as our global population grows we may need to use our land more efficently.
    I don't mind people eating meat, but when they needlessly make the animal suffer it just seems sadistic. I mean why would you want anything to bleed to death?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Humans are animals and we still all need that meat for are health, protein and vitamins.
    This is a lie.

    Of course they should, and they will. It's just a matter of time. No one likes to be pulled suddenly from their comfort zone, but change over time is inevitable. Just like the Christians will witness gay marriage, and the old-fashioned will witness the fall of staples of current society such as gender. So what if it makes you uncomfortable? It's the future. Only those who embrace it will survive. Being cocky about eating animals while damaging your health and the environment and respect for life is not part of that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Old School)
    Not healthy.

    Not unethical.

    Might help the environment a bit but there are far better ways of going about it than not eating meat.

    Vegetarianism is a little bit silly really but to each their own.
    Could you say that again but try be a little bit more patronising?

    (Original post by x-Sophie-x)
    I personally could not do it. (Well, I could, but not out of choice). The majority of my meals consist of meat in one form or another, so why would I give that up? size=1]Posted from TSR Mobile[/size]
    So did mine, my reasons for choosing to give it up are above. That's not to say that you have to agree but just because the majority of your meals consist of meat isn't really a good reason.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Of course I'd have the same attitude. I doubt it would even be questioned if we fundamentally required to do it for survival. Just because it's abhorrent now when we don't need to do it doesn't mean it's abhorrent if we did need to do it for SURVIVAL.
    Well, at least you're consistent. If you needed to torture children to survive, you'd do it without hesitation. That's really appalling to me. Is there no magnitude of suffering you're not willing to put up with to ensure your own continued existence?

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I don't think you would. For your continued survival I imagine we would have developed less defence mechanisms that we current feel towards our children to compensate for the necessary act. I'm surprised you think we'd develop in the same way and hence would feel the same class of morals.
    No. I would quite readily commit suicide if my continued existence necessitated unreasonable amounts of suffering for others.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    You still can't say what I'm doing is immoral since I'm required to do it by biology. What if the technology did not exist, or if we found our process of synthesising B12 actually made it harmful? I know it doesn't, but there's another hypothetical scenario for you. Since you said above you'd resist torturing children, I likewise assume you'd just go out and get neurological damage and take it on the chin?
    I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I will state it quite clearly: you are not required to kill animals for vitamin B12. You can't continue to use it as justification for killing animals because you can now get it from other sources.

    In answer to your scenario, it would depend how harmful. I would have to weigh whether my life (or my not getting 'neurological damage') justified that amount of harm.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Well, at least you're consistent. If you needed to torture children to survive, you'd do it without hesitation. That's really appalling to me. Is there no magnitude of suffering you're not willing to put up with to ensure your own continued existence?
    Nice straw man, I knew that was coming from the second you presented your argument. Of course I'd do it for continued survival if I had evolved that way and needed it for survival. Humanity would die out if everyone ignored this essential function.

    You said it was a REQUIREMENT to torture children in that hypothetical scenario; how does that now make me a horrible human being in our real life scenario when I wouldn't torture children at all? You cretin.

    No. I would quite readily commit suicide if my continued existence necessitated unreasonable amounts of suffering for others.
    No you wouldn't. You'd have evolved differently in a way to promote the torture of children in order to survive. Do you not understand evolution? Can you not comprehend your inevitable death if you did not do so? How does this affect your chances of producing successful progeny?

    I don't know how many times I have to say it, but I will state it quite clearly: you are not required to kill animals for vitamin B12. You can't continue to use it as justification for killing animals because you can now get it from other sources.
    Thank God we developed good technology then. Imagine how immoral we'd be if we had to continue our existence by eating animals to get a vital supply of vitamins. Jesus Christ that'd be awful.

    You can't base morals backwardly on the fact we have technology. You have to base them on if we didn't, would it still be moral etc.

    In answer to your scenario, it would depend how harmful. I would have to weigh whether my life (or my not getting 'neurological damage') justified that amount of harm.
    But in our other scenario you undoubtedly refused to commit to torturing children for your continued survival. Hypocrisy?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MalteseMalteser)
    If lions eat antelopes in nature, if whales eat kryll in nature, if meerkats eat worms and bugs in nature, why should we be any different in our approach to eating meat? They provide us with proteins to help our development therefore being a vegetarian is not beneficial to us at all.
    The carnivorous habits of lions place a constraint upon their maximum population. Obviously, they have no choice about this, being both obligate carnivores, and without the intellectual capacity to recognise this or to thus develop alternative artificial sources of their required amino acids.

    We, on the other hand:
    a) are omnivores
    b) are generally unwilling to see young of our own species die (unlike lions, notably!)
    c) have the intellectual capacity to comprehend this information and make decisions based upon it.

    I see a lot of posts on TSR and the internet about the necessity of limiting our reproduction, in order to prevent future famines, but it would be far less invasive to people's lives if we simply ate less meat. I'm not even saying no meat. Simply less. However this, although a less fascistic option, seems far less popular than the idea of compulsory sterilisations and vasectomies.
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Nice straw man, I knew that was coming from the second you presented your argument. Of course I'd do it for continued survival if I had evolved that way and needed it for survival. Humanity would die out if everyone ignored this essential function.

    You said it was a REQUIREMENT to torture children in that hypothetical scenario; how does that now make me a horrible human being in our real life scenario when I wouldn't torture children at all? You cretin.
    Name-calling, seriously? If you feel I've made a straw man then please point it out to me and not simply declare that I have done so. You admitted that if it meant your continued survival, you would torture children - I am only calling it as it is.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    No you wouldn't. You'd have evolved differently in a way to promote the torture of children in order to survive. Do you not understand evolution? Can you not comprehend your inevitable death if you did not do so? How does this affect your chances of producing successful progeny?
    Erm, yes I would. If humans had evolved differently then I wouldn't exist. I am not talking about some other hypothetical person, I am saying that I would not permit the unjust suffering of others for my own continued survival. Yes, I perfectly comprehend my 'inevitable death' if I didn't. Obviously if I die before having any progeny then it will terminate my ability to have some. Personally it would not bother me - I don't predicate my value as a human on creating other new humans.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Thank God we developed good technology then. Imagine how immoral we'd be if we had to continue our existence by eating animals to get a vital supply of vitamins. Jesus Christ that'd be awful.
    You've adopted an unnecessarily facetious attitude. Yes, it would be awful if we needed to eat animals to survive. Thankfully we don't have to.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    You can't base morals backwardly on the fact we have technology. You have to base them on if we didn't, would it still be moral etc.
    I haven't based morals on technology. I believe that causing unnecessary suffering is wrong; technology affects what is deemed to be necessary. The world isn't a static, unchanging place, and it is not particularly helpful for us to categorise actions simply as "right" and "wrong" without thought to the context in which they are committed.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    But in our other scenario you undoubtedly refused to commit to torturing children for your continued survival. Hypocrisy?
    Not at all. I firmly judge torturing children to be too great a price for my existence.

    I think that your reply here shows that we've failed to have a respectful discussion, so forgive me for discontinuing it. I don't wish to debate people who resort to name-calling and direspectful tactics in the absence of cogent argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im vegetarian , but I would never make anyone else become veggie, and I don't really think it would be beneficial if the WHOLE of the human population turned vegetarian. I just think people should eat less meat, instead of eating the cheap crappy meat every day, buy the expensive, good quality stuff once maybe twice a week. It'll be better for every ones health, and helps with the ethical reasons as well. The animals wont be mass produced in disgusting conditions, being fed antibiotics and ****.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    This doesn't address the point; it's suggesting you get it artificially from B12-fortified foods. Without technology, if we were to follow the correct moral guidelines in your eyes, we'd get permanent neurological damage. Again don't say we're a higher power and therefore the rules are different, since this is unproven.
    Thank you, that's what I was saying. Before the invention of supplements and fortified foods you would have had to have eaten animal products to get all the nutrients you need, whether you liked it or not. Things are different now but that doesn't mean to say we should all stop eating animal products.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    My teeth are designed to eat both meat and veg, so I shall eat both.
    And your hands are designed such that you can strangle strangers in the street but it doesn't make it 'okay' with society. True, meat eating is 'okay' with society in general right now but if you want to be pally with a vegetarian you might be seen as selfishly consuming the carcass of another living thing for your own benefit, and for no benefit of the animal itself. Regardless of a 'meat is murder' argument it could be seen as just a bit selfish to implicitly encourage the killing of animals just to get some protein.

    I'm not a vegetarian by the way. But I think that society would be better off if meat was perhaps a bit more scarcely available, just in fresh butchers (including butchers in supermarkets) and farms stores, more of a premium product that you pay for. I want to see an end to the ready meal meat frozen meal culture where animals are served in cheap little plastic trays - it's ungodly when you think about it how casually some unthinking human can consume some innocent animal in this way without really any thought or 'ceremony' to it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Thank God we developed good technology then. Imagine how immoral we'd be if we had to continue our existence by eating animals to get a vital supply of vitamins. Jesus Christ that'd be awful.
    You can't base morals backwardly on the fact we have technology. You have to base them on if we didn't, would it still be moral etc.
    I'm enjoying your debate with miser, but this bit seems wrong. B12 is produced by bacteria and yeast, not by animals. Herbivores pick it up from bacteria on the plants they eat, and carnivores get it by eating the herbivores. Our pre-industrial ancestors got plenty of B12 from grain, fruit and veg, but modern humans have more of a problem doing that because we've increasingly relied on technology to process such foods. If a moral argument for vegetarianism is true today, it should also be true for our ancestors, and I believe this is the case (many Eastern religious sects thought so too). Technology is a recent development which has exacerbated the B12 problem for vegetarians, but fortunately it has also provided solutions to compensate for the problems that it has created.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a veggie.

    At first I became a vegetarian because I was against mass-production of animals not the actual killing and eating them. I could've filtered out all the factory-farmed meat and just eaten the free-range stuff but I have done work experience in free-range farms and even though the animals were outside for parts of the day the place still did have a factory feel to it. So I just cut all meat out (which was hard because I love the taste of it)!

    As for my health, you can still get huge amounts of protein for quorn food and iron from lentils etc.

    Now, the main reason that I am a vegetarian has nothing to do with animal welfare but with world hunger. This is a very simplified example and the proportions may be wrong but say you have two corn fields, you could take it as it is and feed 1000 people or give to animals, rear them and feed 200 people, as well as using lots of other resources such as land, water and space to put waste. So this is one quite major ethical issue: is it right to be eating meat when people are starving due to lack of food?

    Now of course this is extremely simplified and I know that animals need to be raised to produce dairy products and eggs etc which I think is essential for a healthy diet and that people don't always starve due to lack of food but because of lack of money (but perhaps of more food was present then the cost would go down?)

    And obviously the animals reared for non-meat products, if killed and able to be eaten shouldn't be "wasted". But for a sustainable future for ALL (not just us priviliged people) I do think that people will have to become vegetarian/eat much less meat soon as we just won't have the resources to feed everybody as well as still producing the same amount of meat.

    Hope this makes sense!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    I'm enjoying your debate with miser, but this bit seems wrong. B12 is produced by bacteria and yeast, not by animals. Herbivores pick it up from bacteria on the plants they eat, and carnivores get it by eating the herbivores. Our pre-industrial ancestors got plenty of B12 from grain, fruit and veg, but modern humans have more of a problem doing that because we've increasingly relied on technology to process such foods. If a moral argument for vegetarianism is true today, it should also be true for our ancestors, and I believe this is the case (many Eastern religious sects thought so too). Technology is a recent development which has exacerbated the B12 problem for vegetarians, but fortunately it has also provided solutions to compensate for the problems that it has created.
    B12 is also a storeable vitamin. The liver can store up to 4 years' supply.

    The body usually stores enough vitamin B12 to last approximately two to four years. However, it is important to have vitamin B12 in your diet to ensure the store is kept at a healthy level.
    Even if you assume that meat is necessary for B12 consumption, you don't really need to eat it every day.

    Interestingly, today livestock are often given B12 supplements, too!

    Citations: http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Anae...Deficiency.htm
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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

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