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

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    Yes, i too learnt all the trophic level stuff from biology lessons, doesnt mean we come up with a radical plan to turn everyone into vegetarians. We've adapted and evolved in such a way that meat has become part of our diet and for many, it is still a brilliant source of energy, calories etc etc.
    There are already millions of vegetarians in the world, and we're doing just fine, if not better, where health is concerned. Human beings are far from being obligate carnivores, and there's nothing in meat that you can't get as a vegetarian.

    You could call a shift away from meat-eating radical, but honestly, human society needs to change radically if it's going to survive the next century.

    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    We are 'removing them from the equation' by eating them... In that way you're contradicting yourself...
    We'd be removing them from the equation by simply not breeding any more animals for slaughter. It's the massive throughput of animal lives that's causing problems. Meat-eating people remove animals from the equation by paying for them to be slaughtered, but that's after they've done their damage.

    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    Cars are also a terrible idea from an economic and environmental perspective. Oil prices have sent global shocks in the economy and has slowed down the whole economy. Meat is actually good for the economy and if we get rid of meat, we are getting rid of a whole market that definitely will have long term implications.
    Strong economies are often founded on unsustainable, exploitative, unenvironmental practices like meat-eating. You can see that reflected in the many unethical but lucrative practices, such as the slave trade, that have already been outlawed. Such prohibitions probably do have effects on the economy, but there are more important things. As I've already said, meat-eating drives climate change, and flooded cities aren't great for the economy, either.

    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    I cant see why you are dismissive of the car analogy, it is a perfectly valid comparison. But heres the difference. Cars (and fossil fuels) are beneficial to your life so you think its fine when it too is immoral and unethical. I can list so many other things that we as people do everyday that is also unethical. Vegetarianism is just the epitomy of hypocrisy and pure ignorance!
    I'm not dismissive of the car analogy in the least - the human race has too many cars and that needs dealing with also. Recognising that doesn't make the problem of meat-eating any smaller and it doesn't make eating meat any more ethical.

    (And it's spelled epitome.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    There are already millions of vegetarians in the world, and we're doing just fine, if not better, where health is concerned. Human beings are far from being obligate carnivores, and there's nothing in meat that you can't get as a vegetarian.


    You could call a shift away from meat-eating radical, but honestly, human society needs to change radically if it's going to survive the next century.



    We'd be removing them from the equation by simply not breeding any more animals for slaughter. It's the massive throughput of animal lives that's causing problems. Meat-eating people remove animals from the equation by paying for them to be slaughtered, but that's after they've done their damage.



    Strong economies are often founded on unsustainable, exploitative, unenvironmental practices like meat-eating. You can see that reflected in the many unethical but lucrative practices, such as the slave trade, that have already been outlawed. Such prohibitions probably do have effects on the economy, but there are more important things. As I've already said, meat-eating drives climate change, and flooded cities aren't great for the economy, either.



    I'm not dismissive of the car analogy in the least - the human race has too many cars and that needs dealing with also. Recognising that doesn't make the problem of meat-eating any smaller and it doesn't make eating meat any more ethical.

    (And it's spelled epitome.)
    1) Yes we can live without meat but its been part of our diet for 1000s of years. It is difficult to tell everyone to stop eating meat because there would be a huge backlash, not many people would be happy. Vegetarians have not even meat their entire life and dont understand how important meat is, not because 'we cant live without it' because we could, but many eat meat everyday and it does provide us with what we need. Yes there are alternatives but its hard to fight such a prevalent meat eating culture we live in. Like with the analogy of fossil fuels, we can live without it but life will become harder. I know it sounds ridiculous but thats just the way it is, no one can really question that., any meat eater will tell you that their life would be pretty mundane without it!

    2) yeah, i guess so you're right.

    3) Bear in mind however that animals can be bred on infertile land whereas agriculture is reliant on the right soil, water, sunlight and other factors. It isnt as reliable as meat. It also means that once meat is abolished, there will be a greater demand for agriculture which may not be met since there isnt enough land, labour, capital etc etc. Also, as i said, firms, farmers will inevitably lose out economically. With low supply and high demand, food prices will shoot up. Its just not economically viable at all.

    4) My point was that cars and meat eating is a totally valid comparison. Those who are against fossil fuels also have as much of a valid argument as you, but is it really a viable, practical solution to the problem? no. Thats the same with meat.
    My other point is that we do need to accept that we will continue to eat meat, like we accept the need for cars. Yes, a biologist will say eating the producer will give us more energy etc etc but problem is not many would change very easily! i.e. Costs>Benefits to the people in society BUT Benefits>Costs in terms of sustainable development, climate change etc etc. Its pure ignorance to say that we need to ban meat since its just not practical at all and not many will be in favour of the proposal. People need to find alternatives to meat, or a way of making the process more efficient and less polluting, or any other similar kind of solution instead of proposing an idea that will be impossible to implement.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    1) Yes we can live without meat but its been part of our diet for 1000s of years. It is difficult to tell everyone to stop eating meat because there would be a huge backlash, not many people would be happy. Vegetarians have not even meat their entire life and dont understand how important meat is, not because 'we cant live without it' because we could, but many eat meat everyday and it does provide us with what we need. Yes there are alternatives but its hard to fight such a prevalent meat eating culture we live in. Like with the analogy of fossil fuels, we can live without it but life will become harder. I know it sounds ridiculous but thats just the way it is, no one can really question that., any meat eater will tell you that their life would be pretty mundane without it!

    2) yeah, i guess so you're right.

    3) Bear in mind however that animals can be bred on infertile land whereas agriculture is reliant on the right soil, water, sunlight and other factors. It isnt as reliable as meat. It also means that once meat is abolished, there will be a greater demand for agriculture which may not be met since there isnt enough land, labour, capital etc etc. Also, as i said, firms, farmers will inevitably lose out economically. With low supply and high demand, food prices will shoot up. Its just not economically viable at all.

    4) My point was that cars and meat eating is a totally valid comparison. Those who are against fossil fuels also have as much of a valid argument as you, but is it really a viable, practical solution to the problem? no. Thats the same with meat.
    My other point is that we do need to accept that we will continue to eat meat, like we accept the need for cars. Yes, a biologist will say eating the producer will give us more energy etc etc but problem is not many would change very easily! i.e. Costs>Benefits to the people in society BUT Benefits>Costs in terms of sustainable development, climate change etc etc. Its pure ignorance to say that we need to ban meat since its just not practical at all and not many will be in favour of the proposal. People need to find alternatives to meat, or a way of making the process more efficient and less polluting, or any other similar kind of solution instead of proposing an idea that will be impossible to implement.
    1) Have a bit of historical perspective. All sorts of practices that were once thought integral to our economy and our culture have been abolished. And I think that it's equally easy to overestimate how difficult vegetarianism is - just as I, a vegetarian, have never tried meat, most meat-eaters have never tried vegetarianism. It's not that hard. Not to sound callous, but there are more important things than your comfort - there are people starving overseas who will be fed if enough people become vegetarian. Live simply, that others may simply live.

    3) For the most part, the animals we eat are fed on crops that are grown on farmland that could be used to produce vegetables that we could eat. Growing food that we could eat on that land will involve much less agriculture than feeding the animals and eating the animals; it's a much more efficient system. When we stop eating meat, the amount of agriculture we need to do will go down, the supply of food will go up, and the cost of food will go down. It is far more economically viable than what we are doing now. I don't doubt that there will be some disgruntled animal farmers as the system they work in dwindles out of existence, but on the whole, it will be a boon for the economy.

    4) I don't really know what you're trying to say here - try and use complete sentences, please. Although I seem to have picked out one thing - you think I am calling for a ban on meat; I am not, for many of the reasons you have already detailed. Instead I imagine a campaign of persuasion, in which everyone eventually voluntarily stops buying meat, and the meat industry folds. That probably sounds even more delusional to you, but we are a rapidly growing subset of the population. The meat industry is already feeling our effects.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't eat meat because I want to - I love the taste.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    1) Have a bit of historical perspective. All sorts of practices that were once thought integral to our economy and our culture have been abolished. And I think that it's equally easy to overestimate how difficult vegetarianism is - just as I, a vegetarian, have never tried meat, most meat-eaters have never tried vegetarianism. It's not that hard. Not to sound callous, but there are more important things than your comfort - there are people starving overseas who will be fed if enough people become vegetarian. Live simply, that others may simply live.

    3) For the most part, the animals we eat are fed on crops that are grown on farmland that could be used to produce vegetables that we could eat. Growing food that we could eat on that land will involve much less agriculture than feeding the animals and eating the animals; it's a much more efficient system. When we stop eating meat, the amount of agriculture we need to do will go down, the supply of food will go up, and the cost of food will go down. It is far more economically viable than what we are doing now. I don't doubt that there will be some disgruntled animal farmers as the system they work in dwindles out of existence, but on the whole, it will be a boon for the economy.

    4) I don't really know what you're trying to say here - try and use complete sentences, please. Although I seem to have picked out one thing - you think I am calling for a ban on meat; I am not, for many of the reasons you have already detailed. Instead I imagine a campaign of persuasion, in which everyone eventually voluntarily stops buying meat, and the meat industry folds. That probably sounds even more delusional to you, but we are a rapidly growing subset of the population. The meat industry is already feeling our effects.
    1) It doesnt matter if in the past, certain practises have been banned, since many of those went against human rights and were more blatantly unethical. Meat eating on the other hand is has been part of society since the first humans walked on earth, its not going to go away.

    2) Animals dont eat anywhere near as much of our food supplies as you point out. Cows eat grass for example. You're exaggerating how much food we can save by not breeding animals and we dont eat the same food as animals!

    3) A campaign of persuasion will never work. I mean never. As a vegetarian, you cannot understand how difficult it is to give up meat. Its not like 'oh we can survive without meat and its better for the world' because it isnt. You can ask any of your friends or something but i wouldnt event consider not eating meat. And i am actually a Hindu!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I go vegetarian for more than two days, I'm seriously like -
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RickmanAlways)
    We dont. Need to eat. MEAT.
    You say it's immoral to eat meat.

    Is it immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle? That is their natural food. Just as for human creatures meat is part of a balanced diet.

    You forget that humans, while substantively superior to the animal kingdom in intelligence and technological accomplishment, are still a part of it and we should still have rights to live according to our ancient (evolutionary) culinary customs.

    Of course I believe we should do everything possible to be kind to the animals, never to make them suffer. They should have a good life while they live on our farms, and be treated with respect. And when the technology for vat-grown meat advances to the point where a succulent and tasty fillet steak can be grown in a lab and that it is indistinguishable in quality from the real thing, of course I would favour doing that rather than producing it from living beings.

    Which raises the question; why have vegos I've spoken to said they oppose vat grown meat? It is completely illogical and suggests their vegetarianism comes from something deeper and more psychologically-based than simple concern for the animals. I suspect many of them harbour a deep disdain for human beings and are disgusted by us enjoying consumption of flesh. Opposition to consumption of meat is just one manifestation of their hatred for human civilisation and their viewing us as an infestation on the planet. They have malthusian, misanthropic views and they'd really rather we weren't here at all
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leepalmer)
    I think it is natural for a human to eat meat, and the most of medicine workers will agree with me . Moreover, I support hunting ( for a meat only, not trophy ), I do usually test out my rifle and rifle scopes ( http://www.atncorp.com/smart-hd-weapon-sight ) on legal hunts. I find all this natural.
    Nice sight. What kind of rifle and what calibre do you hunt with?

    When I was growing up we had a .222 bolt action* which was extremely effective for distance shots and larger game. Tbh even 22 long rifle can be quite effective against small game like wabbits and foxes. A friend hunted very well with .17 Hornady Hornet rounds, which is basically air rifle calibre with a powder cartridge

    *remember .222 is just a smidge below .223 / 5.56mm. People often forget that, all they can think of is the calibre and they forget the size of the cartridge
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    there are people starving overseas who will be fed if enough people become vegetarian
    I don't think that's true. There's generally enough food produced on earth for everyone to eat their fill, the problem is more related to the economic systems and the distribution of food. They are structural economic issues, not production-related.

    For example, there is absolutely enough food produced in East Asia (and even enough just on the Korean peninsula) that the North Koreans needn't have suffered the terrible famine of the 1990s (the Arduous March, as they call it). The problem was structural and economic; the failings of their communist government not because too many people eat meat.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    More vegetarians = Lower meat prices.

    We should direct people like OP to the developing world. As they develop there'll be more demand and prices will soar. Whereas if we encourage the developing world to live on lentils and tofu and whatever, we'll still be able to stuff our faces with bacon, steaks and whatnot at reasonable prices.

    From a vegetarian point of view it's better for them to piss off too! Developing countries don't have the animal welfare laws that we have. So instead of them convincing a person to not eat ethically produced meat, they could convince someone not to eat non ethically produced meat. Hell, with the higher standard of education we have in the developed word their well honed arguing skills could probably convince 5 or 6 people in the developing world not to eat un-ethically produced meat with the same effort it'd take to convince just 1 person here!. So with the effort it'd take to save some animals from being eaten with little to no pain here they could save 5 times as many animals from being eaten with more pain in the developing world

    Problem solved.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    I don't think that's true. There's generally enough food produced on earth for everyone to eat their fill, the problem is more related to the economic systems and the distribution of food. They are structural economic issues, not production-related.

    For example, there is absolutely enough food produced in East Asia (and even enough just on the Korean peninsula) that the North Koreans needn't have suffered the terrible famine of the 1990s (the Arduous March, as they call it). The problem was structural and economic; the failings of their communist government not because too many people eat meat.
    Whatever the source of the problem, producing more, cheaper food can only allow more people to eat. That there is already enough food produced to feed everyone is irrelevant in my eyes; if people are still starving, we are clearly not producing enough food.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Whatever the source of the problem, producing more, cheaper food can only allow more people to eat. That there is already enough food produced to feed everyone is irrelevant in my eyes; if people are still starving, we are clearly not producing enough food.
    Except that if we are producing enough food now and structural economic reasons prevent those who need it most from getting it, there's no guarantee our ceasing to eat meat will produce the desired result rather than ending up in the same situation
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Except that if we are producing enough food now and structural economic reasons prevent those who need it most from getting it, there's no guarantee our ceasing to eat meat will produce the desired result rather than ending up in the same situation
    Stopping eating meat may even ease those economic conditions. Some countries, for example, use too much of their land for meat production which they then export to affluent nations, which they find more profitable than farming vegetables to feed their own populace. Reducing meat demand will reduce that trend.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You say it's immoral to eat meat.

    Is it immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle? That is their natural food. Just as for human creatures meat is part of a balanced diet.

    You forget that humans, while substantively superior to the animal kingdom in intelligence and technological accomplishment, are still a part of it and we should still have rights to live according to our ancient (evolutionary) culinary customs.
    What happens in the natural world doesn't give us the right to do anything. It isn't our job to ensure that evolution runs the "correct" course or that natural food chains live on in human society - and in any case the modern meat industry is so hopelessly unnatural that it doesn't bear comparison to what would happen in the wild.

    Lions hunt gazelles because lions' digestive systems can only handle meat, and they don't have the moral discernment to gauge the consequences of their actions. We have digestive tracts such that we can demonstrably live on vegetable matter alone, and enough moral intelligence to know the consequences of meat-eating. We have a duty to use those gifts.

    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Of course I believe we should do everything possible to be kind to the animals, never to make them suffer. They should have a good life while they live on our farms, and be treated with respect. And when the technology for vat-grown meat advances to the point where a succulent and tasty fillet steak can be grown in a lab and that it is indistinguishable in quality from the real thing, of course I would favour doing that rather than producing it from living beings.

    Which raises the question; why have vegos I've spoken to said they oppose vat grown meat? It is completely illogical and suggests their vegetarianism comes from something deeper and more psychologically-based than simple concern for the animals. I suspect many of them harbour a deep disdain for human beings and are disgusted by us enjoying consumption of flesh. Opposition to consumption of meat is just one manifestation of their hatred for human civilisation and their viewing us as an infestation on the planet. They have malthusian, misanthropic views and they'd really rather we weren't here at all
    I resent your generalisation of vegetarians in your last paragraph. I myself am a vegetarian who would have no problem eating a lab-grown steak, as long as it's healthy and sustainable. So far as I can tell, I don't harbour any deep-seated loathing of humanity in general - and if I did, I doubt I would care so much about weaning human society off meat before it's too late.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Stopping eating meat may even ease those economic conditions. Some countries, for example, use too much of their land for meat production which they then export to affluent nations, which they find more profitable than farming vegetables to feed their own populace. Reducing meat demand will reduce that trend.
    In the UK we primarily get our meat either from within the UK or the European Union, or imported from major producer countries like Australia and New Zealand. Ceasing the import of Australian beef will not have any effect on the likelihood of famine in North Korea or Ethiopia.

    In fact, the last major famine (the 2011 East Africa famine, mostly Somalia) affected vegetable/wheat farmers much more than pastoralists who raise animals. Often animals can be raised quite efficiently (pigs particularly as they can be fed on scraps, and goats who can be allowed to graze on random grass)

    In ancient China they raised pigs precisely for that reason, and that was a time and a place where they would not have done so if it was energy inefficient.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Speak for yourself
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A$aprocky)
    3) A campaign of persuasion will never work. I mean never. As a vegetarian, you cannot understand how difficult it is to give up meat. Its not like 'oh we can survive without meat and its better for the world' because it isnt. You can ask any of your friends or something but i wouldnt event consider not eating meat. And i am actually a Hindu!
    What's this nonsense? Half of the vegetarians I know used to eat meat and were later convinced otherwise. Myself included, though I'm not completely there yet.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You say it's immoral to eat meat.

    Is it immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle? That is their natural food. Just as for human creatures meat is part of a balanced diet.

    You forget that humans, while substantively superior to the animal kingdom in intelligence and technological accomplishment, are still a part of it and we should still have rights to live according to our ancient (evolutionary) culinary customs.

    Of course I believe we should do everything possible to be kind to the animals, never to make them suffer. They should have a good life while they live on our farms, and be treated with respect. And when the technology for vat-grown meat advances to the point where a succulent and tasty fillet steak can be grown in a lab and that it is indistinguishable in quality from the real thing, of course I would favour doing that rather than producing it from living beings.

    Which raises the question; why have vegos I've spoken to said they oppose vat grown meat? It is completely illogical and suggests their vegetarianism comes from something deeper and more psychologically-based than simple concern for the animals. I suspect many of them harbour a deep disdain for human beings and are disgusted by us enjoying consumption of flesh. Opposition to consumption of meat is just one manifestation of their hatred for human civilisation and their viewing us as an infestation on the planet. They have malthusian, misanthropic views and they'd really rather we weren't here at all
    You want to copy that particular trait but no other? Then why are you wearing clothes, or using a computer and you dont sniff everyone's ass when you meet them surely?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • 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.