Veganism and Cannibalism

sounds like the making of a perfect argument for vegetarianism. "Hey, people are animals too! so how come humans are so much better than cows? thats specisism, that is!"

 

I respect the animals that I eat, in the way that I am thankful for the animal that was bloodily slaughtered and gutted so I can sustain life, and feel somewhat remorseful for them. I'm so far removed from the process, that it hypocritically doesn't intervene with my morals. If I had to be the one killing the animal, I have a feeling I just might be a vegetarian (assuming I could actually sustain life this way). I am uncomfortable with causing pain to other things. For some asinine reason, I'm perfectly okay with eating the results of that pain, as long as I didn't inflict it.

However, I am also a supporter of animal rights to the extent that I don't believe they should be subjected to any more inconveniences than they have to be (and it's a pretty fucking be inconvenience to be slaughtered for the happiness of my belly). Animal testing, deplorable living conditions, and the such make me sick.

And then again, it's the whole Lion King 'circle of life' mumbo jumbo. Even vegans eat living things. Everything (for the most part) that can't do photosynthesis, will only survive by eating something else that is living. I don't see anything unnatural or wrong in eating animals. If we're going to put humans on the same level as animals, then we have to put them on the same level for all levels. Animals eat animals, so souldn't humans be able to eat animals? Or because we're something different than animals (because of our concious though process) then we shouldn't act like animals (and thus eat animals), wouldn't it also make sense to say that because we're differenet, we can treat animals differently than we do humans, and thus we can eat them?

I don't know. That probably is circular, and makes little sense. To make a long story short. I eat animals, I have no problem eating animals. I don't eat humans, I have a problem with eating humans. I have problems killing things, I have no problems eating the results of the killings (as long as they aren't human). My morals in that sense are fucked, and I'm perfectly okay with that. Maybe I'm just an ass?

 

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

I've always expected this. I wanted to write a 3000-page novel about a single tree.

I find it amazing that people are able to experience compassion for other humans and other sentient beings. But it seems this trend appeared within us, it's not going anywhere, and we will only become even more compassionate with time. Thus, maybe someday our food will consist entirely of non-living matter. (i.e. fruits that have fallen from trees)

 

What?

 

But sin =/= satan?

 

The moment I see the animal rights folks campaigning for the jailing of predatory animals that kill and eat prey, I'll start giving a shit about humans killing other animals.

Until then, I'm going to go eat some bacon.

 

It's not about rights. It's about survival of our species, in the end.


In nature, carnivores are significantly fewer than herbivores. Because they take more resources to sustain themselves (in a very inefficient way). Basically, the energy their bodies get that way, is produced by much more land+plants (-->prey), than would be needed for the same amount of energy to get directly from plants.

Carnivores are inefficient.

 

Because they are basing their lifestyle off different principles.

Meat-eaters who don't support human cannibalism most likely think along the lines that humans are more sacred, in some sense, than other animals, at least relatively to themselves (i.e: while some humans believe that humans are universally/absolutely more sacred than other animals, other humans reckon that while humans are more sacred, it is subjective/relative (i.e: the opinion: "other species would believe that they are the more sacred ones, and their belief wouldn't necessarily be wrong or right, but I feel justified/excusable in treating humans as more sacred, for they are of my kind")).

Most vegetarians/vegans would hold this view but would also hold an additional view that it is wrong to harm animals (including humans) [thought experiment: would the average vegetarian/vegan choose to save a human or any other given animal in a danger scenario? (Presumed answer: the human)]. However, many might find that vegetarians/vegans attempting to convert others to their adopted lifestyle wouldn't mention the first principle, because that wouldn't be tactical for their cause.


Things tend to sympathise more with other things similar to themselves. For example, some vegetarians/vegans care a lot about animals but don't give a damn about plants. Why? Well, basically animals are more similar to humans than plants are. Some vegetarians/vegans probably became that way because of sympathy to certain animals, but ended up applying that sympathy to all animals as a principle because it made sense at the time (and seems more virtuous). A lot of vegetarians/vegans will justify their lifestyle because animals have a nervous system (a great way to justify the principle), but let's consider what would happen if an alien sapient plant race came to Earth - are they more likely to sympathise with Earth's animals or plants? Ok, maybe they would be attracted to our sapience more than Earth's plants' cellular walls, but who knows. Regardless, sympathy levels resonate when the subject is of the exact (or I suppose at least really close to the) same species as the sympathizer, and this sympathy is related to how "sacred" one perceives things to be.

One can look at this situation as a tier or subset system - just as (the super great majority of) vegetarians/vegans find it ok to eat plants, but not ok to eat non-human animals or humans, meat-eaters who don't support human cannibalism find it ok to eat plants and non-human animals, but not ok to eat humans, where the different classifications are like tiers/(sub)sets. An example of this concept working in another field is as follows: some Christians would say that only Christianity is tolerable, while some would say that Christianity and other Abrahamic religions are tolerable, while some would say that any monotheist religion is tolerable, and etc.


On a different note, plants have done nothing to deserve to be eaten. If anything, humans are justified in eating herbivores as vengeance for the plants those animals have ate.

For some.

So is browsing Internet forums instead of working for society.

However, we humans have acquired the ability to exchange efficiency for pleasure/recreation, to a degree, and meat is tasty to me, and many other humans would agree.

 

By the way, I would never go and force people to become vegetarians, that would be stupid. Instead I would expect production of food to be better regulated. As junk food proves - we can learn to eat any food, we become food-junkies. We kill our bodies and our minds, because someone had to feel "important" by "ruling" the other monkeys (as if that's such a big deal).

Khm. Snap back to reality: we live on the same planet. Of course, it may not be important for some people to keep the species going. They would like to destroy the whole species, because of their personal problems. They needed hugs, but it's not too late.

Humanity is a little more important than a self-destructive society. This type of argument is similar to the one enforced over participants in the Milgram's experiment or The Stanford Prison Experiment. They did the work for their society. It's also the argument that led to the peaceful citizens, working in Nazi Germany, or the christians burning "witches", or the romans torturing christians. You may notice that they have been viewed differently later.

The trends are that humanity cares about humanity. The other fluctuations are temporary and never last.

 

Wait: who, what?

I meant that only some people become vegetarians for "the survival of our species". Believe it or not, some vegetarians don't become vegetarians over that, and do it for different reasons.

Also, why is our species going to die off at this rate? What we need to do is focus on population control.

Wait, what are you talking about?

You said that "carnivores are inefficient". Yeah, well lots of other things in life are "inefficient" too, yet we do them anyway for pleasure/recreation.


Edit:

Also, if "carnivores are inefficient", should we kill off all (non-human) carnivores to "save our species"?

 

I'm not sure exactly what (and why) are we arguing about.

Nope. But we also shouldn't train all humans to become carnivores, which is what we do.

Our notions of pleasure/recreation are also entirely manipulated by what we are taught to be. Remember, some tribes are cannibals, but they are not genetically different from us. So all that is culture. I understand that what is already learned is difficult to unlearn, and I wouldn't ask that. But I would ask for more reasonable and sustainable conditions for next generations, for their sake.

Basically, anybody who has been socially rejected at first (that includes insufficient breastfeeding). Those are the "alphas"; and following after alphas is not very intelligent, at this point of development, but we still do it. Just because someone has the best ability to lead (usually by the application of fear), doesn't mean that his/her perception of what is good for humanity is reasonable, or well-informed. Usually the opposite, lots of personal & antisocial bias.
Also check this: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/08/entertainment/et-boss8

Most of the species is dying a little too fast (not to mention suffering), even at the moment. That is unacceptable, on its own. Apart from that, the tendency of the antisocial behavior, that is currently stimulated, leads to its own doom, so in the end it may not matter who "won".

About population control, oddly enough, when some society has better education available, they have less need for control. On the other hand, when they live in poverty and ignorance, they reproduce a lot, out of very primitive survival reasons; and no control will solve this. This is a historical trend (in time - in the past they knew less, and reproduced more), as well as social trend (in geography - poor uneducated nations reproduce more). So the best population control is higher quality of living. The other thing is effectively a genocide. And it usually gets harshly criticized later, as history shows.

 

I could not live without meat.

 

Ok basically I was attempting to convey that not every vegetarian became vegetarian to "save the world", but you perceived that I was saying that not everyone wants to save the world, so then you started going on about psychopaths. I think that's what happened anyway.

Humans have been omnivores for thousands of years. If people followed your idealism, then people would be "training" humans to become herbivores, if anything.

Wait so basically we must figure out what the most efficient plant is, and then mass-grow that for our children to eat while we have our steaks, if that's our cup of tea?

I think you might be seeing this too black-and-white. Everybody is rejected by society in different ways.

Wait, aren't you an "alpha" then? Someone telling others how to live? Your non-meat eating ways is being rejected by society... so you want to reform society? Is that what "alphas" do/are? You are using fear too - saying that humans will be wiped out if we don't conform to your ideals. :S

How will people taming their children to become herbivores going to solve world hunger? That's not going to make them help out less developed countries.

Yes, I would agree that societies tend to have less and less children the more they develop. But I think we got on a tangent here. My point was that I don't see how meat-eating is the problem if one is worried about food shortages - it's the number of mouths to feed, isn't it?

But if you are right about plants being more efficient, then it is the people who are starving who need to go vegetarian, wouldn't it be?

 

Uh. This isn't about me, or you. Why do you even conclude that I'm not eating meat. I think you took too personally my very first statement, and that's how it all began. I do not expect of anybody to change their ways, as I said. We can't always do "what is right", because our own will has its physical limitations (including already trained circuits in our brains, once they are trained in some way). That's fine. I'm simply stating that carnivores are more inefficient, and that anybody could be herbivore, if they had not been raised in a culture that motivates them to follow completely unnecessary practices. The only reason for which, being, that this helped some of them feel more socially "dominant" by enforcing certain junkie consumerism on the others. I'm not judging this either, because it's nobody's fault, but it's inhumane and inefficient in the end, and inhumane and inefficient approaches historically get improved. (when i say inhumane, i mean to the humans who get affected by this inefficiency; the animal and plant discussion is another topic)

I also don't think it's idealism to care about other human beings; it seems more idealistic (i.e. irrational) not to care, because the history of cultural evolution has shown a clear tendency to sustain humanity. Expecting the "number of mouths to feed" to drop down (by waiting them to die), doesn't sound to me like something to be acceptable later in time. Also, we could be waiting another 3 centuries, and it could only get even worse, without improving the conditions of living of those people - they'll be reproducing even faster (out of fear). Even if such approach keeps going for some period, it won't last. But it's fine, I'm simply stating my analysis, that doesn't concern anyone in particular, if you ask me. I might as well not have stated it.

 

If you aren't a vegetarian, then that amplifies this point:

X_x


I did type out something along the lines of: "so I shall presume you are a vegetarian, yes?" in one of my earlier posts, but I deleted the text because I thought even considering not would be an insult to your integrity. I presumed that you were someone who would practice what you preached.

I do understand however that you aren't not-practising what you preach (as you stress that you don't wish to force anyone (which would include yourself, how conveniently) to change their ways). However, this is like a man telling women to cover themselves up for their own good. The man could have good intentions, and I'm sure you do, but do you see how you aren't the one who has to take the leap? Sure, yeah, you'll say that they can't miss what they never had, but what are families to do when the parents are having steak and the curious children beans...?

Omnivore humans have tasted plants and meat. If they didn't like meat, they'd stop eating it, wouldn't they?

Not offering the next generations meat is like not offering them video games and films, because "music alone will help them be more productive as they can do other things while listening to music". "Sure, if they've never watched films or played video games they wont know what they are missing, aye?"

Yeah, for some reason I don't think that is fair.

"You must be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

 

There is no such thing as integrity. There is no such thing as preaching also. Those are very selfishly oriented and outdated notions, used to scare you. They are political and religious, not rational. But I can see why they are important, when one has to deal with many who are very deeply into such terminology (like Gandhi had to).

Sure, if parents eat meat in front of their kids, that just won't work, because kids just repeat what they see. That's part of the problem. But sure, there are workarounds to this, if people were even willing to consider it.

About "depriving" children of something, it is good also to think whether we are not deprived, by being fed it. Then comes the consideration, why have we been fed it, in the first place, was it with concern for our own health, or was it with concern for someone to feel good bossing someone else. The origin of choices makes them more clear. It is not really in our choice, to resist much of the choice, that's why I say it's not anybody's fault (including the bossing ones).

It's not that they "liked" meat, it worked for them to sustain population, at some point. They became less dependent of climate shifts. It was crucial for survival. (now it's not, and is even the other way) The whole idea of "liking" things is much more recent, and I'd say it is also an enforced idea (one person to dominate another gets them to claim they like something; it's a form of identification of ownership, marking territory of influence). Originally, you just explore things, and what you like or don't like, is temporary.

But once again, I must clarify that stating that carnivores are less efficient than herbivores, is just that. It's not an accusation, it's an open suggestion for possible improvement of conditions. I have no idea why we are still discussing it. I don't ask anyone to give up eating meat.

 

I