Yes, gymeejet, I agree:

human beings -- as a group -- behave as though every other living organism on the planet were put here for us to us, abuse, and destroy at our whim. That's just wrong.

I don't however think that meat eating is wrong for ALL human beings.

Just as the lion must eat the gazelle, certain cultures -- hunter-gatherers living at subsistence level -- must eat meat.

But then, those ancient hunter-gatherer cultures are not destroying the planet in all the ways you mention.

hi raz,
in regards to bowel movements, this is the most common types of problems i see, when helping people - digestion/elimination problems.

i go #2 several times a day, but they are not huge stools. and it takes me longer to wipe than it does to go. people sitting there reading the newspaper have a problem.

ideally, we want fast digestion systems, so nutrients get in, and waste gets out quickly. but it also behooves us to have slow metabolisms. all these diet pills that basically speed up the metabolism in one way or the other, ARE BAD NEWS.

what we want to strive for are slow, relaxed, basal metabolisms. we do not want our bodies working hard, when we are at rest. but when we want to go, the energy of a turbocharger. sort of like the big guy with the muscles, but a jovial personality, UNTIL YOU GET HIM MAD - LOL.

gymeejet, I thought that more muscle mass gave you a faster metabolism? Isn't more muscle mass a good thing?

adding muscle does allow us to burn more calories, and to a certain extent, help us to keep fat off.

we are all born to have certain hormone levels. our bodies will always attempt to adjust to these hormone levels. some of these hormone levels are the cause for each of us having so many body fat cells, and it is the number of fat cells that dictate our body's preferred body fat percentage.

this is why liposuction actually does work, because it eliminates some fat cells, thereby actually lowering the body's set point.

each of us is only gonna have so much muscle, mostly determined by our testosterone levels. and i do believe it is a good idea for us to have as much muscle as our body naturally allows.

but within those limits, we are better off with slowed down metabolisms. we age slower, we have less anxieties about getting older, and all the things that go along with it.

if someone is carrying around more fat than what is ideal for that person, speeding up the metabolism is not the answer, for the answer to all problems is to fix the problem at the source, which is what medicine almost never does. most pills that one takes, work by shutting down some enzyme that may have gone out of kilter, but it does not address the reason why it went out of kilter in the first place, which means that because the real problem was never solved, it still exists to create other problems for us in the future.

in fact, the biggest thing i preach is STAY IN BALANCE, so that your body can work as it was designed.

Ok, I normally don't get involved in these debates, as much as I enjoy reading them, but this one sucked me in --



First of all, this analogy is ludicrous, flat-out. Whatever moral issues you may have with the "superiority" of vegetarianism, I'm not sure there's anyone in the world stupid enough to take the $5000+ damage to his SUV, not to mention the potential risk of losing his life because he "likes the taste of venison." I mean, come on - while this analogy might appeal to you on an emotional level, and fill you with a righteous fervor of the evil abuses of "meat-eaters", it doesn't hold water as a real-life situation. I think most "meat-eaters" wouldn't see it as a moral choice for the simple fact that it's not one. But, to continue with your analogy, it's also hard to think that the fictional "guy" in your example wouldn't see the animal "suffer and die", after crawling out of his wrecked SUV and extricating the wounded, thrashing animal from wherever it ended up, putting it out of its agony and throwing it in the back to take home.

Secondly,


this doesn't hold water either. Our evolutionary and archeological history make it quite clear that without consumption of animal tissues, we would have never progressed to the level of agriculture in the first place. (And no, please do not take this as an invitation to argue on the merits of creationism - that's been covered quite thoroughly on another thread.) Alright you may say, that might have been true for our ancestors, but not now, when so many non-animal protein sources are available. Well, you yourself in this very thread mentioned the benefits to your health that you've seen after adding animal proteins and fats back into your dietary regime. Animals must be sustained and raised in an orderly fashion to produce these things. In other words, there are still resources being devoted to their care, feed, and upkeep, the same as if these animals were being raised strictly for their own meat. Also, when the animals reach the end of their productive life, after having spent so many resources in the animal's production, shouldn't we, morally, utilize said animal to its fullest?

Finally, I'd like to address the hunting issue. You said:



Is it really moral to stand by and watch the animal suffer a slow starvation due to overpopulation run out of control? Deer are quite capable of surviving in neighborhoods where any chance of natural predation has been reduced to 0%. Instead, they run out into the streets, and are struck quite accidentally by motorists and left to die slowly on the side of the road. Or, as I mentioned earlier, slowly starve to death in the winter when the available food can't support the population. Hunting not only prevents the population from reaching such dire straights, it allows for the "harvest" of animal proteins (with a better essential fatty acid profile, no less) without the expenditure of resources that giant factory farms (whether animal or vegetable in nature) require. It also enables me to raise my own fruits and vegetables in my backyard, using composting to enrich my earth by re-using resources, instead of stripping it, requiring a high expenditure of resources, as well as the injection of artificial chemicals in the forms of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides as mass agriculture does. And finally, to interject my own personal feelings here, from a cycle-of-life, respect for animals position, giving thanks to the spirit of the animal that died so that I can be sustained is a daily part of my life.

I'm not sure how a question about colon cancer ended up in a vegetarian debate, but I think while your intentions are admirable, and respect your right to choose, "preaching" vegetarianism as the moral alternative doesn't stand up under scrutiny to me.

Just my 2 cents...now it's back to lurking for me!

Wow, Bon, that was great! You're really helpful! Thanks.

Personally, I think all total vegetarians are fruitcakes that don't have a clue to reality. People were made to eat meat and plants. Anyone that raises their kids on a veggie.vegan diet needs to have those kids taken from them as child abusers.

Mara, you missed the point of my analogy by focussing on irrelevant details. It doesn't matter whether there's an SUV instead of a Humvee, or a deer instead of a fox, or it's nighttime instead of daytime, or it's a man instead of a woman.

The only point I am making is that unnecessary cruelty to animals, and killing of animals, should be avoided.

If you think about it, you yourself almost certainly practice this principle every single time you treat any animal humanely. It's intuitive for most people that it is more ethical to avoid cruelty to animals.

Of course, if you're a psychopath who likes to go around torturing animals, then everything I've just said is wasted on you.

As far as the necessity of eating animal tissues -- this is clearly not the case as there are any number of extremely healthy vegetarians running around and liing long healthy productive lives.

As far as the necessity of eating animal tissues prior to the development of agriculture -- I DID say that for ancient hunter-gatherer cultures meat eating is a necessity.

So when I said "we have a choice," I was referring to the "we" who live in a modern industrialized society.

Clearly, we DO have a choice.

I have exercised that choice.

So, yes, that statement DOES "hold water."

And as for the health benefits of ANIMAL proteins -- one can get these from humanely farmed eggs and dairy.

Obviously, there is No need to KILL anything.

As far as the overpopulation of deer, etc. -- hunting is not the solution. Animals in the wild DO regulate their own populations in lean years by having fewer offspring.

As far as farm animals now in existence -- it is clear that even if my wildest dreams come true and the world adopts a vegetarian diet, this process will happen very gradually, over hundred of years. The number of animals in farm production will gradually decline.

When animals die, of natural causes, of course, do whatever you wish with their dead bodies. Just don't inflict unnecessary suffering or pain on them.

Oh, cool! We made it to the war zone!!

The application of moral precepts to the food chain is just not as clear-cut and "eating A is good" and "eating B is bad".

The food chain predates the development of human morality by 3 billion years at least. It developed in amorality and continues that way.

Observe the food chain and this is what you see:

Some animals eat living plants.
Some animals kill and eat other living animals.
Some plants eat other living plants (Mistletoe, for example).
Some plants kill and eat living animals (the Venus flytrap, for example).

What can we conclude from this? Is the meat-eating Venus Flytrap less moral than the plant-eating Mistletoe? The question is silly because human moral standards are irrelevent to the food chain.

The morality of the food chain seems to be this:

1. Every living thing is food for something else.
2. Eat or be eaten.
3. Don't waste your food.

Obey the morality of the food chain and you, your progeny, and your species are rewarded with an improved chance of survival.

Ignore it, and you, you progeny, and your species will become extinct pretty quickly.

In the face of these realities, the high-minded ideals of "avoiding killing" and "minimizing pain" become unaffordable luxuries.

If we are "destroying the planet" it is only because we have done a masterful job of harnessing the food chain to our own benefit. We are still not as successful as insects and fungus but we're making progress.

***
On the question of feelings: I love animals. I love them to the point that I am an animal rescue volunteer. I presently have 12 cats living in my house - 4 of my own, and 8 as temporary fosters awaiting placement in good homes. Over the years my details records indicate that 231 cats have passed through my doors. 206 were eventually adopted elsewhere, 2 disappeared after a burglary, and 11 died of natural causes.

Cats are obligate carnivores - they must eat lots of meat to survive. I could have saved thousands of other animals by just allowing area animal shelters to kill the 231 cats I rescued. By the convoluted "morality" of animal rights, would this slaughter have been justified?

***
I'll try to explain my point of: "It's ok that I shot him, you honor, because I felt bad about it afterwards". (This was a part of my reponse to your explanation of vegetarianism: "I was saying that vegetarianism is consistent with an ATTEMPT -- again, did you catch that? -- ATTEMPT -- to live a less violent and cruel life. ")

The point is this: attempting to avoid evil, and failing, is not a moral good. If an alternative to vegetarianism is more efficient in avoiding evil (by being less cruel), then it is morally superior to vegetarianism. Meat-eating is such an alternative:

Eating 1-2 pounds of beef a day, I could live for over a year on the death of just one big grazing cow.

Eating 1-2 pounds of grain a day for a year involves: clearing an acre of land (countless deaths of plants, mice, voles, birds, etc), fertilizing that land (countless deaths of fish from the run-off), spraying pesticides (killing the countless insects, and more birds and mice), harvesting the grain (by uprooting and killing the plants), then grinding up the grain (killing it, too).

The score:

Meat-eating: 1 death (the cow) per year per eater.
Vegetarianism: at least 1 million deaths (both plants and animals) per year per eater.

The morally superior victor at minimizing deaths:

Meat-eating, by a factor of about 1 to 1,000,000.

Quiadal, you're ill informed. But I am not going to debate the [well-documented] health benefits of a vegetarian diet -- except to say THERE IS NO NUTRIENT IN MEAT THAT CANNOT BE DERIVED FROM EGGS AND DAIRY.

But health is NOT why I'm a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian because I do not want to go around killing sentient beings that wish to avoid death and pain.

Quinadal, you almost certainly also do not go around inflicting unnecessary pain on animals -- at least, the ones you can see. If you had a dog, you wouldn't go home and kick it, would you?

I'm simply pointing out that the same principle applies to animals that produce our meat.

gotbeer, the fact that something happens in nature doesn't make it RIGHT in human civilization.

There are animals that commit infanticide, murder, and rape -- these behaviors are "natural" and make sense, given their environment.

But obviously those same behaviors are immoral for human beings in this society (I am not going to comment about other societies that I do not know about).

I'm just curious, gotbeer, have you ever taken a moral philosophy class?

If you had, you would know that "natural = moral" is a widespread fallacy.

I am a former vegetarian. I have also taken philosophy classes, although my opinions on meat eating are informed purely by my personal story. I would never tell anyone else what they should or should not eat, as I believe individual human bodies differ too widely for one dietary "prescription" to fit all...which goes for LC as well!

As an ovo-lacto vegetarian for nine years, I gained 25 pounds and my well-being deteriorated to the point where I was depressed and listless most of the time, and beset with all sorts of nagging aches and pains. I was constantly hungry and bad-tempered from wildly fluctuating blood sugar levels. Physically, I was miserable, and I felt totally out of control of my body.

I vegetarian-LC'ed for about one month in 1999, before giving up and putting meat back in my LC diet. I almost couldn't believe the difference in how I felt. My energy levels went up immensely. I no longer felt the constant hunger that I had even on LC before re-introducing meat. My aches and pains vanished literally overnight. I didn't like working with raw meat in my kitchen (still don't), and I really had to get used to eating meat again (I didn't keel over though). But despite my squeamishness, I could not and would not ignore the blatantly obvious benefits of including meat in my eating plan. Although I went off LC dieting after a few months, due to lack of support at home, I never went back to being a veggie. I just felt much, much better as an omnivore.

Believe me, I tried every vegetarian option I could think of to get my protein up without having to eat meat. And nothing worked as well, not by a long shot. The unpleasant truth is that, for whatever reason, eating meat appears to be GOOD FOR MY HEALTH. These days, my energy has returned to what it was in my pre-veg incarnation...small wonder, I observe wryly, since my diet has pretty much returned to what it was in those days, as well.

Now, in my opinion, there was one animal who was made to suffer greatly, perhaps even--in a sense--tortured, during my vegetarian period.

ME.

Am I not a sentient being who deserves to be relieved of pain? Or should I have stuck with the veggie diet? What would have been the morally correct thing for me to do?

Or in other words, how much diminution to the quality of my own life should I be required to accept, in the name of not causing pain to or killing animals?

Or, in perfectly plain English, how much should I be expected to martyr myself on behalf of livestock, in order to be a morally good person?

Emily

tholian,
the fact that you can afford a television has no bearing on whether i can get one. either i can afford it or not. the fact that you are having problems does not give you the right to inflict problems on someone else. each animal has a right to its own life. i am not only living, BUT THRIVING, without meat. i would suffice to say that there is no 1 food that is essential. i have heard tons of rationalizations from people who do not want to feel guilty when they eat meat, but the taking of a life is wrong. like i posted earlier, if all of a sudden some aliens more powerful than us appeared, you would change your tune pretty quickly. do unto others as you would have others do unto you.