Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is meat eating an ideology? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Interestingly it is accepted by the scientific community by in large that babies can be perfectly healthy and vegan. In fact there are a people who have never had any animal products at all (apart from their mother's milk).

    Are you under the impression that vegans are against breast feeding, or do you disagree with the scientific community?
    Ah breast milk, yeah babies ideally should have that I agree there.

    Yeah i would tend to disagree and say that human gene expression is best encouraged through eating meats and veg. Meat is a complete protein, it ticks so many boxes. Soy products are dangerous to health, if you want to explore that with a quick search.

    If you want a strong kid bring him up the way his body was programmed to with meat. If you want that 4 year old with glasses and no muscle then raise him vegan with a heavy potato based diet lol.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    I disagree with her that veganism is healthier than meat consumption - there is very strong evidence supporting the benefits of eating certain meats and very weak evidence suporting its links to cancer and other diseases.

    However I do agree that it is absurd that we deem it acceptable to eat certain animals and not others. I do also agree that carnism could be considered an ideology however this doesn't necessarily make it immoral. The leap from ideology to immorality is contradictory to her praise of veganism and also unsupported by any evidence or theory.
    I don't tend to get into comparisons of what is healthier and what is unhealthy when comparing veganism, vegetarianism and carnism. There are so many different diets one can follow in any of those categories. However, her argument about immorality stems from the suffering of others, not simply from it being an ideology, but a violent one. What do you feel she is lacking in her argument? E.G. Evidence of what are you looking for?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I've never heard of a genetic predisposition to eat certain animals before. Can you link me to the articles you've read about that in?

    My point isn't that humans should be killing each other to eat each other, but that if there is no ideology, we would be able to eat each other when we die.

    The rest of what you've said seems to be more examples of ideologies, none of which I would deny as factually true (such as using animals for certain things).
    I've not got any sources at all, this is all just conjecture based on my knowledge of biology. I know for a fact that instinct is largely caused by genetic factors and that genetics play a significant part in human behaviour though so it doesn't seem too unlikely to me. Although, I'm sure it has partially been reinforced through memes as well.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    yes i know i said memes, no i don't mean internet jokes
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It can be an ideology: as Dr. Joy points out, a carnist ideology does seem to be in existence, and meat-eating is based upon speciesism which is also an ideology.

    It's not always an ideology, though, I don't think.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    My point isn't that humans should be killing each other to eat each other, but that if there is no ideology, we would be able to eat each other when we die.
    Also this is an interesting point, some cultures do eat the bodies of the deceased. My guess as to why most don't is because we aren't really scavengers, we have an aversion to dead things we haven't hunted because they often carry disease.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dav55)
    Ah breast milk, yeah babies ideally should have that I agree there.

    Yeah i would tend to disagree and say that human gene expression is best encouraged through eating meats and veg. Meat is a complete protein, it ticks so many boxes. Soy products are dangerous to health, if you want to explore that with a quick search.

    If you want a strong kid bring him up the way his body was programmed to with meat. If you want that 4 year old with glasses and no muscle then raise him vegan with a heavy potato based diet lol.
    There's a lot to unpack from your post here.

    Firstly the idea that we need to eat a complete protein in one meal has been debunked. Complete proteins can be ingested over the course of a day, coming from a wide variety of sources.
    I'm not sure why soya has been brought up, it isn't any more dangerous to human health than most foods. If you are living primarily off soya then you may begin to have some health issues. But most people who eat soya tend to have 1-2 potions a day, and have many other sources of nutrition in their diet.

    There has been no peer reviewed evidence put forward to argue that we are programmed to eat meat. The stereotype that vegans are all skinny and suffering from health problems has no basis in reality. It is simply evidence of bigotry. Bigotry is not welcome on this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    I've not got any sources at all, this is all just conjecture based on my knowledge of biology. I know for a fact that instinct is largely caused by genetic factors and that genetics play a significant part in human behaviour though so it doesn't seem too unlikely to me. Although, I'm sure it has partially been reinforced through memes as well.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    yes i know i said memes, no i don't mean internet jokes
    We are at an impasse then. I doubt that evidence either way exists. But I still don't understand how we could naturally have a predisposition to cooked meat.

    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Also this is an interesting point, some cultures do eat the bodies of the deceased. My guess as to why most don't is because we aren't really scavengers, we have an aversion to dead things we haven't hunted because they often carry disease.
    Actually it tends to be people eating those they have slain in battle. If it is someone from their own community who, for example, have been killed by someone else, they do not wish to eat them.

    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    I mostly agree with her, and it's interesting how prevalent the 'justification' mechanism of her theory is even in this thread. However, I feel she ignores evidence such as the fact that many cultures eat more animals than the 5 she highlighted - even in France, horse consumption is a social norm, in many cultures, whales are eaten and their hunting is an important social event. She also ignores the fact that it makes more sense to eat certain animals than others - some yield more meat, taste better and are easier to tame.

    I don't think these are justifications for meat eating, just points she could have countered or factored in to her discussion. I do agree that it's the nature of the ideology which renders it unacceptable, as you said. Also that it is indoctorinated and unchallenged and that this process has become a social norm.
    I don't think she does ignore those things at all. The first thing to note is that those that are highlighted are the norm for our society. In others different animals would be highlighted. This talk was directed largely at an American audience, though I think we have a very close culture with America in many ways, so it's no surprise that the 5 there are also the 5 here.

    I think the counter argument that it's certain animals because those are what we're most likely to be able to eat and enjoy also falls flat. Perhaps at the start of a community it could or would be true, but you would need to provide an example of a community which eats meat without discrimination for it to be the case. I struggle to believe that an entire community all happen to have such similar tastes for example. I'm not sure that that point is simply ignored, but instead so complicated to talk about that it won't fit into her hour to talk about it. Not only that but, does it actually apply to most people? It seems unreasonable to think she ought to have countered that point there.

    If you disagree we could always write to this website:
    http://www.carnism.org/contact-us
    As my understanding is she's involved there, she could even potentially be the person to email us back.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nverjvlev)
    This makes no sense. It cannot simultaneously be and not be an ideology. Just because it isn't an intentional choice most of the time (ie I really hate cows, I will systematically turn off my feelings of compassion towards cows, ignore their impact on global gas emissions and their treatment and slaughter and enjoy this hamburger) doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology. Did you watch the video? She explains it better than me ngl...
    I think Viddy was saying meat eating isn't intrinsically an ideology, but it is an ideology in our community, and most communities.

    I think that a priori it can theoretically be possible to eat meat but not follow a carnist ideology of any kind. But a posteriori we haven't ever seen an example of that, and perhaps there's a greater reason behind it than what we've so far spoken about. So our a prori thinking is so far lacking.
    Not because I think you'll lack a knowledge of Hume's fork, but for others out there reading, a simplistic definition of Hume's fork:

    A prori is through definition of concept.
    A poserori is through experience.

    A prori knowledge would be 2+2=4, all bachelors are unmarried men etc.
    A posterori would be: When I apply heat to bread, it becomes toast. When I make contact with water in a liquid state, I become wet. When I let go of this ball, it moves towards the ground.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    We are at an impasse then. I doubt that evidence either way exists. But I still don't understand how we could naturally have a predisposition to cooked meat.
    Read up a bit on evolutionary biology, even if you don't agree it's a very interesting subject (in my opinion anyway :lol:)

    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Actually it tends to be people eating those they have slain in battle. If it is someone from their own community who, for example, have been killed by someone else, they do not wish to eat them.
    See my point on disease.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Read up a bit on evolutionary biology, even if you don't agree it's a very interesting subject (in my opinion anyway :lol:)



    See my point on disease.
    My thought experiament got around disease. It's a member of the community who has been slain by someone outside of the community, thus eliminating the chance of disease being greater of that of any other animal (human or otherwise) that has been slain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Even with the risk of derailing the question a bit, let me just make an observation about the quality of the discussion. The OP makes a quality post linking a video that makes an argument and then asks people to point out possible problems in the argument.

    Everything good so far.

    Then I glance at the replies. People are being dismissive of the argument and presenting their own view with the justification "it's my opinion". Most telling was this post, using their clairvoyance to dismiss the argument without caring to even look at it:

    (Original post by sw651)
    I haven't because I know it will be full of crap.
    And that's not the end of it. By the time I reached the second page of replies, the discussion had devolved into crude personal insults. "Retard" was thrown around.

    This is not how debating works. If you think the point presented is wrong, then take the time to explain why that's the case. Even controversial topics should be given fair consideration especially if they're presented in the "philosophy" subforum. Philosophical discourse is all about being open-minded in pursuit of the truth. If you can't handle that then please leave and go cry to your mom.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    My thought experiament got around disease. It's a member of the community who has been slain by someone outside of the community, thus eliminating the chance of disease being greater of that of any other animal (human or otherwise) that has been slain.
    Yeah but your instincts don't care about why the person was killed. Instincts are usually quite separate to conscious thought. No matter how many times I tell myself how great Aubergines are, I still vomit a little when I eat one. We have an aversion to the dead, not specific to disease. You can see the same behaviour in lizards. They will only eat living bugs, they'll usually refuse dead ones unless they're starving. Even if you kill the bug in front of it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Yeah but your instincts don't care about why the person was killed. Instincts are usually quite separate to conscious thought. No matter how many times I tell myself how great Aubergines are, I still vomit a little when I eat one. We have an aversion to the dead, not specific to disease. You can see the same behaviour in lizards. They will only eat living bugs, they'll usually refuse dead ones unless they're starving. Even if you kill the bug in front of it.
    I don't think you can call emotional reactions instinct. You mentioned how they were willing as a community to eat enemies they had slain, but why not their own community members who had been slain? You can't attribute it to the lizard scenario as we're talking about a community of people, who as a community would surely hunt together and eat what was killed as a community (not just the person who killed it). The comparison is just unworkable I'm afraid (though that was creative!)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I don't think you can call emotional reactions instinct. You mentioned how they were willing as a community to eat enemies they had slain, but why not their own community members who had been slain? You can't attribute it to the lizard scenario as we're talking about a community of people, who as a community would surely hunt together and eat what was killed as a community (not just the person who killed it). The comparison is just unworkable I'm afraid (though that was creative!)
    Superstition? We all know of examples where that's caused communities to do silly things, things that seem to go against our very nature.

    Also, interestingly wolves don't eat their dead either. Not unless they're doing really badly at hunting. So that implies to me there is some genetic factor at play here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Superstition? We all know of examples where that's caused communities to do silly things, things that seem to go against our very nature.

    Also, interestingly wolves don't eat their dead either. Not unless they're doing really badly at hunting. So that implies to me there is some genetic factor at play here.
    It implies that there is a reason greater than nutrition. That doesn't make it genetic.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It implies that there is a reason greater than nutrition. That doesn't make it genetic.
    Yeah, an innate aversion to the dead (i.e - disease). I can't think of another reason why they wouldn't, I'm sure wolves don't have the cognitive skills to develop ideologies.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zargabaath)
    Yeah, an innate aversion to the dead (i.e - disease). I can't think of another reason why they wouldn't, I'm sure wolves don't have the cognitive skills to develop ideologies.
    The cognitive skills to recognise another wolf however, given that they are pack animals. Perhaps not complex ideologies, or the ability to comprehend of what an ideology is, but certainly the ability to recognise each other. Is wolf on wolf violence something that happens much with that species?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not really sure to be honest but so what if it is an ideology? Does that even matter?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care if it's natural or not , i like meat so i'll eat it
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    The cognitive skills to recognise another wolf however, given that they are pack animals. Perhaps not complex ideologies, or the ability to comprehend of what an ideology is, but certainly the ability to recognise each other. Is wolf on wolf violence something that happens much with that species?
    Maybe, I know elephants do something that resembles mourning the dead so maybe wolves can have some form attachment to dead pack members too. At a glance at a few studies, wolf on wolf violence doesn't seem that common, aside from rivalry to be the alpha of the pack or during food disputes during bad hunting seasons. It seems to be less common then the aggression between domesticated dog packs (including towards humans). That said I'm not a wolf expert by any means.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.