There's really no good reason to eat meat

[Toe]

Steve Jobs is a vegetarian, and with good reason. The production and consumption of meat causes huge environmental problems, exacerbates global human starvation, and results in the annual deaths of billions of sentient beings. The transient experience of tasting something "yummy" just isn't worth it.

I never talk about this stuff much in the real world, but on-line, well... that's different. ;) Allow me to pimp my new website (http://www.LessMeat.com/) where you can see answers to all those silly reasons not to be a vegetarian.

Enjoy!! :D

[mkrishnan]

Nice site, Toe! :) I've been on and off vegetarian many times, but I'm back and I think this time for good. I like the "less meat" emphasis of your website, because I think its an important thing of which vegetarian / animal rights activists lose sight -- if everyone in the developed world ate even a few pounds less meat per month, it would probably have a substantial impact on the environment, on the welfare of animals, and maybe even their health.

Also one thing I've been very aware of this time around is how different meat tastes and smells after you stop eating it for a prolonged time. I like(d) the taste of a lot of meat. I would probably too, if I started eating it again. But anyway, in the beginning, I had a serious craving for hamburgers. So I would eat vegetarian all week, and then make a once-a-week concession for a Whopper :rolleyes: But over time, the taste became very different, as my sense of taste de-acclimated to meat. Meat started to taste sour and smell bad to me. So in the end, I didn't even want it anymore. I really don't crave after meat anymore, except maybe sushi (to which I haven't really given in...the only exceptions I really make is once in a rare-rare while, i.e. once a year, to have a little meat at dim sum, because my best friends love dim sum....)

Anyway, do your thing, Toe! :)

[Daveway]

I really don't like to use the word "hate" so I won't.

I pitty vegetarians like you. You try to force your beliefs down everyone's throat. Humans are genetically engineered by God to be able to eat meat. Brushed your teeth lately and noticed pointy teeth? From what I read on this forum, it seems like many vegans here are just self absorbed liberals.
If no one ate meat there would be a large problem of over population and then your "save the animals" protests goes down the drain. Not to mention all your plant eating takes away from the enviroment that protects animals.

I'm done venting, it's just sad to see another thread of some self absorbed vegan trying to shove his belief to other people. I'm sorry if I offended you but it's the truth. I respect vegetarians, it's just when they do this kind of thing that I get mad.

[miloblithe]

Yeah, I like fish too much. But I'd be happy enough to stop eating chicken again. Also, after eating Russian meat for a year an a half, I feel like I'm owed like a really top-notch juicy steak. The problem is I don't raelly _want_ a steak. It's been nearly 15 years since I last had one, and I doubt I could really eat one.

[Nickygoat]

So I would eat vegetarian all week, and then make a once-a-week concession for a Whopper :rolleyes:
Does a Whopper count as meat? :p. I agree generally with vegetarianism, but find that my diet is too boring if I don't eat meat every now and again. a pretty poor excuse I agree.
A few of my friends are vegetarian/ vegan but will quite happily wear leather shoes and jackets (one is a biker with full leathers) without seeing the contradiction when promoting their diet. That, for me, invalidates their arguments.

[miloblithe]

Good point. God wants us to eat meat. It's just apples he wants us to avoid. :rolleyes:

[ldburroughs]

Interesting thread. Here are my reasons for eating meat. First, I like chicken and filet mignon. That's pretty much the only type of meat I will eat. It also has to come with no fat (at all) and no bones. I don't like the thought of eating little (or huge) animals for a meal. While I'm at it I might as well mention that I think hunting (as a sport) is ridiculous. It's hardly a sport and it is simply a joke to claim you are tough because you can stop a deer with a gun. If you want to impress me, chase it down and kill it with your bare hands. On second thought, don't. That is gross and a serious waste of productive energy. Although, it certainly is more sporting than hiding in bushes and shooting Bambi or Daffy. Oooh, you killed a deer. Big deal. All they do is eat grass and play with bunnies.

Back to my original thought. I eat meat because I don't have time to eat non-meat products. Between a daughter, set of twin girls on the way, a full-time working wife, law school, and work ... I can't fit it into my schedule. If they made decent quick vegetarian meals available I would be first in line. What exists today for the most part are meals that taste awful, smell funny, and have a terrible texture in the mouth. I am not one of those who needs non-chicken, chicken as a vegetarian. I don't need you to reproduce the taste, smell, and texture of chicken with some horrid soy product, just show me how to make something that is quick and easy and won't lower my wife's iron levels.

I'd love to stop eating dead animals for meals. Any time I think about it I get absolutely sick. Like I mentioned earlier, I can't eat anything with a bone in it. It reminds me that I'm eating flesh. Gross! But I do love a filet and I can't seem to make a meal without chicken these days. What a tangled web I've woven. I need help, but there is none to be found. I'm writing this from Virginia Beach, home of PETA. Nice people by the way. Good message, often times poorly delivered, but necessary.

[mkrishnan]

A few of my friends are vegetarian/ vegan but will quite happily wear leather shoes and jackets (one is a biker with full leathers) without seeing the contradiction when promoting their diet. That, for me, invalidates their arguments.

Depends on your perspective, I guess...I personally don't really promote my diet. Even online, I usually stay out of it -- I mostly just wanted to be supportive of Toe. But, if your perspective is harm minimization towards animals, or environmental benefit, then any amount of reduction has some positive impact, right?

I do wear leather though. I'd happily not wear leather if stylish replacements were available, but in many cases they aren't. I think it is a problem that a lot of vegetarians struggle with. There just aren't a lot of analogues to Steve Madden and Aldo, let alone Prada or Fendi, that don't involve leather.

As for the biker, you mean like a Harley biker? I'm constantly re-evaluating my perspective on that set, because there're so many more down here than there were in Detroit. There've been several children at camp weekends whose parents were so sweet, and were total bikers, with the hippie kinda names and everything. But anyway, outside of that kind of biker, I thought most motorcycle enthusiasts didn't wear leather anymore, because the alternatives were so much better performance-wise?

[Toe]

You're showing off exactly why I made this site...

>I pitty vegetarians like you. You try to force your beliefs down everyone's throat.
Huh? What forcing? I just made a website. And BTW, like most vegetarians, I am 100% opposed to any sort of anti-meat legislation. Just like with alcohol, drugs, and abortions... prohibition never works.

>Humans are genetically engineered by God to be able to eat meat.
God doesn't require you to eat meat. (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15)

>Brushed your teeth lately and noticed pointy teeth?
Gorillas have pointy teeth too and are herbivores. (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12)

>If no one ate meat there would be a large problem of over population and then your "save the animals" protests goes down the drain.
Are you kidding? I didn't even bother to put a reply to that on my site since it makes no sense. If demand for meat goes down, the number of animals raised for slaughter will decline.

>Not to mention all your plant eating takes away from the enviroment that protects animals.
All studies show that meat is far less efficient than plant-based food production. Which uses more, raising plants to eat, or raising plants to feed to animals, then eating the animals? It's a pure matter of efficiency.

>I'm done venting, it's just sad to see another thread of some self absorbed vegan trying to shove his belief to other people. I'm sorry if I offended you but it's the truth. I respect vegetarians, it's just when they do this kind of thing that I get mad.
No shoving going on here... you weren't forced to read my post or visit my site. I'm tired of all those car companies trying to force me to buy their cars. Do you think I should complain about it?

[AliensAreFuzzy]

Personally, I don't know what I would eat if I didn't eat meat. I have a hard enough time figuring out what to eat on Fridays in Lent. If I had to do that every day, I don't think I'd be able to do it.

[840quadra]

I just discovered I like Tofu of all things..

I am not going to convert, but it is a larger part of my diet now. I have a couple of friends that are die hard Vegetarian, but none that are of the Vegan classification.

I am a Farm boy, and I can't give up Cheese and a good steak every so often!

[miloblithe]

While I do like some of the boca burgers, I think they are probably no substitute for real meat. My feeling has always been that there's no point in trying to quit eating meat by trying to substitute meat with fake meat. It'll never satisfy. You have to get into what foods there are on offer. I love tofu and lots of veggies and beans and so on. If I was a meat and potatos kind of person, I don't see how I could enjoy life as a vegitarian. The funny thing is, after a long time of not eating meat, some of the meat substitutes become something in their own right. I like boca burgers because I think they taste good, not because I think they substitute for burgers. If I wanted a burger I'd get a burger.

As for iron:
http://www.vegsoc.org/info/iron.html

Sources of Iron
Good sources: Chick peas, Bran flakes, Spinach, Baked beans, Black treacle , Muesli, Dried figs, Dried apricots

Fair sources: Egg, Avocado, Asparagus, wholemeal bread, Broccoli, Brown rice, Peanut butter

[Toe]

Personally, I don't know what I would eat if I didn't eat meat. I have a hard enough time figuring out what to eat on Fridays in Lent. If I had to do that every day, I don't think I'd be able to do it.I find there to be a huge variety available. Pizza and every form of pasta and sauce pretty much qualifies. Almost alll traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them. Pretty much anything but the standard European diet, or modern diets around the world that have been over-meated by American influence.

Americans are just brainwashed into thinking that it ain't a meal unless some critter was cut up into it.

[Applespider]

Sorry, I like meat. I like lots of vegetables too. I don't eat meat every day generally but I have no scruples about enjoying it. I don't eat reclaimed or reconstituted junk and I tend to buy good quality, well-sourced wherever I can.

I see a lamb gambolling in a field and I think 'Mmmm, rosemary and garlic' served with new potatoes and some green beans.

I must say that I see your argument over eating meat being similar to slavery or cannibalism as fatuous. Animals don't have free will; and chances are that lamb wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for me wanting to eat it. ;) Look what happens to other species that humans don't find useful; they become endangered or extinct.

[Toe]

Sorry, I like meat.Don't apologize to me... I'm not the one being killed.

I must say that I see your argument over eating meat being similar to slavery or cannibalism as fatuous. Animals don't have free will;Have you ever met a dog or cat? You really think they are 100% controlled by their instincts? Keep in mind that pigs are much, much more intelligent than cats, dogs, or dolphins.

and chances are that lamb wouldn't have been born if it wasn't for me wanting to eat it. By that reasoning, it would be OK to raise people for slaughter, as long as that's the only reason they were bred....

[Applespider]

Almost alll traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them.

Much of that wasn't through choice though. The traditional diets in these countries were generally those of the majority; the poorer sectors in society who couldn't afford meat. If you take a look at recipes from 19th century Italy for feastdays, you'll find many dishes with offal (pigs trotters etc) because it was the cheapest available.

You'll also find that unlike modern US/UK meals where we consider meat to be the major component on the plate; they used stews/casseroles to spread it out amongst as many as possible. So they would make minestra (a cabbage/potato/bean stew) but throw a ham knuckle into it for flavour, vitamins and if your bowl had a shred of meat, you were lucky.

I'll agree though that since there has been a tradition of not having meat available in those cuisines, they do tend to offer more tasty alternatives than much of the mush you see sold for vegetarians on many traditional US/UK menus.

[pseudobrit]

I eat meat sparingly.

I don't eat breakfast, I always eat a vegetarian lunch (yogurt, crackers, fruit) and often don't eat any meat for dinner.

I like Boca products and they're easier to make than real meat.

It is highly unnatural to eat meat with three meals a day. Forget gorillas, that's never been the normal way humans have eaten for thousands of years. Eating meat historically used to be something special. It's only been the last 80 years or so that it's de rigeur to have bacon/sausage for breakfast, ham sandwich for lunch and steak/chicken for dinner.

[Abstract]

I'm a meat eater, and while I will continue to eat meat, I will certainly side with Toe and say its probably unnatural.

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first. We're the only meat eaters who need to cook our food in order to kill the bacteria before we eat it. Why? Because we don't naturally produce the enzymes necessary to kill off the bacteria. Do you see lions and tigers cook their meat over a fire before they eat it? You'd find it ridiculous if you saw a bear cook a raccoon over an open flame, wouldn't you? Its probably because it just doesn't look natural.

[pseudobrit]

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first. We're the only meat eaters who need to cook our food in order to kill the bacteria before we eat it. Why? Because we don't naturally produce the enzymes necessary to kill off the bacteria. Do you see lions and tigers cook their meat over a fire before they eat it?

If you killed an animal fresh you could eat it raw without much risk of sickness too.

Think sushi; think tartare.

[Sun Baked]

I'm a meat eater, and while I will continue to eat meat, I will certainly side with Toe and say its probably unnatural.

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first. We're the only meat eaters who need to cook our food in order to kill the bacteria before we eat it. Why? Because we don't naturally produce the enzymes necessary to kill off the bacteria. Do you see lions and tigers cook their meat over a fire before they eat it? You'd find it ridiculous if you saw a bear cook a raccoon over an open flame, wouldn't you? Its probably because it just doesn't look natural.Here you go...
But it's one sick caveman diet (http://beethoven.beglobal.com/~mickey/forums/viewtopic.php?t=8613) http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2680&stc=1

[jamdr]

This is a great thread, thanks for posting Toe. I've been trying hard to go vegetarian for a number of years and I'm really close to getting there. The main obstacle for me was that when you're in college, you don't have much of a choice of what to eat if you can only afford to eat dining hall food. Right now I'm at the point where I will eat a tiny bit of chicken once every couple weeks maybe. It's really just luck of the draw what happens to get served and how hungry I am at the time. But for about four years that's all the meat I've eaten and I'd like to be cut it out of my diet completely.

[Blue Velvet]

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first.

You could also make the same argument for potatoes.

[CanadaRAM]

By that reasoning, it would be OK to raise people for slaughter, as long as that's the only reason they were bred....

"What is the difference between a human hypothetically raised on a farm and a human raised in society?
People used to be raised to be slaves... was that OK?"

Hyperbole verging on hysteria.

Its why I give no credence to the "Meat is Murder" and "Milk is Pus" crowd.

If you cannot advance your point of view without resorting to logical ridiculousness and emotional blackmail tactics, then I have no time for you.

[asif786]

I've been a vegan for a couple of weeks now, and I must say - it's not too bad..

I'm not a vegan because of cruelty to animals or anything like that, because I know it's *always* going to happen. Me becoming a vegan isn't going to stop that. I simply became one because I thought 'why not?' - if I end up hating it, I can always go back..

I've slowly found that where I used to eat 3-4 hamburgers a day (those tiny mcdonalds ones - they're cheap), now when I look at one I think 'eww, how could I eat so many of those'.

everybody has a right to eat what they want, when they want. I dont think I'm superior because I dont eat meat. Nobody should. But anyone who is thinking of trying to become a vegan or a veggie, just try it - it wont hurt. you'll see that after a while, meat isnt so nice all the time..

-asif

[JesseJames]

Hmmm. This thread gave me an idea for dinner; time to fire up the grill and toss on some ribeyes. :)

[feakbeak]

I don't get upset by vegetarians or vegans. I disagree though, I think it is natural. We need nutrients that historically humans have obtained from eating other animals. We can use natural and artificial substitutes for these nutrients, but why? Animals eating other animals is normal. It's the way the world was meant to be. It's been working that way for millions of years, why change it? Sure, I'm an intelligent being (sometimes) and can reason and care for other people/animals. However, if I'm out in the woods and stumble across a hungry grizzly bear... I'm lunch. Is the bear being mean or cruel? No. It's being a bear.

We're being humans, sure over time we've developed tools and strategies to be able to kill animals that we could never kill with our bare hands. We've also gotten to the point where most of us don't obtain our own food, so a few humans have to run large companies that raise and kill many animals for the purpose of providing us delicious meals. I am against treating the animals in cruel manner while they are here on this earth growing to become my roasted chicken dinner. I know animal cruelity happens at these places and I would like it to not happen, but I don't think we should just stop eating animals.

In my mind, it is just nature. All livings things must eat other living things for survival. It is this simple - you eat living things or you die. What if plants and vegetables have feelings or are sentient? Sure it doesn't seem that way, but we don't know. We don't know that chicken's are sentient... we have no idea what it is like to be anything other than human. I don't believe in killing animals for sport, but if you are going to make use of it for clothng or food or some useful purpose I see no problem with it. If another species evolved to be way smarter and more advanced than us and happened to like the way we taste, we would be raised to be slaughtered. That is just the way it goes. Humans weren't always at the top of the food chain. Our ancestors worked hard to get us where we are today... enjoy the fruits (or should I say "meats") of their labor.

Just my opinion, I have no problem with anyone choosing to not eat animal products. I do find it unnatural though.

[~Shard~]

I enjoy meat but I don't eat it that often - maybe once or twice a week. Ultimately though, the reason I make the choices that I do with regards to my diet is more one of health and personal well-being than anything to do with animal rights, etc. I just try and be as healthy as I can. In the end, as I say with most everything else, everything in moderation - you can't go too wrong if you follow that line of thinking.

[Toe]

If you cannot advance your point of view without resorting to logical ridiculousness and emotional blackmail tactics, then I have no time for you.Sometimes one's logic seems flawed when one is arguing against an illogical proposition.

The idea that it is acceptable to eat animals simply because they were raised for it is fallacious and circular. It is no wonder that my arguments against this non-reasoning seem a little unstable.

Such logic does not permeate my site however... I just had no choice in the case of that "argument."

[jamdr]

I pitty vegetarians like you. You try to force your beliefs down everyone's throat. Humans are genetically engineered by God to be able to eat meat. Brushed your teeth lately and noticed pointy teeth? From what I read on this forum, it seems like many vegans here are just self absorbed liberals.
Have you ever really stopped to think about the moral consequences of the issue instead of just being reactionary like this? I had a friend who was a die-hard meat-eater, but in general a pretty ethical, Peace Corps kinda guy. Well, one day he decided that, like Toe says, there really is no good reason to eat meat and a lot of reasons to not. So he becomes a vegetarian. No one is trying to force anything down your throat, but does it bother you at all that you are eating the dead corpses of animals that lived and died in the most horrific ways you can imagine?

[edesignuk]

There is a very good reason to eat meat.






...I like it!

http://www.wholefoods.com/recipes/images/steak.jpg
hmmm...yummy.

[~Shard~]

There is a very good reason to eat meat.

...I like it!

hmmm...yummy.

And in the end, isn't that all that really matters? ;) :)

[Toe]

I don't get upset by vegetarians or vegans. I disagree though, I think it is natural. We need nutrients that historically humans have obtained from eating other animals. We can use natural and artificial substitutes for these nutrients, but why? Animals eating other animals is normal. It's the way the world was meant to be. It's been working that way for millions of years, why change it? Sure, I'm an intelligent being (sometimes) and can reason and care for other people/animals. However, if I'm out in the woods and stumble across a hungry grizzly bear... I'm lunch. Is the bear being mean or cruel? No. It's being a bear.Living in a house and using a computer are unnatural. Men raping unprotected women is natural. What the heck does nature have to do with modern society? http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12

And as for you acting the same as a bear... are you saying that your ethics should be based on those of a bear?

[CubaTBird]

it seems some of u vegans as u put it.. are not eating meat because your afraid of harming animals and the environment? ehh... right... the way i see it.. i do something for myself.. not for someone else... yeah that may be self absorbed.. but who really matters here.. u or that someone else?

[Erendiox]

I eat meat, and with no regrets. Its a perfectly natural part of our diet, not to mention a critical part of a healthy existance. Meat gives you nutrients that other foods simply can't.

And also, in regards to Daveway's comment about if nobody ate meat, yes, there would be an overpopulation of animals. Not cattle, but wild animals like deer. I hunt in NY, and the population of deer and similar animals in the area are dependent on the fact that hunters kill and eat a good number of them each year. For all of you that think hunting is cruel and wrong, if we don't hunt they overpopulate and starve to death. When you think about the difference between a slow, horrible death, and a relatively quick one, the moral path is clear. So I have no qualms with eating meat in that respect.

[wPod]

I'm a meat eater, and while I will continue to eat meat, I will certainly side with Toe and say its probably unnatural.

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first.

Horrible example. If someone has been a vegitarian for a long period of time, numerous years, then they would have trouble digesting COOKED meat as well!!!! Trust me, I've had friends come back to the 'dark-side' simply because it is too hard to be vegitarian in texas! And then ive seen them get pretty sick off of meat, until they finally got used to eating it. So im sure if we had been fed fresh uncooked meat all of our lives we would have the necisary digestive ability to eat it.

anyway, i like meat, meat is good. there really isnt a good way to get the same amount of proteen out of a vegitarian diet. you have to go out of your way and eat the same few proteen rich things ALL of the time.
i would have to agree with the quote from toe's website where toe qotes The Journal of the American Dietetic Association, "...appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate. . ." i would say the same thing about a carnivorus diet. appropriately planning a diet with low fat meats, in combination with a variety of friuts, vegetables and fibers will provide just as good of a diet as an entierly vegitarian diet that has been equally well planned. the only difference is one you eat high proteen meet, and the other you eat high proteen tofu and beans! the question is, which do you prefer?

[dotdotdot]

meat is gods gift to the hungry man
fish is gods gift to the hungry woman

I'm about to enjoy some chicken soup for lunch, then I'm going to have a nice Stove-Top meat dinner for the passover seder.

[Toe]

it seems some of u vegans as u put it.. are not eating meat because your afraid of harming animals and the environment? ehh... right... the way i see it.. i do something for myself.. not for someone else... yeah that may be self absorbed.. but who really matters here.. u or that someone else?What is the point of living solely for one's self? That's really all you can aspire to?

Might you ever want to have children? Are you concerned that they may grow up in a world that can no longer sustain life?

Acting for the environment is not only acting for the social good, it ultimately is for your own good as well.

Or are you of the opinion that you should do whatever the f@!& you please, as long as you don't get caught, and screw tomorrow and everybody else? If so, then I don't give a s*!# about you, and neither does anyone else.

[CubaTBird]

What is the point of living solely for one's self? That's really all you can aspire to?

Might you ever want to have children? Are you concerned that they may grow up in a world that can no longer sustain life?

Acting for the environment is not only acting for the social good, it ultimately is for your own good as well.

Or are you of the opinion that you should do whatever the f@!& you please, as long as you don't get caught, and screw tomorrow and everybody else? If so, then I don't give a s*!# about you, and neither does anyone else.

Me being a vegetarian will not change the world... I respect vegetarians... i don't value their choice however... i just don't get it... but hey if thats they way they wanna go about their eating habits then so be it... i mean u could say that vegans want all meat eaters to go f*^%$ themselves aswell.. so it goes both ways.

[EJBasile]

I eat meat. I think its natural.
Other lots animals eat other animals. Why can't we?

[Toe]

And also, in regards to Daveway's comment about if nobody ate meat, yes, there would be an overpopulation of animals. Not cattle, but wild animals like deer.
Oh no! If everyone starts using computers, then the typewriter manufacturers will have too much supply! What kind of argument is that?

Anyway, there is not going to be one day when everyone stops eating meat. As meat consumption declines, meat production will decline. That will free up a LOT more land for wild animals to graze, and you won't have to go killing them for us.

[sushi]

Almost alll traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them.
I don't know about the LA, Med, or Indian diets. And by Indian I assume that you mean people from India and not Native Americans.

However, if Oriental means Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Phillipine or Tai, then I would suggest that they have had meats in their diets for years.

Meats being beef (including world famous Kobe beef), pork, poltry, chicken, dog, cat, rabbit, squirel, horse, and just about anything with four legs. In addition to these types of meats, there are fish (all kinds) and shellfish (all kinds) and of course snake and rats.

Of course some of these countries serve insects, which is a great source of protein, but is not considered a meat! ;)

Having grown up on the farm, where we butchered our own, I have no problem eating meat. Additionally, I hunt for food. Nothing like a great vinison steak! Squirel and rabbit are delicious as well. Pheasant and quail are tasty.

I have teeth made for eating flesh. And that is what I intend to use them for. At the same time I have no problems with vegatarians and their choices...as long as they don't try to limit mine.

Sushi

[Toe]

I eat meat. I think its natural.
Other lots animals eat other animals. Why can't we?If you want to have the ethics of an alligator, then go ahead. If you want to consider the consequences of your actions, then sometimes you might not choose to do the first "natural" thing that comes into your head.
http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12

[Blue Velvet]

While a meat-free diet does have some well-researched benefits, the equating of vegetarianism with a supposed higher moral purpose is counter-productive.

I blame Gandhi...


;)

[feakbeak]

Living in a house and using a computer are unnatural. Men raping unprotected women is natural. What the heck does nature have to do with modern society? http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12Computers are a technological advancement. Rape violates the rights of another human. I think we'd agree that we know ourselves to be sentient. My point is more that animals eating other animals is how it is meant to be. For example, if all humans stopped eating animals and then, hypothetically speaking other animals became more "civilized" and stopped eating other animals... we would get to a point where all animals were simply eating plants and not eating each other and it would throw our system of nature completely out of balance. Animals populations would surge out of control and millions of animals would die of starvation due to lack of food because the plants would be in too high of demand. In a worst case scenario this could also affect the landscape if certain species of plants were eaten to a point where they couldn't reproduce and sustain their own survival. There are natural systems that govern the way the world works. These principals have been in play for millions of years. If you choose to lead a different lifestyle that is fine by me, just my gut feeling that it is not the way it is supposed to be.

And as for you acting the same as a bear... are you saying that your ethics should be based on those of a bear?I'm not talking about ethics, I'm talking about natural systems and princples that keep population levels in check.

[sushi]

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first.
Don't tell the Japanese or Koreans.

Both countries have wonderful raw meat dishes. One that I really like is Yuke. It is raw meat topped with a raw egg. Sweet tasting.

Also, if fish is considered meat, then sushi (raw fish with rice) and sashimi (raw fish without rice) are huge sources of meat. In fact tonight, my wife and I just returned from a crab restaurant where we at raw, boiled and grilled crab. Sometimes we even induldge in the expensive delacacy of raw crab brains.

Sushi

[Sun Baked]

I eat meat. I think its natural.
Other lots animals eat other animals. Why can't we?You wouldn't happen to have a...

"I Only Eat Vegetarians"

...bumper sticker on your car?

[Toe]

There are natural systems that govern the way the world works. These principals have been in play for millions of years. If you choose to lead a different lifestyle that is fine by me, just my gut feeling that it is not the way it is supposed to be.In the past century, humans have radically altered all of this.

It is not "natural' for humans to kill 1.1 billion pigs every year (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18). Or over 17 billion chickens. That skews things horribly. As does all the agriculture necessary to support those livestock, and all the concentrated waste that comes from it (ask anyone in North Carolina).

You arguments for maintaining balance work best with vegetarianism and/or significant reductions of the human population.

[sushi]

I pitty vegetarians like you. You try to force your beliefs down everyone's throat.
I hear where you are coming from.

Taking a look at Toe's site shows his true focus and IMHO it is not a balanced one but rather a very one sided view. It is his website and he can do what he wants. No issues there. Just agreeing with your second part and suggesting that his website demonstrates this.

Sushi

[miloblithe]

I think the meat eaters shouldn't go for the nutrients argument. It's not correct. A meat-free diet is healthier that a meat heavy diet (a reasonable meat-free diet, of course, not a diet of vodka and sponge cake, of course). A diet with infrequent or occasional meat is likely the most healthy--varied diets usually are.

[sushi]

I just discovered I like Tofu of all things.
I love Tofu. My wife makes some great dishes. The Japanese also serve a wonderful cold Tofu dish.

I am a Farm boy, and I can't give up Cheese and a good steak every so often!
I hear ya!

In the states I ate very little fish and a lot more beef and chicken. Over here in Japan, I eat more fish (including shellfish) and a bit less beef and chicken. But I love a good steak for breakfast, lunch and/or dinner.

Sushi

[sushi]

You wouldn't happen to have a...

"I Only Eat Vegetarians"

...bumper sticker on your car?
Where can I get one?! :eek:

Just joking. :D

Sushi

[Toe]

Taking a look at Toe's site shows his true focus and IMHO it is not a balanced one but rather a very one sided view. It is his website and he can do what he wants. No issues there. Just agreeing with your second part and suggesting that his website demonstrates this.Yeah... and the MacRumors site is biased against Windows. Who woulda thunk?!??

I am indeed trying to force you to think about your voluntary participation in the unnecessary killing of several tens of billions of sentient beings every year. However, I am not trying to force you to do anything about it. Just raising awareness of this fact and suggesting that you may want to consider reevaluating your involvement in it.

[pseudobrit]

I'm not a veggie, but I understand their views.

Eating lots of meat makes no sense from an ethical standpoint and even less from a health standpoint.

It's bad for your body and your karma.

People who hate on vegetarians are just pissed 'cause they don't have the balls to just come out and say, "yeah, I know it's bad, but I'm a selfish prick and don't care."

I eat meat occasionally. Yeah, I know it's bad, but I eat less than most and am a bit of a selfish prick who doesn't care.

[sushi]

Yeah... and the MacRumors site is biased against Windows. Who woulda thunk?!??

I am indeed trying to force you to think about your voluntary participation in the unnecessary killing of several tens of billions of sentient beings every year. However, I am not trying to force you to do anything about it. Just raising awareness of this fact and suggesting that you may want to consider reevaluating your involvement in it.
Again, its your website and you are free to do with as you please. No issues there.

My comment was directed in response to another poster. And yes, I would say you are trying to force your opinions by the way they are presented. To be honest, you site will not even cause me to blink at the thought of eating another meat of any kind.

While I applaud your attempt, as it is, I merely dismiss your ideas as being a narrow one sided perspective. However, if you were to use a more balanced approach I would be more inclined to consider your points. Note, I am not attacking your beliefs in the slightest. Again, it is a free country and you are free to present your ideas. But, if you want someone who is a meat eater to consider what you are trying to say, you will need to change your approach.

In the meantime I am voluntarily going to continue to eat all the meat products that I desire...well at least until something comes along to convince me otherwise.

Sushi

[skunk]

Don't eat anything that is killed to become food (Fruitarian) - It may be possible to live without eating any dead things, including plants. Eating things such as nuts, fruits, and many vegetables does not directly cause any deaths. Personally, I see this as a somewhat unreasonable standard both because it sounds nutritionally near-impossible and because just taking a shower causes the deaths of countless microorganisms.If we're talking ethical choices, fruitarianism is the logical way to go. I don't know why you give it such short shrift. "Nutritionally near-impossible"? Not if combined with grains, beans and nuts, none of which requires anything to die.

[Toe]

While I applaud your attempt, as it is, I merely dismiss your ideas as being a narrow one sided perspective. However, if you were to use a more balanced approach I would be more inclined to consider your points. Note, I am not attacking your beliefs in the slightest. Again, it is a free country and you are free to present your ideas. But, if you want someone who is a meat eater to consider what you are trying to say, you will need to change your approach.Indeed, my site is mostly directed to existing vegetarians. Any time anyone mentions that they don't eat meat, some jerk has to go and ask a bunch of stupid, nonsensical questions. So my site helps people produce ready answers to those questions. The site also has a secondary mission of perhaps convincing meat eaters to reevaluate their actions, but that is indeed secondary.

As for being balanced, I refuse, just as you won't see MacRumors posting article after article about how superior Windows is. What point would that serve? However, you may notice that every contention I make on my site is presented as a thread in a discussion forum. I can't think of a better way to promote balance and open discussion than to invite all comers to publicly reply in whatever way they see fit....

[wordmunger]

Toe, I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I thought I'd attempt to give a more reasoned explanation of my non-vegetarianism than some of the other responses here.

I eat meat because I like the taste. I don't fool myself that it's "required" for nutrition, although some of my vegetarian friends do tend to eat so many carbs, as well as fats from cheese and the like that it's difficult for them to keep their weight down.

Of course I realize that meat I eat by necessity comes from killing an animal, and I do wish I could enjoy eating without causing harm to another living thing. Unfortunately, nearly every human activity is going to have an adverse impact on animals. We are in competition with the other species of the earth for natural resources. If we plow up open prairie to create a farm, we destroy habitat for the birds, snakes, prairie dogs, and other creatures that lived in that space before us. They will die, as surely as if we had roasted them up over a fire.

Yes, I recognize that farming land for human consumption rather than animal feed is often a more efficient way to raise food, and uses fewer resources. However, there are many things I could do to consume fewer natural resources, and yet I don't. I use computers, air conditioners, cars, electric lights, refrigerators, and toilets. These are all things that I could live without. But I don't. Why should I give up my meat and not my microwave convection oven? Heck, maybe I should share my home with another family -- that way, we'd use half the resources and save even more animals! I don't because I'm selfish, and if I wasn't selfish, then someone else would simply take what I have. No one's going to give it back to the animals.

Humans are self-centered, and they are going to put their own interests above those of other species. They are going to put themselves first, then their family, then their friends and neighbors, and so on. We only preserve "nature" for our own self interest, because we think it's "beautiful," or it gives us a good place to hunt, or waterski, or whatever it is we like to do.

Animal rights activists have gotten as far as they have not because people really think animals should be equal to humans, but because some animals are cute in a way that appeals to humans. It's much easier for activists to plea to save the baby bunnies or the dogs and the cats than it is for them to advocate saving rats or snakes.

I think we're actually fortunate that no animal approaches humans in terms of intelligence. Then we'd have a *real* moral dilemma on our hands.

[Littleodie914]

Meat tastes good.

That's enough of a reason for me. As a matter of fact, I've got corn dogs in the oven right now, and we're grilling burgers later tonight. *mouth waters*

:rolleyes:

[Toe]

Yes, I recognize that farming land is often a more efficient way to raise food, since we don't need to support animals with the food we raise. However, there are many things I could do to consume fewer natural resources, and yet I don't. I use computers, air conditioners, cars, electric lights, refrigerators, and toilets. These are all things that I could live without. But I don't. Why should I give up my meat and not my microwave convection oven? Heck, maybe I should share my home with another family -- that way, we'd use half the resources and save even more animals! I don't because I'm selfish, and if I wasn't selfish, then someone else would simply take what I have. No one's going to give it back to the animals.
Thanks for the well-reasoned and reasonable reply, wordmunger. I think you're on the right track, and that your argument dovetails nicely with mine. No individual is going to solve everything, and anything we do is going to harm something. But this does not mean that we should just rampantly waste everything with no regard for tomorrow.

Along with eating less meat, I advocate that people use less energy, less real estate, and fewer material resources of all kinds. This is just responsible living. If all individuals made a concerted effort to conserve electricity, we would have no oil wars or energy crises, or at least far fewer. If people would think about having fewer children, not driving the biggest truck they can afford, and not buying every gadget that catches their fancy, the world wouldn't be the mess it is today (on several levels).

I'm all for whatever results in our destroying less and killing less. That's why I advocate eating less meat, not going completely fruitarian. One is realistic, one is not. Just because my actions won't 100% solve every problem in the world doesn't mean I shouldn't try to make the world a better place. Eating less meat is the easiest, least-effort thing one can do to have a significant, positive effect.

[takao]

well to talk about "eating pigs is unnatural" and then mentioning tofu is perhaps the most ironic thing i've read today...

for me personally tofu is the most industrialized kind of food in existence (around 30-50% of all US-soy is genetically manipulated)

so much for the natural aspect of soy ;)


personally i eat meat perhaps 2-3 imes a week, i i try to put in fish once a week or every 2 weeks at least, but a part of the meat as ham,bacon or sausages: doh ... i'm living in austria i simply can't leave that stuff out. You can simply get the best bacons, hams etc. of the world in bavaria,tyrol and northern italy ... in the US i would perhaps think twice if i eat the meat as well in some places

after all the pig is perhaps the animal where the fewest stuff has to go into the garbage .. nearly everything can be used or is needed


and about the "i like animals and wear leather cloths": i know a girl who orders pizza without cheese "because of the poor animals" while wearing leather shoes,belt, jacket and then taking the leather purse out of the leather hand-bag ;)

[skunk]

Toe, I realize I'm not going to change your mind, but I thought I'd attempt to give a more reasoned explanation of my non-vegetarianism than some of the other responses here.Really? :rolleyes:

Of course I realize that meat I eat by necessity comes from killing an animal, and I do wish I could enjoy eating without causing harm to another living thing. Unfortunately, nearly every human activity is going to have an adverse impact on animals. We are in competition with the other species of the earth for natural resources. If we plow up open prairie to create a farm, we destroy habitat for the birds, snakes, prairie dogs, and other creatures that lived in that space before us. They will die, as surely as if we had roasted them up over a fire.What you fail to address, however, is that it takes ten times the land to raise the animal than the nutritional equivalent in vegetables.

Yes, I recognize that farming land for human consumption rather than animal feed is often a more efficient way to raise food, and uses fewer resources. However, there are many things I could do to consume fewer natural resources, and yet I don't. I use computers, air conditioners, cars, electric lights, refrigerators, and toilets. These are all things that I could live without. But I don't. Why should I give up my meat and not my microwave convection oven? Heck, maybe I should share my home with another family -- that way, we'd use half the resources and save even more animals! I don't because I'm selfish, and if I wasn't selfish, then someone else would simply take what I have. No one's going to give it back to the animals.A slippery slope here, not a convincing argument.

Humans are self-centered, and they are going to put their own interests above those of other species. They are going to put themselves first, then their family, then their friends and neighbors, and so on. We only preserve "nature" for our own self interest, because we think it's "beautiful," or it gives us a good place to hunt, or waterski, or whatever it is we like to do.Humans can also be altruistic, and can live quite harmoniously with their planet. Some are, and some do.

Animal rights activists have gotten as far as they have not because people really think animals should be equal to humans, but because some animals are cute in a way that appeals to humans. It's much easier for activists to plea to save the baby bunnies or the dogs and the cats than it is for them to advocate saving rats or snakes.What's wrong with rats and snakes? They can be really cute, too. I think you dismiss too easily the commitment and principles of many animal rights people.

I think we're actually fortunate that no animal approaches humans in terms of intelligence. Then we'd have a *real* moral dilemma on our hands.How on earth do you know? The dilemma is here and now.

Not that I'm a shining example of anything: I regard meat eating as one of my many soon-to-be-addressed vices. But your stated position leaves something to be desired in the Logic Department.
;)

[feakbeak]

In the past century, humans have radically altered all of this.

It is not "natural' for humans to kill 1.1 billion pigs every year (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18). Or over 17 billion chickens. That skews things horribly. As does all the agriculture necessary to support those livestock, and all the concentrated waste that comes from it (ask anyone in North Carolina).

You arguments for maintaining balance work best with vegetarianism and/or significant reductions of the human population.I agree that humans have done a great many things to throw off the natural balance of earth. I don't see how vegetarianism will help though, as I've stated in each of my posts, it is simply my opinion. It's not likely to change.

Us humans are quite destructive though. Mother Nature is resilient though, if we cause too much trouble we'll wipe ourselves out and the natural processes will move forward. I believe nature is smarter than we are. All of our mess can be undone and I am inclined to believe it involves our removal.

[skunk]

I believe nature is smarter than we are. All of our mess can be undone and I am inclined to believe it involves our removal.Necessarily? Is a sustainable balance so unachievable?

[skunk]

As an aside, I did do a complete fruitarian thing for about six months - several years ago - and felt fantastic, but eventually rather lonely...

[sushi]

Indeed, my site is mostly directed to existing vegetarians.
Fair enough. But just remember, that your focus is getting folks to eat less meat. Who better than us meat eaters would it be for you to convince?

Any time anyone mentions that they don't eat meat, some jerk has to go and ask a bunch of stupid, nonsensical questions.
Sorry, but now I am going to pick on vegatarians...stepping onto soapbox.

What the heck is a vegetarian?

Why do I ask? Here is why. In response to someone stating that they are a vegetarian, where I have to consider their dietary desires, When I ask, I have received the following responses:

- I can't eat beef, but all other meats are okay.

- No beef or pork, but chicken is okay.

- No meat, but fish is okay.

- No meat or red fish, but white fish is okay.

- Oh, I am not a true vegetarian, I just don't like to eat beef. <Pork/Chicken/etc.> is okay.

- I can't eat anything with warm blood in it. I replied, "So fish is okay?" No, it has warm blood in it too. Help! Arg!

My point being, is that I have met very few true vegetarians. Many say that they are but in practice they are not. Some are so vain that because they don't like beef and pork, and thusly do not eat either, they call themselves vegetarians. Yet, they continue to eat chicken, fish, and other animals and poultry. Simply amazing.

What is really frustrating, is when you serve someone a vegetarian meal, and they say how come I couldn't get the chicken dinner like everyone else?!

Not picking on you personally. Just a frustration with the whole Vegan/Vegetarian type diet definition. Especially when trying to be accomodating of others.

...steping off of soapbox.

Sushi

[wordmunger]

Really? :rolleyes:
yes, really. I don't think of "mmmm.... steak" as a reasoned response.
What you fail to address, however, is that it takes ten times the land to raise the animal than the nutritional equivalent in vegetables.
Actually I do address that, in the next paragraph.
A slippery slope here, not a convincing argument.
It is not a "slippery slope" argument. A slippery slope argument would be something like this: "If we give up eating animals, then someone will want to give rights to cockroaches, and then someone else will want to give rights to plants, and we'll all starve to death." What I was trying to point out is that eating meat is only one of many ways that we are naturally in competition with all other species, and stopping eating meat will not stop the competition.
Humans can also be altruistic, and can live quite harmoniously with their planet. Some are, and some do.
Emphasis on the "some." Unfortunately, it will never be enough to make a difference.
What's wrong with rats and snakes? They can be really cute, too. I think you dismiss too easily the commitment and principles of many animal rights people.
Oh, no, I don't dismiss their commitment. I dismiss their chances of success. The successes they've seen so far are the easy part.
How on earth do you know? The dilemma is here and now.
Well, the best shot we have is chimps and gorillas, with IQs in the 60-70 range, and most people don't support eating them. After that, there hasn't really been an animal with a measurable IQ.

[WinterMute]

I eat meat, I'm pretty much omnivorous, I have teeth designed to cut meat and a metabolism derived from the need to process raw meat.

I have eyes and ears designed to allow me to track game and a skeleton that features bones with a circular section that allows me to chase down animals that are trying to escape. All these systems are also damn good at keeping me out of harms way too.

On top of this, I'm a tool-maker and user, those tools are often hunting weapons.

Vegetarianism isn't based on the evolutionary need to eat meat, it's based on an intellectual choice that often (although not exclusively) boils down to the individuals choice not to eat living creatures. I can see a time where the majoritory of the planets population will be essentially vegetarian, mainly due to numbers, but I hope they've invented a really good synthetic alternative by then.

I'm a farmers-boy, I was chainfalling cow carcasses out of my Grandfathers abbottoir at 10, I have no intellectual compunction about killing and eating cute animals, applespider has it right, gambolling lambs need mint sauce and roast potatoes...

It's my choice, as vegetarianism is yours (if you are), but if animals weren't made to be eaten why do they taste so good?

(sorry, that was cheap, couldn't resist it). :)

[takao]

Well, the best shot we have is chimps and gorillas, with IQs in the 60-70 range, and most people don't support eating them. After that, there hasn't really been an animal with a measurable IQ.

dolphins perhaps

sometimes i wonder how many people have seen those pictures of chimps,gorillas hunting down other animals (even apes) for lunch ... to call that vegetarian is a far strech ..

[feakbeak]

Necessarily? Is a sustainable balance so unachievable?No, not necessarily. I believe humanity has great potential. So while I believe it is achievable, I find it unlikely. Besides, all species go extinct sooner or later. Just based on observations I think we might cause our extinction a little prematurely. But... I'm straying off topic here.

[Toe]

Emphasis on the "some." Unfortunately, it will never be enough to make a difference.
That's where I disagree. The last time I looked up a study, I found that there are around 5 million vegetarians (http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2000may/2000maypoll.htm) just in the united States. Those vegetarians reduce the demand for pork by around 120 million dead pigs (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17) every year. When you consider other animals, and consider global vegetarian diets, and consider the number of years in a human life, the numbers get much, much larger.

Those vegetarians are significantly reducing the number of animals killed every year, even though each vegetarian is acting individually and there is no coercion (other than pure economics for some people, I suppose).

I mention pigs specifically, because though I haven't seen anyone trying to give them IQ tests, it is clear that they are some of the most intelligent mammals around, and they are so physically similar to people that doctors are trying to grow human hearts in them.

[Nickygoat]

Depends on your perspective, I guess...I personally don't really promote my diet. Even online, I usually stay out of it -- I mostly just wanted to be supportive of Toe. But, if your perspective is harm minimization towards animals, or environmental benefit, then any amount of reduction has some positive impact, right?
I don't think it does depend on your perspective. If someone is telling you "Meat Is Murder" while wearing leather that kinda ruins their argument.

I do wear leather though. I'd happily not wear leather if stylish replacements were available, but in many cases they aren't. I think it is a problem that a lot of vegetarians struggle with. There just aren't a lot of analogues to Steve Madden and Aldo, let alone Prada or Fendi, that don't involve leather.
Oh please. This is the whole reason groups like PETA recruited Naomi et al originally, and cheered them to the rafters for not wearing fur. This is isn't aimed at you but do you want to have principles or a good dress sense? With the fashion industry the way it is most of the time it's impossible to have both. Most people don't care enough to influence it


As for the biker, you mean like a Harley biker? I'm constantly re-evaluating my perspective on that set, because there're so many more down here than there were in Detroit. There've been several children at camp weekends whose parents were so sweet, and were total bikers, with the hippie kinda names and everything. But anyway, outside of that kind of biker, I thought most motorcycle enthusiasts didn't wear leather anymore, because the alternatives were so much better performance-wise?
No I mean, as any of the other Londoners on here will recognise, and anybody from any other large city, one of the very right on, self satisfied, righteous Islington hippies. Too busy being PC to actually do anything about it. And no it's not a Harley. Maybe the alternatives haven't fed through here yet to make them popular but I see a lot of people in leathers.

[Toe]

sometimes i wonder how many people have seen those pictures of chimps,gorillas hunting down other animals (even apes) for lunch ... to call that vegetarian is a far strech ..Chimps do that, but as far as I know, the only animals gorillas eat are the bugs that get picked up in leaves and fruit.

In any event... chimps don't have grocery stores where they could get a complete diet without eating the occasional bit of flesh.

[CanadaRAM]

I can't think of a better way to promote balance and open discussion than to invite all comers to publicly reply in whatever way they see fit....

But then

some jerk has to go and ask a bunch of stupid, nonsensical questions.

So; your approach is "reasoned", but based on your posts you consider dissenting views to be stupid and nonsensical

Sometimes one's logic seems flawed when one is arguing against an illogical proposition. I just had no choice in the case of that "argument."

therefore under the banner of promoting balanced and open discussion you are "forced" to use exaggeration, part-truths, hyperbole and belittling of others opinions.

are you saying that your ethics should be based on those of a bear? -- Or are you of the opinion that you should do whatever the f@!& you please, as long as you don't get caught, and screw tomorrow and everybody else? If so, then I don't give a s*!# about you, and neither does anyone else -- Men raping unprotected women is natural -- Almost all traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them -- By that reasoning, it would be OK to raise people for slaughter, as long as that's the only reason they were bred.... - etc

Shallow, fanatic, disrespectful and not worth reading. IMO of course.

[WinterMute]

That's where I disagree. The last time I looked up a study, I found that there are around 5 million vegetarians (http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2000may/2000maypoll.htm) just in the united States. Those vegetarians reduce the demand for pork by around 120 million dead pigs (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17) every year. When you consider other animals, and consider global vegetarian diets, and consider the number of years in a human life, the numbers get much, much larger.

Those vegetarians are significantly reducing the number of animals killed every year, even though each vegetarian is acting individually and there is no coercion (other than pure economics for some people, I suppose).

I mention pigs specifically, because though I haven't seen anyone trying to give them IQ tests, it is clear that they are some of the most intelligent mammals around, and they are so physically similar to people that doctors are trying to grow human hearts in them.

So each person eats 24 pigs a year? Sounds a little on the high side even for a bacon sandwich devotee like myself...

Sure, every veggie is lowering the demand for meat in the US, but 3 billion Chinease eat anything with 4 legs and a few others besides, and their population growth is not slowing AT ALL.

Pigs are pysiologically similar to humans, but it's a mistake to assume they are human-like in any way, and animal intelligence does not equate to human intelligence, except maybe for dolphins, who do nothing but eat, sleep, make little dolphins and murder seals very nastily.

This could well be a message for all of us.

[Blue Velvet]

"Almost all traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them."

Complete rubbish. Maybe you should travel a little more...

[wordmunger]

That's where I disagree. The last time I looked up a study, I found that there are around 5 million vegetarians (http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2000may/2000maypoll.htm) just in the united States. Those vegetarians reduce the demand for pork by around 120 million dead pigs (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17) every year. When you consider other animals, and consider global vegetarian diets, and consider the number of years in a human life, the numbers get much, much larger.

Those vegetarians are significantly reducing the number of animals killed every year, even though each vegetarian is acting individually and there is no coercion (other than pure economics for some people, I suppose).

I mention pigs specifically, because though I haven't seen anyone trying to give them IQ tests, it is clear that they are some of the most intelligent mammals around, and they are so physically similar to people that doctors are trying to grow human hearts in them.
Sorry, I didn't mean to say that vegetarianism as a practice couldn't have environmental impact. What I was responding to there was skunk's argument that people can be altruistic. I will buy that some people are altruistic, but I don't think very many are or ever will be.

I think you have a better chance of persuading people to be vegetarians if you can convince them that it is in their own interest, or in the interest of people they care about. This is what I meant about the animal rights groups' emphasis on cute animals. People like cute animals, and are more likely to be moved to action for the sake of cute animals than for ugly animals.

In the case of vegetarianism, you can argue all you want about "more resources" to produce meat, but it's not going to bother most people until the loss of those resources affects them directly.

P.S. I also think something's wrong with your numbers there. This implies that each person eats something like 24 pigs a year. I like my bacon, but I probably eat a total of 5 or 6 pounds a year (yeesh! That much? I buy maybe a pound a month for the whole family, so actually my share is probably closer to 3 or 4 pounds). I think a pig produces than 1/4 a pound of bacon.

[~Shard~]

"Almost all traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them."

Complete rubbish. Maybe you should travel a little more...

As a world traveler myself, let me second that.

[Desertrat]

Multitudes of reasons to eat meat! First off, of course, is that it tastes good! Homo sap is an omnivore, and so part of our deal is the trace nutrients available from meat. Thus endeth the pragmatic part of my sermon. :D

Hey, you shoot Bambi or a quail; or wring a chicken's or turkey's neck and you're right in there with thousands of generations of ancestors. Plus, there's the satisfaction known to all do-it-yourselfers. Then, doing the unzipping, slicing and dicing gives the anticipation of yummy-tasty. Cooking creates the joys of the aromas. And then the best part: Full tummy...

Burp.

The leftovers make for happy puppies. Well, in my case, coyotes and other such critters...

:D, 'Rat

[iGary]

I like meat, if you don't, great for you.

[Lacero]

I love the smell of beef steak in the morning. I'm salivating just thinking about it.

[sushi]

I love the smell of beef steak in the morning. I'm salivating just thinking about it.
Nothing like steak and eggs for breakfast. :D

Sushi

[Sun Baked]

I'd hate to eat the most abundant source of protein on the hoof, bugs...

I'll stick with cows, chicken, and pigs.

Especially since I like pizza with meat, milk, fungus, and an occasional veggie or fruit.

[Pittsax]

First off, I want to say that I completely respect anyone's personal decisions regarding their diet (or anything else for that matter). I only get annoyed when they don't do the same for my personal choices, and try to guide me back from the Dark Side for whatever poor lifestyle choices I have made.

Let me ask Toe and those who support his website's ideas this: are you willing to accept the extinction of many races of animals as a consequence of the human race abandoning all meat eating? Because the majority of all meats that are consumed (at least in industrialized societies) are the products of livestock. These are animals that are bred specifically for the purpose of being slaughtered. As such, they really have no instincts of their own when it comes to survival in the outside world. You let a herd of cattle lose, and pretty soon, you'll end up with a lot of dead cows. Why? Because their knowledge of finding food consists of the farmer bringing it to them. You think a domesticated chicken can survive in the wild? Please.

[skunk]

Let me ask Toe and those who support his website's ideas this: are you willing to accept the extinction of many races of animals as a consequence of the human race abandoning all meat eating? Because the majority of all meats that are consumed (at least in industrialized societies) are the products of livestock. These are animals that are bred specifically for the purpose of being slaughtered. As such, they really have no instincts of their own when it comes to survival in the outside world. You let a herd of cattle lose, and pretty soon, you'll end up with a lot of dead cows. Why? Because their knowledge of finding food consists of the farmer bringing it to them. You think a domesticated chicken can survive in the wild? Please.Oh come on! What a loss to the ecosystem!
:rolleyes:

[Pittsax]

Oh come on! What a loss to the ecosystem!
:rolleyes:
You never know. Besides, the anti-meat argument seems to prefer the slow starvation of these animals over their humane slaughter.

[skunk]

You never know. Besides, the anti-meat argument seems to prefer the slow starvation of these animals over their humane slaughter.The argument is not about "slow starvation": grass will continue to grow. We would just stop breeding them.

[pseudobrit]

You never know. Besides, the anti-meat argument seems to prefer the slow starvation of these animals over their humane slaughter.

How so? If we all ate less meat, there would be many less animals stuffed into tiny quarters and fattened up. They might actually have room to walk around and have something of a healthy life before they're slaughtered. Imagine that.

Not to mention less human obesity and all the diseases that arise from a meat-heavy diet, more surplus grain in the world food suppy...

[revenuee]

I'm a meat eater, and while I will continue to eat meat, I will certainly side with Toe and say its probably unnatural.

One good reason that indicates this is our inability to eat meat without cooking it first. We're the only meat eaters who need to cook our food in order to kill the bacteria before we eat it. Why? Because we don't naturally produce the enzymes necessary to kill off the bacteria. Do you see lions and tigers cook their meat over a fire before they eat it? You'd find it ridiculous if you saw a bear cook a raccoon over an open flame, wouldn't you? Its probably because it just doesn't look natural.

i cook chicken, don't care for pork -- but don't really cook beef

i eat lots of sushi, make tatarr <-- at a restaurant i order my steak cold blue

[revenuee]

I like meat, if you don't, great for you.

and more meat for me and you iGary -- now i want steak

[PlaceofDis]

I enjoy meat but I don't eat it that often - maybe once or twice a week. Ultimately though, the reason I make the choices that I do with regards to my diet is more one of health and personal well-being than anything to do with animal rights, etc. I just try and be as healthy as I can. In the end, as I say with most everything else, everything in moderation - you can't go too wrong if you follow that line of thinking.


i must say that this is the best post so far that i have read... and i agree completely!

[~Shard~]

i must say that this is the best post so far that i have read... and i agree completely!

Thanks PlaceofDis, glad you appreciate it. :)

[PlaceofDis]

Thanks PlaceofDis, glad you appreciate it. :)

seriously, being tolerant and consuming in moderation are the way to go - i do not like any form of extremism, which is why moderation appeals to me so much

[~Shard~]

seriously, being tolerant and consuming in moderation are the way to go - i do not like any form of extremism, which is why moderation appeals to me so much

Yep, that's pretty much my outlook at well - balance is key. The only thing I make a point of "going overboard" on is, well, life. I try and take in as much of it as I can, live every day to its fullest and experience and educate myself as much as possible. In this instance I would argue that "the path of excess leads to the tower of wisdom". :cool:

[Toe]

P.S. I also think something's wrong with your numbers there. This implies that each person eats something like 24 pigs a year. I like my bacon, but I probably eat a total of 5 or 6 pounds a year (yeesh! That much? I buy maybe a pound a month for the whole family, so actually my share is probably closer to 3 or 4 pounds). I think a pig produces than 1/4 a pound of bacon.Whoops... I read the Calculator result wrong (honest mistake... waiting for Dashboard Calculator :) ).

The average American consumes .26 pigs per year (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17) (49.1 pounds). American vegetarians probably account for ~1.2 million pigs per year not being killed. And 440,000 cattle, 4.5 million chickens, and so on... with the smaller animals such as "seafood," the numbers are only available in pounds. In any event, the numbers are significant to show that a lot more animals would have to be raised and killed if each vegetarian didn't choose to eschew meat.

[Toe]

Shallow, fanatic, disrespectful and not worth reading. IMO of course..
Yet you seem to have read everything I wrote in order to take a bunch of my phrases out of context. When someone says they don't care if their actions hurt other people, then I inform them that nobody cares about them in return. When someone says they want to act natural, I point out that rape is natural.

Each thing I said that you criticize, you pulled out of its original context, where it really wasn't so "shallow, fanatic, disrespectful." None of my statements were in any way disrespectful to the people I was addressing. I'll let the history of the thread defend my statements in their original context.

[Toe]

"Almost all traditional Latin American, Mediterranean, Indian, and Oriental foods have no meat in them."

Complete rubbish. Maybe you should travel a little more...I said traditional diets. Times have changed, and meat is now commonly accessible to the masses. Traditionally, for many people in many cultures, it was only available in small amounts and/or on rare occasions.

"A chicken in every pot" was a radical promise in its time.

[Desertrat]

Hey, Abstract: You apparently have never travelled to France. If you do, try the steak tartare. :)

It's not that we can't eat raw meat. The deal is that cooked meat tastes better.

The idea of just turning livestock loose is rather ludicrous. Where are they gonna do this grazing? Front yards? The Sierra Club would have seventeen dozen hissy fits if you turn hoofed animals loose on federal lands. Feral hogs are already a destructive nuisance in many parts of the country, damaging or even destroying crops. While pet dogs, feral dog packs and coyotes easily dispose of sheep, goats are worse than deer for cleaning out flower beds. Goats are real good about eating the bark off fruit trees, for that matter.

City folks do indeed get some funny ideas about Maw Nature...

:D, 'Rat

[zimv20]

It's not that we can't eat raw meat. The deal is that cooked meat tastes better.

not always. i'm a sucker for certain kinds of sushi. and i've had this incredibly yummy smoked-but-otherwise-uncooked pork spread in bavaria. yummmm.....

[Lacero]

Sashimi and slender cuts of raw beef in soup tastes the best.

[vwcruisn]

Back to my original thought. I eat meat because I don't have time to eat non-meat products. Between a daughter, set of twin girls on the way, a full-time working wife, law school, and work ... I can't fit it into my schedule. If they made decent quick vegetarian meals available I would be first in line.

the market is huge right now for a healthy, vegetarian fast food cuisine style restaurant with a drive thru... if thats at all possible..

[takao]

I said traditional diets. Times have changed, and meat is now commonly accessible to the masses. Traditionally, for many people in many cultures, it was only available in small amounts and/or on rare occasions.

oh well have you ever been to italy, spain, or greece ? especially italy is hardly a cfrontrunner of a meat free diet .. for example it's traditional in some parts of italy that when meat as a whole (and not in small parts ;) ) is served that it is eaten without any potatoes etc. ... the only thing on the dish is the piece(s) of meat and some sauce.. (anti)pasta is eaten before that

and of course they eat lots, and i really mean lots of fish, historically fish has been the meat of the poor, just like pasta had more of a bread replacement than meat-replacement

in autria for example you find more other meat in a traditional diet but you find less fish and more 'sweet' meals (look at the traditional cuisine from Vienna) and it involves sometimes more 'lesser parts' from animals as well like for example blood & 'liver' sausages .. eaten with sauerkraut,potatoes and another filler (called 'Hafaloab' which perhaps is the best tasting thing ever, sorry no translation for that ... regional speciality where i grew up)

[pseudobrit]

The idea of just turning livestock loose is rather ludicrous...

City folks do indeed get some funny ideas about Maw Nature...

Where did anyone propose opening the gates and letting all the livestock run free over the countryside?

Country folk sure do get some funny ideas about reading comprehension.

The idea is to slow the factory farm system that produces s*** for meat and abuses animals.
If you slow this mechanism, the need to use overdoses of powerful antibiotics and hormones to accelerate growth might stop. If you slow this mechanism, the overbreeding of animals might stop. If you slow this mechanism, the crowded, inhumane and filthy conditions might stop.

I'm a bit of a Penna Dutch farm boy. Small-time farmers tend to treat their animals pretty okay. The problem is that what passes for farming in much of the country resembles a horrid factory and looks almost nothing like the image we think of when we think "farm."

[takao]

The idea is to slow the factory farm system that produces s*** for meat and abuses animals.
If you slow this mechanism, the need to use overdoses of powerful antibiotics and hormones to accelerate growth might stop. If you slow this mechanism, the overbreeding of animals might stop. If you slow this mechanism, the crowded, inhumane and filthy conditions might stop.

actually the problem with the hormones got better the last 20 years .. because i think not only austria but the whole EU put regulations in place (the austrian ones are still stricter)
and by 2010 (2008 for austria) those cages for the egg laying chickens are forbidden as well

the people in the US simply have to demand meat where you can see where it comes from then quality would increase fast (not that the quality is bad in general, i think especially the beef in the US is high quality)
the same for genetic manipulated food...
those are much better controlled over here there's a lot of improvement for the US (like adding complete BSE/mad cow disease tests for every slaughtered cow and complete trackability of every piece of meat)

[Desertrat]

pseudobrit, not particularly in this thread (No Pitiful PETA People here), but if a farmer doesn't have a market, what would he do with his animals? He's surely not gonna buy food for them, absent draconian fiat. Were the market for meat to dramatically fade away, who deals with the animals and their offspring? Where do they go, and what do they do when they get there? :)

If there are 5 million vegans in the US, fine; that's a miniscule percentage and isn't gonna particularly affect traditional markets. Whatever folks prefer for diet is fine by me, although I'm amused by the degree of emotion often attached to a vegetarian diet. My point is that were a bunch of proseletysing (spelling? I'm lazy, this AM) to come to be successful, there are the usual unintended consequences.

I'm reminded of a discussion with a Hippie kid I gave a ride to, back around 1970. He was grumping about the use of fuel in farm tractors, wishing we still plowed with horses or mules. It never occurred to him that his wish would result in halving the amount of acreage available for crops*, or extend the amount of intense hard labor for a farmer.

Consequences. All mass social movements have consequences.

'Rat

* Hey, horses and mules gotta eat. A horse eats three times as much as a cow. :)

[wordmunger]

pseudobrit, not particularly in this thread (No Pitiful PETA People here), but if a farmer doesn't have a market, what would he do with his animals? He's surely not gonna buy food for them, absent draconian fiat. Were the market for meat to dramatically fade away, who deals with the animals and their offspring? Where do they go, and what do they do when they get there? :)

Hey, I've been on the pro meat-eating side of this argument, but I think the answer is pretty obvious. You stop breeding the animals. When the current crop dies off, then the problem is gone. As opposed to continuing to breed and slaughter, year after year.

[miloblithe]

The reality is that some farmers might lose their jobs, although more likely it would be laborers at massive meat industries that would be laid off and have to find other work. People would eat other things, but it would not substitute for the jobs lost because the demand for whatever the animals being eaten are fed will also drop.

Solutions? Increased food aid. Transfer of agricultural labor to other sectors (which, by the way, is an irreversable trend worldwide.)

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit, not particularly in this thread (No Pitiful PETA People here), but if a farmer doesn't have a market, what would he do with his animals?

I wouldn't expect demand to drop off overnight but fade. Lower demand for meat means farmers breed less animals.

The reality is that some farmers might lose their jobs, although more likely it would be laborers at massive meat industries that would be laid off and have to find other work. People would eat other things, but it would not substitute for the jobs lost because the demand for whatever the animals being eaten are fed will also drop.

Solutions? Increased food aid. Transfer of agricultural labor to other sectors (which, by the way, is an irreversable trend worldwide.)

Solid agricultural jobs are a thing of fantasy. They no longer exist.

Q: What does a farmer do when he wins the lottery?

A: Keeps farming 'til he spends it all.

[Toe]

Were the market for meat to dramatically fade away...There's just nobody advocating a dramatic decrease. Or at least not in this thread. :) Vegetarianism is all about individual choices.

If there are 5 million vegans in the US, fine; that's a miniscule percentage and isn't gonna particularly affect traditional markets.Now that's an odd thing to hear from a Mac user... :p

Macs may account for a small minority of the computer market, yet a lot of places you see "Mac and PC" advertised for various products and services. Those few Macs have a disproportionately large effect. Just a few million vegetarians have gotten a lot of restaurants to offer vegetarian options. That makes it easier for other people to reduce the meat in their diets, and results in fewer animals being killed simply by the number of non-vegetarians who happen to order the marinara just because it's there.

Whatever folks prefer for diet is fine by me, although I'm amused by the degree of emotion often attached to a vegetarian diet.For some people, the unnecessary killing of billions and billions of creatures every year causes some emotional duress for some reason.

[sparkleytone]

I've been a vegetarian for about 15 months now. The thing that makes my vegetarianism different is the motivation. I didn't do it because of political/sentimental/environmental/etc reasons. I did it for control.

I have struggled with my weight for as long as I can remember. I like food...a LOT. I love just about everything you could love about food, and there are very few foods I don't like. About 2 years ago I decided to take control for good. 7 months in I had lost about 40lbs, and I was looking for my next challenge. The person who helped lead me into my program of diet control is a vegetarian and I decided to try it as a test of my control. 15 months later I have a completely different outlook on the diet of our species, the way our food economy works, and especially on the blatantly obvious epidemic of obesity here in the USA. Yes epidemic. Obesity is a disease...get used to it.

The idea of seasonal foods has gone completely out the window as our global economy has evolved. We can now eat whatever we want, whenever we want, even if its not 'in season' anywhere close to us. As a result of this, our instant gratification society has chosen to consume the worst foods for our bodies in the most volume. This has led to a disgusting practice of manufacturing and processing cheaply these foods that are literally killing us in order to make them cheaper.

We can get a bacon double cheesburger with superlarge fries and a 32oz drink (~600cal for the drink ALONE) for ~$5. For me to eat a generous portion of oriental noodles with a bottled naturally sweetened tea and two rolled grape leaves at a local 'Fresh Market', it costs something like $7. Gotta love the irony here. I eat less food that is healthier for me, and I pay more than the obese person parking in the handicap spots at McDonald's because he/she can barely walk because his/her body can't take the stress being put on it. Yes thats economics, but isn't it sad when something as cut and dry as math makes it painfully obvious that we are seemingly incapable of controlling ourselves with something as simple as diet?

I will never eat meat again, and I have recently given up cow's milk as a drink. I haven't decided whether or not to give up milk products, but I don't like the prospect of drinking animal pus (http://www.milksucks.com/pus.html).

I started out with this whole veg thing simply for the idea of controlling my diet even more than I already did. Doing this has opened my eyes to many sobering things about the world we live in.

This country (USA) needs a massive focus on nutritional education for all social classes, age groups, races, etc. You could disagree with me, but you'd be wrong.

[mactastic]

"I hate it when those vegetarians try to shove their views down my throat"
vs
"I hate it when those Christians try to shove their views down my throat"

:D
Oh irony...

Anyway, count me on the meateaters side. Yum.

BTW Toe, 'Rat's not a mac user.

[Toe]

I love it when anyone tries to express their ideas to me. Sometimes, the ideas are pretty whack. But how else are we going to progress except by talking things over?

Political discourse good.

Toe, 'Rat's not a mac user.Ah. Of course.
:D

[sorryiwasdreami]

I really don't like to use the word "hate" so I won't.

I pitty vegetarians like you. You try to force your beliefs down everyone's throat. Humans are genetically engineered by God to be able to eat meat. Brushed your teeth lately and noticed pointy teeth? From what I read on this forum, it seems like many vegans here are just self absorbed liberals.
If no one ate meat there would be a large problem of over population and then your "save the animals" protests goes down the drain. Not to mention all your plant eating takes away from the enviroment that protects animals.

I'm done venting, it's just sad to see another thread of some self absorbed vegan trying to shove his belief to other people. I'm sorry if I offended you but it's the truth. I respect vegetarians, it's just when they do this kind of thing that I get mad.

The trouble is that you think we are forcing our beliefs on you. With your posts and your mentality, you are forcing your beliefs on us.

Being a vegetarian is a lot like being a mac user. I would think this would be easier for mac users to understand, but it may not be.

[sorryiwasdreami]

I'm amused by the degree of emotion often attached to a vegetarian diet.

I'm amused by the degree of emotion often attached to "debunking" a vegetarian diet.

[sorryiwasdreami]

Hmmm. This thread gave me an idea for dinner; time to fire up the grill and toss on some ribeyes. :)

Ignorance is bliss.

[Desertrat]

sparkleytone, whatever works is Good. :) Life is definitely better when you don't have to tote extra weight around.

I suggest the general problem of obesity is less meat as meat, but the type of meat and the way it's cooked--as well as what goes along with it. I like lean meat, so I avoid the fast-food joints and these over-priced steak joints with their "We're so proud of it!" marbling. Even in my days of a higher metabolic rate I didn't see the point of a steak larger than around eight ounces or so.

The national problem, I think, is too much fried stuff, too much carbo, and too many calories. Add in the "World" of Twinkies, etc., and shonuff. folks get too big for their belts...

But I'm just a natural food freak. That's why I hunt.

:D, 'Rat

[BakedBeans]

Ignorance is bliss.

how rude, i think its you that is ignorant

[takao]

I suggest the general problem of obesity is less meat as meat, but the type of meat and the way it's cooked--as well as what goes along with it. I like lean meat, so I avoid the fast-food joints and these over-priced steak joints with their "We're so proud of it!" marbling. Even in my days of a higher metabolic rate I didn't see the point of a steak larger than around eight ounces or so.

The national problem, I think, is too much fried stuff, too much carbo, and too many calories. Add in the "World" of Twinkies, etc., and shonuff. folks get too big for their belts...

word...
i know few people who have visited the US and were simply surprised by the huge amount of food you get if you order in a restaurant etc.
that combined with lots of fried food, suger, salt etc. simply adds up... the amount of fat from the meat itself is rather small compared to the stuff which gets added

the problem partialy lies in the "bigger is better" way of thinking as well...

(personally i have a few pounds too much as well at the moment but i'm already eaing a small-medium meal once per day, no bread, little meat,fruits and something sweet every weekend... i eat for roughly 10-12 euros a week perhaps but i still don't lose weight ;) i simply like pasta too much..no not pasta asciutta i eat mostly vegetarian versions...)

[Desertrat]

For sure, takao. I'm on the road a lot, and I've found that you have to really search to find cafes or restaurants which serve reasonably-sized portions. Most seem to think the clientele consists only of 20-year-old athletes.

"Wanna lose weight? Simple. Grab hold of the table with both hands. Then, push."

I guess I'm just lucky. Fairly high metabolic rate, for one thing. And, for all that I had a desk job in town, I resided on a working ranch. When I wasn't dealing with ranch stuff, I was in the garage building engines or doing other mechanic work. The last 20 years of working heavy equipment hasn't been bad, either. Walking five to a dozen miles a day during hunting season tends to keep the beltline constant...

The docs say my bones are real hard. Trouble is, the ligaments, tendons and disks are shot. :D I need to jack up my hair and run a new body under it.

No cholestrol problems, though. Bring on the French fries! :D

Aw, well. My wrinkles come from grinnin', so I musta been doin' sumpn right.

'Rat

[skunk]

I think we deserve a picture. :)

Any old grizzly will do... :D

[sushi]

"Wanna lose weight? Simple. Grab hold of the table with both hands.
So true, but yet so hard at times.

Especially when a nice big juicy steak is concerned! :D

Sushi

[sorryiwasdreami]

how rude, i think its you that is ignorant

LOL.

[takao]

So true, but yet so hard at times.

Especially when a nice big juicy steak is concerned! :D

or a big piece of self made Lasagne, Sachertorte or a Wiener schnitzel with potato salad

(or self made hamburgers with real bread.. that's hard to turn down as well)

[Toe]

or a big piece of self made Lasagne, Sachertorte or a Wiener schnitzel with potato salad

(or self made hamburgers with real bread.. that's hard to turn down as well)
Self made hamburgers?!?? Ewww!


Oh, wait... I get it now.

;)

[mactastic]

I like grinding my own meat for burgers so I can eat them rare. Homemade buns would be an added bonus.

BTW, Takao's native language isn't English. (Even though he English is quite good).

[skunk]

(Even though he English is quite good).?
:rolleyes:

[James Philp]

Just to say first - sorry i did not read the entire thread..

Firstly, I believe most apes will eat the occasional meat. Chimps are often found going out on "hunts", feasting upon monkeys, and the social peccing order for the meat is very pronounced.

Humans CAN eat RAW meat, but raw does not mean off the supermarket shelf, it means that the animal has just been killed and no bacteria have grown. ALSO, the entire driving force of human evolution was the hunt. We shed our fur so that we could loose heat more, we ran on two legs because we use less energy, and we developed intelligence to carry water with us (in coconuts etc).
The earliest type of hunting was based upon chasing & tracking an animal until it died of utter exhaustion. No knives, guns, bows, just a pointed stick to finish it off when it collapses. - Why did (and some tribes still practice this) humans go to this length if meat had no benefit?
Cooking was a natural extension because the hunt would often last days, and have to be carried back, thus needing sterilisation (by fire) before consumption.
It is also a matter of immunity - just like eating foreign foods can make you sick, but locals always seem fine! (Read tarzan of the Apes!) (I also think Gorillas occasionally partake)

I agree that we all eat far more meat than is really necessary, but i guess that is because of out caveman routes: The yearning for fatty food and protien (so that we could build up fat stores whenever posiible) - wonder why you always wanna sleep after a hearty meal? - It's your inner caveman yearning for you to build up more fat stores - wonder why there's an obeisity epidemic!?!

I eat meat, i like meat. I don't start websites or threads to tell people to eat it.

BTW the traditional english breakfast goes back centuaries and includes many meat products.

But the facts speak for themselves - we have the eyes of a predator, canine teeth, and the stomach (and taste) for meat. A human brought up as a pure savage would be very strong and agile - and meat would definatley be on the menu - it's the best source of protein in the natural world.

P.S. - Eating raw eggs is nothing new - almost all proffesional sportsmen will drink the whites in the morning (with boiled chicken breast in the evening) - maybe half a dozen, to build and maintain muscle.

[pseudobrit]

I like grinding my own meat... Homemade buns would be an added bonus.

More innuendo than you can shake a stick at!

[Toe]

Just to say first - sorry i did not read the entire thread..
Yeah, pretty much everything you brought up was already discussed in the thread.

So skipping right to your conclusion... who cares if a savage human would eat meat? That's precisely my point; I have a grocery store, so don't need to savagely participate in killing billions and billions of creatures. If I wanted to be all natural, I'd stop using this computer and brushing my teeth... and I'd certainly stop working and just steal and kill to get whatever I need. Yeah, natural living!

Edit: But I wouldn't steal a toothbrush!

[James Philp]

Yeah, pretty much everything you brought up was already discussed in the thread.

So skipping right to your conclusion... who cares if a savage human would eat meat? That's precisely my point; I have a grocery store, so don't need to savagely participate in killing billions and billions of creatures. If I wanted to be all natural, I'd stop using this computer and brushing my teeth... and I'd certainly stop working and just steal and kill to get whatever I need. Yeah, natural living!
Do you wear clothes? do you use cosmetics? do you want a cure for cancer? do you want medical progress?
All these things require the exploitation of animals.
And the point i was trying to make is that the drive for meat in our diet has largley affected our evolution.
I don't think many of my points were brought up, plus the thread grew 2 pages as i was writing my post!

Edit: I don't ever remember " savagely participate"ing in any "killing billions and billions of creatures", but i guess i would just forget that.

I think you are being somewhat naive and sentimental. Why don't we try to educate our dogs and cats to eat tinned beans instead of meat products?

[pseudobrit]

Do you wear clothes? do you use cosmetics? do you want a cure for cancer? do you want medical progress?
All these things require the exploitation of animals.

A healthy diet does not require meat. Argument invalid.

I think you are being somewhat naive and sentimental. Why don't we try to educate our dogs and cats to eat tinned beans instead of meat products?

Dogs are carnivores. We are omnivores. Argument invalid.

[James Philp]

Dogs are carnivores. We are omnivores. Argument invalid.
Notice you didn't say herbivores, Argument Totally invalid. You just admitted, we ARE OMNIvores!

[pseudobrit]

Notice you didn't say herbivores, Argument Totally invalid. You just admitted, we ARE OMNIvores!

Which means we can eat plants or flesh. Not that we must eat both. You're grasping for straws.

[~Shard~]

Which means we can eat plants or flesh. Not that we must eat both. You're grasping for straws.

Does that make him a herbivore then? ;) :cool:

[3rdpath]

still beating ( and eating ) this dead horse are we?

seriously, people will eat what they want to eat. i really see no point in trying to convince anyone what is best for them. the only time a person goes down a different path is when they discover it themselves.

[takao]

note to myself: "home made" (is that correct ?) doesn't equal "self made" in english when food is concerned

i should stop translating directly from the way i talk/dialect straight to english

[zimv20]

takao -- i think your english is superb. it's better than that of many native speakers i know.

[Lacero]

There's plenty of reasons to eat meat.

What if you got stranded with your soccer buddies on the Andes mountain in a freak airplane accident and you couldn't radio for help? You'd need to eat meat to stay Alive!, since you can't forage for berries in a snow-packed mountain range.

[takao]

What if you got stranded with your soccer buddies on the Andes mountain in a freak airplane accident and you couldn't radio for help? You'd need to eat meat to stay Alive!, since you can't forage for berries in a snow-packed mountain range.

of when you get caught in an ice age ;)

seriously just a few weeks ago a study was published about the eating habits from humans/neandertalers from 30.000 years ago (i think)
they used all different kinds of chemical analysing from bones etc. were quite surprised that the percentage of meat was way higher than thought before .. i read it as along 85-90% meat from all eaten food for neandertaler and only 20% less for the normal homo sapiens

not even the scientisits them self expected it too be that high

[skunk]

of when you get caught in an ice age ;)

seriously just a few weeks ago a study was published about the eating habits from humans/neandertalers from 30.000 years ago (i think)
they used all different kinds of chemical analysing from bones etc. were quite surprised that the percentage of meat was way higher than thought before .. i read it as along 85-90% meat from all eaten food for neandertaler and only 20% less for the normal homo sapiens

not even the scientisits them self expected it too be that highThat's amazing: from the bones in middens (domestic rubbish dumps) from the neolithic period, it appears that meat was only a relatively small percentage of the diet by 3,000 BC. I wonder what suddenly made them eat their greens?

By the way, "neandertaler" translates to "neanderthal". And, as you probably know, neanderthals were "homo sapiens" too: "homo sapiens neandertalensis" vs "homo sapiens sapiens".

[sushi]

or a big piece of self made Lasagne, Sachertorte or a Wiener schnitzel with potato salad
Making me hungry! :eek:

(or self made hamburgers with real bread.. that's hard to turn down as well)
So true. Self made hamburgers are so much better.

BTW, in American English we usually use the term "home made" vice "self made". Self made could mean something else besides home made. But I understood you exactly and totally agree.

Sushi

[sushi]

I like grinding my own meat for burgers so I can eat them rare.
Yep, you don't have to worry that way. Plus using your own meat gives you a much better quality hamburger.

Sushi

[sushi]

note to myself: "home made" (is that correct ?) doesn't equal "self made" in english when food is concerned

i should stop translating directly from the way i talk/dialect straight to english
Takao, no worries. Your English is fine. Those of us who have lived overseas exposed to other languages completely understand your self made comment vice home made.

Sushi

[sushi]

Does that make him a herbivore then? ;) :cool:
Oooh. Shard with the slam dunk! :D

[takao]

Takao, no worries. Your English is fine. Those of us who have lived overseas exposed to other languages completely understand your self made comment vice home made.

offtopic:
i always think of it that way: "it could be worse, i could be english native and would have to learn german and thus having to mess with 3 instead of 1 article" ;)

i personally found german already hard sometimes (with it's ridiculous (latin) names for tenses like the famous "Plusquamperfekt", a students nightmare) i can't imagine how hard it has to be for somebody who didn't grew up with it

speaking in "Hochdeutsch" (= " high german" aka written german) which you have to do sometimes is still a PITA for me ...

somtimes in real life i accidently even think up answers to questions in english

[pseudobrit]

Does that make him a herbivore then? ;) :cool:

No. The straws are actually Slim Jims.

[skunk]

i personally found german already hard sometimes (with it's ridiculous (latin) names for tenses like the famous "Plusquamperfekt", a students nightmare) i can't imagine how hard it has to be for somebody who didn't grew up with itFrench is even worse: besides the "plusqueparfait" there's a "passé anterieur". Marcel Proust was so confused he wrote a book about French tenses: "À la recherche des temps perdus" ;)

[~Shard~]

No. The straws are actually Slim Jims.

Ah, gotcha... But then the question would be, can you classify Slim Jims as real meat? :cool:

[pseudobrit]

Ah, gotcha... But then the question would be, can you classify Slim Jims as real meat? :cool:

17 different animals in every bite!

(usually eight chickens, four cows, three pigs, a turkey and a rat.)

[~Shard~]

17 different animals in every bite!

(usually eight chickens, four cows, three pigs, a turkey and a rat.)

Does leather from an old boot count as meat, cuz I'm sure that's in there somewhere as well. It is leather...

[sushi]

17 different animals in every bite!

(usually eight chickens, four cows, three pigs, a turkey and a rat.)
Who knows, there may even be some other sources of protein as well.

...insects, etc. :eek: :D

Sushi

[Taft]

People can be so rude when they think they are on the moral "high road."

James says:
Do you wear clothes? do you use cosmetics? do you want a cure for cancer? do you want medical progress?
All these things require the exploitation of animals.

To which Pseudo responds:
A healthy diet does not require meat. Argument invalid.

Are we running a contest for who can be the most flip and dismissive, pseudo?

Are clothes made from animal products required? Are cosmetics made from or tested on animals required? Is a cure for cancer in which we test on animals required?

The answer to all of these questions is almost certainly no. But why do people wear leather, cosmetics and kill mice by the millions for medical research? Because they WANT to. It is a desire. We are using the animals for our purposes, and by doing so, are depriving them of something. What is the difference between this and eating meat?

I could say "Invalid argument" here to dismiss your point entirely, but that'd be a tad rude, don't you think.

From James:
I think you are being somewhat naive and sentimental. Why don't we try to educate our dogs and cats to eat tinned beans instead of meat products?

Responds Pseudo:
Dogs are carnivores. We are omnivores. Argument invalid.

So he had NO point whatsoever, eh?

Have you ever looked at the ingredients in the average dogfood? I'll do the leg work for you and give you this link (http://pedigree.com/products/dry/large+breed.asp ). If you follow this link you'll see the first and fourth ingredients listed are corn and rice, respectively. You'll also see a variety of other vegetable and synthetic products. So most dogs (non-feral) today are unwitting omnivores. Sure, their "natural" state is as carnivores. But then, our "natural" state is as omnivores. We have the means to change both situations, don't we? Heck, we could probably easily feed dogs only plant matter and give them the proper nutrition. Maybe his point isn't totally invalid.

Now, to be thoroughly condescending for a moment, you'll notice I gave your arguments something you didn't give James' arguments: respect. I've noticed that several posters on this thread seem to be very comfortable on their very high horses and have no problem being flip and short with even the most thoughful posters who disagree with them. That sucks. I know you guys feel strongly about your choice of diet, but there are some very good counter points to your arguments. If you are unwilling to listen to those points, this discussion is futile.

Taft

[Toe]

still beating ( and eating ) this dead horse are we?

seriously, people will eat what they want to eat. i really see no point in trying to convince anyone what is best for them. the only time a person goes down a different path is when they discover it themselves.When people argued against slavery, I'm sure there were people who said, "People will have slaves if they want to, and there's no point in trying to convince them otherwise." The point being, it's not about what's best for you, but rather for the animals being raised and killed. Taking that view, it is difficult to just sit by and let people kill as they please. Then again, I don't think I'm being overly pushy. It's not like l'm advocating any laws or making you read my website or anything.


There's plenty of reasons to eat meat.

What if you got stranded with your soccer buddies on the Andes mountain in a freak airplane accident and you couldn't radio for help? You'd need to eat meat to stay Alive!, since you can't forage for berries in a snow-packed mountain range.Sounds like a good reason to eat meat; and I sure would then. But today, I have access to a grocery store, and don't need to eat the person next to me, or any other animals.

[mactastic]

?
:rolleyes:

Takao's English is good. I make no such claims about my own!

Don't misunderestimate my language abilities. ;)

[pseudobrit]

Are we running a contest for who can be the most flip and dismissive, pseudo?

Yes. Good night.




;)

[~Shard~]

Yes. Good night.




;)

Thanks for clearing that up pseudobrit. :p :cool:

[pseudobrit]

Are clothes made from animal products required? Are cosmetics made from or tested on animals required? Is a cure for cancer in which we test on animals required?

Not always, but the direction his argument was heading is that since we need to abuse animals to for certain altruistic means like medical research, we may as well abuse them on a massive scale for everything else, like food, too.

That argument is in total disconnect with the factory farm system, where too many animals are raised in horrid conditions just for meat. I'm not saying the animals involved in medical and cosmetic testing aren't mistreated, but they aren't mistreated on the scale that the factory farms do.

Have you ever looked at the ingredients in the average dogfood? I'll do the leg work for you and give you this link (http://pedigree.com/products/dry/large+breed.asp ). If you follow this link you'll see the first and fourth ingredients listed are corn and rice, respectively. You'll also see a variety of other vegetable and synthetic products. So most dogs (non-feral) today are unwitting omnivores. Sure, their "natural" state is as carnivores. But then, our "natural" state is as omnivores. We have the means to change both situations, don't we? Heck, we could probably easily feed dogs only plant matter and give them the proper nutrition. Maybe his point isn't totally invalid.

I was always under the impression that grains and such were added to dog food for general other-than-nutritional needs (filler and fiber). In fact, if you look at the link you provided, it clearly says that the rice is added "to aid digestion."

I know you guys feel strongly about your choice of diet, but there are some very good counter points to your arguments.

I'm not vegetarian.

I recognise vegetarianism as a noble cause and just because I don't wholly partake in it doesn't mean I can't support those who do.

It bothers me to see the folks who like to pile on (at least those with flippant comments like "steak is yummy!" are being somewhat honest about it) and spread misinformation about vegetarianism and meat eating in order to attempt to justify their own selfish choices.

[Toe]

I recognise vegetarianism as a noble cause and just because I don't wholly partake in it doesn't mean I can't support those who do.
That's commendable, as I think very, very few people wholly partake in veganism. And those who do are probably pretty unhealthy.

The point of vegetarianism is not to be absolutist. If one wanted to stop causing any deaths at all, one would have to immediately suicide. Your idea is much better and more realistic... try to minimize the harm one causes. Especially when it is just so dang easy to not eat meat, or at least to not eat very much meat.

[Taft]

Not always, but the direction his argument was heading is that since we need to abuse animals to for certain altruistic means like medical research, we may as well abuse them on a massive scale for everything else, like food, too.

That argument is in total disconnect with the factory farm system, where too many animals are raised in horrid conditions just for meat. I'm not saying the animals involved in medical and cosmetic testing aren't mistreated, but they aren't mistreated on the scale that the factory farms do.

Yes, many (most) factory farms are bad. Which is why I buy (most of) my meat from organic sources and small farm outfits. Thank gods for Whole Foods.

I am NOT for animal abuse. But then again, I wear leather, use medicine and eat meat. To me, widescale versus small scale shouldn't be an issue. Injecting one monkey with a virus or experimental medicine which could cause immense suffering should be just as bad as letting 200 pigs suffer in a nasty factory farm, shouldn't it? If we accept that animals lives are not equal to the lives of humans and are willing to use them for the benefits they offer mankind, it is inevitable that they will suffer. I am all for minimizing the amount of suffering (ie. get rid of factory farms), but we will never eliminate it so long as we treat animals as our lesser in ANY capacity.

I was always under the impression that grains and such were added to dog food for general other-than-nutritional needs (filler and fiber). In fact, if you look at the link you provided, it clearly says that the rice is added "to aid digestion."

It also says the chicken protein was added for the same purpose. But I think you are splitting hairs given the corn and rice provide some simple carbohydrates which can be used by dogs. There is actually debate about whether dogs should be considered carnivores or omnivores. The classic definition puts them as carnivores, but recent thought has questioned that for domesticated dogs.

It bothers me to see the folks who like to pile on (at least those with flippant comments like "steak is yummy!" are being somewhat honest about it) and spread misinformation about vegetarianism and meat eating in order to attempt to justify their own selfish choices.

Selfish choices? Please.

Do you use air conditioning? Take 10 minute showers? Use cars? Play golf? Wear leather? Use plastic? Use wood? Have a lawn? Use paper?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are selfish. Each of those choices has an effect on the environment, animal habitats and animals themselves. We are constantly, as a race, using the environment and its plants and animals for our own wants and needs. We NEED food, water and shelter. That's it. We don't NEED two-story houses, TVs, cars, paper, air-conditioning, lawn, and leather belts and shoes. Those are desires which we fulfill by exploiting our environment for its resources, often to the detriment of other animals and plants. I call it progress. Some, I suppose, would call it murder.

I feel no need to justify my choice to eat meat if you can justify your choice to drive a car or wear leather. Do you have any idea how many animals are brutally killed each year under the wheels of automobiles or how disruptive roadways are to habitats? Do you have any idea how many cows it takes to provide America with durable shoes each year?

My girlfriend and I eat probably around 1 cow, 20-30 chickens, 1/2 a pig, 4 ducks, 1/8 a deer, and 1/4 a lamb each year together. We waste very little and reuse as much as possible (buy whole, use bones for stock, soups and sauces; trim fat, render and reuse for cooking, etc). I do not feel selfish and offer no apologies.

I'm a meat eater and I like it. I also enjoy air-conditioning and my morning shower. May the gods have mercy on my soul.

:rolleyes:

Taft

[Toe]

I feel no need to justify my choice to eat meat if you can justify your choice to drive a car or wear leather. Do you have any idea how many animals are brutally killed each year under the wheels of automobiles or how disruptive roadways are to habitats? Do you have any idea how many cows it takes to provide America with durable shoes each year?Jumping in here... I don't wear leather, and my wife and I split one car on which we put less than 6K miles per year (and she works hard at car-free advocacy). So go ahead and justify your meat eating. :D :D

Just kidding, however... as I don't ask anyone to justify anything. Just to think about it and make their own choices... informed choices.

My girlfriend and I eat probably around 1 cow, 20-30 chickens, 1/2 a pig, 4 ducks, 1/8 a deer, and 1/4 a lamb each year together. We waste very little and reuse as much as possible (buy whole, use bones for stock, soups and sauces; trim fat, render and reuse for cooking, etc). I do not feel selfish and offer no apologies. Actually, you're probably overestimating. Cows are very large, and you would be too if you ate half of one a year. That's something like a pound of beef a day. By my calculations (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17), the average American eats .09 cows per year. Doesn't sound like much, but (also by my calculations (http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=18)) globally, people eat almost a quarter billion cattle, 1.1 billion pigs, nearly half a billion goats and sheep, and a whopping 18.6 billion chickens and turkeys. Every year. It's staggering numbers like that that really drive home what we're doing. Especially since almost all of that killing is unnecessary for nutrition, and in fact is often counter-productive to nutrition (uses more land for less food, and makes people fat and diseased).

[latergator116]

That's commendable, as I think very, very few people wholly partake in veganism. And those who do are probably pretty unhealthy.

The point of vegetarianism is not to be absolutist. If one wanted to stop causing any deaths at all, one would have to immediately suicide. Your idea is much better and more realistic... try to minimize the harm one causes. Especially when it is just so dang easy to not eat meat, or at least to not eat very much meat.

I think you make a very good point. There is no way to stop ALL suffering to animals, but there is a way to minimize it so both animal and human win (for the mos part). I think that if you emphesize that point more, people won't be as turned off by vegetarianism and veganism. Although it would be optimal for everyone to stop eating meat, realistically it will never happen. I respect people like Taft who take into consideration the welfare of the animal when buying meat.

[Desertrat]

Hokay, so answer me this: We know homo sap is an omnivore in that we can eat meat and veggies. The diet-science boffins tell us there are various goodies in meat that are necessary for good health, like amino acids and the like.

So where is the general benefit for homo sap to go to grazing like a cow?

If a purely vegetarian diet lacks trace elements that science says are necessary for a truely balanced diet, why do it?

(Sure, some folks are allergic to meat; othrs just plain don't like the smell at any stage, whether raw, cooking or cooked. Those aren't at issue, here.)

Further question: If you draw an east-west line through Anchorage, Alaska, you'll find that the indigenous folks north of there eat beaucoup meat and danged few veggies, ever. They've survived since long before Whitey brought in the benefits of civilization. So how is a meat-heavy diet a necessarily Bad Thing? (I realize that physical exercise is a large part of the equation.)

On some of these other bits and pieces: I find the idea of a "chicken factory" to be repugnant. However, I dunno how millions of folks are gonna have breakfast eggs without them, or how KFC could stay in business.

As a kid I had some 200 laying hens as an income source. I sold to sorority houses at UT, and to the produce house downtown. Free-ranging "yard eggs". But I spent a good bit of time with a trapline against possums and raccoons and foxes, and did in a goodly number of feral housecats and "chicken snakes" with a .22 in order to not lose both chickens and eggs to predation.

Times change: In the 1940s, my grandmother would stop in at a downtown drugstore to buy a tube of over-the-counter strychnine paste. She'd put a little dab on a piece of bread as a one-time event for possums or raccoons.

Sunday dinner? Grab chicken's head. Pull hard. Render carcass into component parts. Cook. Probably not the thing for Katie Couric to essay...

Different worlds, I reckon...

:), 'Rat

[amnesiac1984]

Hokay, so answer me this: We know homo sap is an omnivore in that we can eat meat and veggies. The diet-science boffins tell us there are various goodies in meat that are necessary for good health, like amino acids and the like.

So where is the general benefit for homo sap to go to grazing like a cow?

If a purely vegetarian diet lacks trace elements that science says are necessary for a truely balanced diet, why do it?

Because we need to do all we can to stem global warming and to provide enough food for all these human children we keep having. I'm sure it has been discussed on this thread before but grazing cattle are one of the worst sources of greenhouse gases, and you can get 10 times more protein out of a field of corn than a field of cattle. Its that simple folks, I don't give a damn about whether its cruel to kill animals for food, it may well be, but the real issue here is survival of the human species and eating less meat ,among other things, is something we are all going to have to do if we are going to have any kind of sustainable future.

[pseudobrit]

Selfish choices? Please.

Do you use air conditioning? Take 10 minute showers? Use cars? Play golf? Wear leather? Use plastic? Use wood? Have a lawn? Use paper?

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are selfish.

I know, and I admit it. I wouldn't be caught dead playing golf, but for all other purposes I recognise the fact that I am selfish and consume more resources than I need to. I know that as an American I use more than my share of the world's resources. I know that as a meat eater I cause suffering and help sustain the awful factory farm system.

Because of this, I try changing some things about how I consume and what I consume, but if you're in denial about what you're doing you obviously won't change.

Most people who are anti-vegetarian can't admit that the reason they won't apologise for eating meat is they're too selfish.

I apologise for eating meat because I'm selfish.

To use an analogy, just because you're a common sinner doesn't mean you're going to Hell and may as well just go around murdering people. You recognise you're a sinner, try to atone for the bad you do and do less of it.

[pseudobrit]

If you answered yes to any of the above questions, you are selfish...I do not feel selfish and offer no apologies.

I'm wondering why you admit that our actions and lifestyles are selfish in one paragraph and washing your hands of any guilt in the next.

[pseudobrit]

If a purely vegetarian diet lacks trace elements that science says are necessary for a truely balanced diet, why do it?

AFAIK, a pure vegetarian diet can provide all the nutrition that's needed.

Further question: If you draw an east-west line through Anchorage, Alaska, you'll find that the indigenous folks north of there eat beaucoup meat and danged few veggies, ever. They've survived since long before Whitey brought in the benefits of civilization. So how is a meat-heavy diet a necessarily Bad Thing? (I realize that physical exercise is a large part of the equation.)

Well, you would find that they didn't exactly prosper throughout history.

A meat heavy diet for them (wild squirrel, caribou, seal) is quite different from our meat-heavy diets (bacon, hamburger, fried chicken all from animals raised in a pen so small they couldn't turn around.).

Sure, you could eat venison and your own free range chickens, or duck or goose. I'd have no problem with that. Eating hunted meat is fine (especially because the harvest is moderated).

Sunday dinner? Grab chicken's head. Pull hard. Render carcass into component parts. Cook. Probably not the thing for Katie Couric to essay...

Different worlds, I reckon...

That chicken, despite ending up as dinner, led a life of luxury compared to factory chickens.

Your experience with farming was totally different from many modern farms. Your ideas of farming are what real farming was about.

[~Shard~]

Has anyone considered all the innocent slaughterhouse employees that would be out of work if no one ate meat? Think of their rights, and their poor families... :( ;) :cool:

[amnesiac1984]

Has anyone considered all the innocent slaughterhouse employees that would be out of work if no one ate meat? Think of their rights, and their poor families... :( ;) :cool:

I'm sure they could get jobs in the new vegetable farms that will take the place of the factory farms. And the slaughterhouses could become schools! :p

[iGary]

I wanna start a "Ten good reasons to eat meat" thread. :p

[~Shard~]

I'm sure they could get jobs in the new vegetable farms that will take the place of the factory farms. And the slaughterhouses could become schools! :p

Nice thinking.... ;) :cool:

[Taft]

I'm wondering why you admit that our actions and lifestyles are selfish in one paragraph and washing your hands of any guilt in the next.

Put simply: it's the way the world works.

The native Americans, though famously efficient with their kill, had to kill animals to survive. Even though they took only what was necessary and used "all" parts (IOW they were operating primarily on need, not desire), I would argue they were committing a selfish act. They put the value of their lives and the lives of their society over the lives of the animals they took for their use. That is what nature is all about: survival of the species.

But there were many problems with hunting and gathering as a means of sustenance. Without control of the various herds and plants you use to survive, you leave much up to chance and nature. If the herd thins because of disease, over-hunting, or competition from other predators (wolves, etc.), you are SOL and must either find another source of food or move on to greener pastures, so to speak.

Seeing this, other cultures developed forms of domestication. I would argue that this is where man moved out of the realm of need and into the realm of desire. It was man's desire for stability and control of their food supply that they started to breed and raise animals for the sole purpose of food (either through manual labor for agriculture, by killing them for meat or taking their milk and eggs for food). If you asked people of that time wether they were selfish, they would have laughed at you. To them, it was a matter of survival. It is exceedingly difficult and tenuous to build a growing society on hunting and gathering, and they realized this. They didn't NEED agriculture and domestication, but it provided them stability and a level of comfort they couldn't have through more archaic methods.

Fast forward to today. We have severe divisions of labor, freeing the majority of the work force to even consider where their food comes from. We have entire industries built upon giving people what they desire (movies, music, wines, toys, etc.). Most of our society is based on want, not need. I could give up 3/4 of my worldly possesions, and likely still survive easily. Just the fact that I keep my money and use some of it to buy "toys" instead of giving it to those in my society that are more needy is considered selfish by some standards.

My point is that most of modern society is built upon self serving principles. But just because we are self serving doesn't mean we are immoral. Man has been using the environment and other animals to his advantage for most of our historical record and I don't see that changing any time soon. To an extent, I see selfishness as the driving force behind our society and the thing that has made us flourish in the face of fierce evolutionary competition. I have little regret of our collective self-serving nature.

Taft

[Taft]

Actually, you're probably overestimating. Cows are very large, and you would be too if you ate half of one a year. That's something like a pound of beef a day.

You are absolutely right. That was way too high. Anyway, I was just trying to that some "die hard" meat eaters like myself do so in modest proportions and aren't wasteful.

It's staggering numbers like that that really drive home what we're doing. Especially since almost all of that killing is unnecessary for nutrition, and in fact is often counter-productive to nutrition (uses more land for less food, and makes people fat and diseased).

Yet our life expectancy is higher than ever. Granted, this is mostly through medical advances, but it is also due to better nourishment through stable sources of food.

Now I agree with you that tons of meat every day is not ideal from a nutritional standpoint. But our "ideal" foodsource is likely some fiberous, sugary, vitamin and protein enriched goo which we would intake according to our specific caloric needs at neatly spaced intervals throughout the day. As a student of the culinary arts, I couldn't live in a world where our "ideal" nutritional needs were the only basis for caloric intake.

Taft

[Desertrat]

Taft, while the Noble Redman may have been fairly efficient in food-harvest, there are numerous kill sites where they stampeded buffalo over a cliff, killing far more than they could use. Another aspect folks don't consider is the number of wounded animals which were lost to the hunters. Odds are that many more rabbits were eaten than were deer.

I've read archaeologist's commentaries that hunter-gatherers needed no more than three to four hours per day of effort for adequate food acquisition. If a person is fully knowledgeable about edible plants, eating is an unending nibbling process when one moves across country. You can gather yummies into a basket while moving, of course, but sitting down to a meal isn't necessary...

Yeah, cows are a source of methane, but their total contribution is overblown. :) Lots more other sources; rotting vegetation, for one. Sanitary landfills, or another. And don't forget deer; deer farts can keep a fella awake at night, according to a buddy of mine who thought feeding them in his yard was a Neat Thing. :D

pseudobrit, the farming of my day was when there were around 175 million people in the US, and a much, much higher percentage of the labor force was on-farm. Post WW-II, with the urbanization that developed, food-supply methodology was forced to change. A major factor was the vast increase in "eating out", and not just in the large chains such as McDonald's. With some 290 million people or more in the U.S., food factories seem to be the only way for relatively inexpensive food.

And now there are shrimp farms along the Pecos River near Grandfalls, Texas. The natural salts in the river's water are adequate for those crustaceans. :) Anybody with some land where there's a good bit of clay in the soil can get into the catfish-farm bidness. Vinyards are being started all over west Texas, proving that agri-business is full of new ideas. $4,000/acre/year from grapes beats running 10 cows to the section.

Given that personal survival is hard-wired into us by the Big Hodad in the Sky--or basic biology, if you prefer--I fail to see any accuracy in the word "selfish" when it comes to one's choice of food in a balanced diet. :)

Ah, well. "Never have so few fed so many." Only some 2.7% of our labor force is on-farm, yet we export half of all the grains we produce...

'Rat

[Taft]

Taft, while the Noble Redman may have been fairly efficient in food-harvest, there are numerous kill sites where they stampeded buffalo over a cliff, killing far more than they could use. Another aspect folks don't consider is the number of wounded animals which were lost to the hunters. Odds are that many more rabbits were eaten than were deer.

I've read archaeologist's commentaries that hunter-gatherers needed no more than three to four hours per day of effort for adequate food acquisition. If a person is fully knowledgeable about edible plants, eating is an unending nibbling process when one moves across country. You can gather yummies into a basket while moving, of course, but sitting down to a meal isn't necessary...

Yeah, I've read about the buffalo over a cliff strategy. And I realize that certain tribes were better and worse than others.

Anyway, my main point was about the progression of man from a rather "efficient" clan of hunters and gatherers to a more wasteful (but more prosperous) society of intelligent domesticators to an even more wasteful (but even more prosperous) society of uniquely divided labor and products to suit our whims. Thus, the rise of man coincided with the withering of quite a few species and natural habitats. To me, its just the way the world works.

Taft

[Blue Velvet]

And don't forget deer; deer farts can keep a fella awake at night, according to a buddy of mine who thought feeding them in his yard was a Neat Thing. :D

I learn something new every day on this site. :)

[Lacero]

Sorry to all Bambi lovers. Deer meat = delicious.

[Toe]

Sorry to all Bambi lovers. Deer meat = delicious.I hear people meat is delicious too. What's your point?

:eek:

[zimv20]

had dinner last night at a fab place in chicago, japonais (http://www.japonaischicago.com).

dunno which was better -- the Kobe Carpaccio (thinly sliced raw Kobe beef with yuzu in a soy ginger sauce), or the Bin Cho (marinated sashimi baby tuna with arugula and shaved daikon in a citrus sake vinaigrette).

3rd best meal i've ever had.

[Desertrat]

Toe, deer meat doesn't have all those growth hormones added to the food supply. But mountain lion is better eating--true fact.

Drifting away from the thread a bunch, my "lil buddy", Cigar Mountain Mama lion went and killed a really neat pet house cat belonging to a friend of mine. My friend's already got one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel from further neurological problems after surgery for a brain tumor, and losing a beloved pet hasn't helped. Intellectually I'm fully aware that revenge is pointless, but emotionally I just might have to re-prioritize my calendar of upcoming events. Grump...

Well, off to Mexico tomorrow. Y'all sleep well...

'Rat