67 replies to this topic

[doug123]

Can you compose this list?

[Shepard]

1. Mexicans


Joking...I'll try to PM you some things that would take precedence IMO later on.

[scottl]

Moslems with nucs--see EMP scenario.

[mikeyg]

Don, what exactly do you mean by "comprehend" here? If an animal suffers horribly for an extended period while in a slaughter house or a factory farm, but doesn't comprehend the situation it's in, is that then ok ?

By the same reasoning, would it be ok to allow babies or certain mentally hadicapped people to suffer in intense and prolonged pain because they don't understand the situation there in or what's really happening to them (besides the fact that they're feeling immense pain)?

I simply don't have the time or desire to school you. Go look at the previous thread on vegetarianism for a more thorough presentation of my perspective.

I've started reading the previous thread and I'm finding the exchanges there very interesting.

You've stated repeatedly in the previous thread that you don't support unnecessarily inhumane treatement of animals and "strongly support the *humane* treatment of animals" But your statement "Cow is placed in position, *womp*, cow is dead. Where's the suffering?" gives me the impression that your unaware of the conditions an astonishing number of animals live their entire lives under and die in (including cows). By refering people to watch the documentary I was trying to call attention to the fact ( a fact that alot of people seem to be unaware) that the conditions animals are raised under and die in have changed dramatically relatively recently with the onset of factory farming etc. I pointed you (and others) to a documentary which presents the everyday, standard conditions that exist now and it would surprise and shock the hell out of almost everyone who saw it.

THERE IS UNNECESSARY SUFFERING GOING ON in these places and people should know about it (especially before they decide they don't have the time to school others on the subject). The suffering doesn't occure because people are going out of their way to be cruel, but because in the mass profit making potential of factory farming(and almost all large profit animal based sectors) it just so happens that it is cheaper, with the possibility of increasing profits for shareholders/owners, to be very cruel. One obvious example that comes to mind is the sever limitation of cage space pigs are put in; it being cheaper to feed an animal who can't move the reduced amount of food it needs and to maintain the reduced space. Aspects of the pigs nature, like it being a social animal, are also considered trivial with alot living in solitary confinement and in unhealthy conditions.
This type of thing goes on and on in an overwhelmingly stupefying,once one is made or chooses to become aware, horrific race to increased profits and worse conditions and treatment for the animals. This is allowed to happen largely because most people, consumers being of utmost importantce here, are not aware it is occuring (which is not totally by accident).

Sooooo, I am getting to a point here, those who say (and I have no idea where the meat you eat comes from and what your already aware of -- no bad intentions here):

We may be pro-meat, but we're certainly not pro-suffering

or

... not for unnecessary animal suffering

and to

eat what you consider appropriate, and let others do the same

and here's one (from the previous thread) for you Don:

strongly support the *humane* treatment of animals

and everyone in general should choose to make themselves aware of the reality of the situation so that they can align their consumer choices and actions with their philosophy/ethics and so that they're consistent.

And maybe you guys already have. The importance in my mind is for people to become aware of the reality of what's happening in big-business animal based operations today and with inhumane treatment of animals in general and how they might be unknowingly connected to it. For me, the documentary I mentioned in my previous post was the most comprehensive source of information I've found in this regard.


There is some "progress" on this front. Organic, Free-range/or free-run products are now fairly easily accessibly. Also, In Canada, at least in my area, there is meat, poultry, and eggs that are certified by the local humane society to meet certain conditions such for the animals producign them such as: no hormones or unnecessary antibiotics, no animal caging for prolonged periods, mandatory space allowances, natural flooring and light, and madatory farm inspections. This will not do much for those who view it as unethical to eat animals at all, but for those who choose to eat meat, I doubt there are very many people who if they could wouldn't choose to have better conditions and treatement for the animals they end up eating.

[lanky]

mikeyg: Why are you so concerned about the welfare of these delicious animals? As organisms on this indiscriminate planet called Earth we all feel pain. Just because we (homo sapiens) evolved and developed intellectually-superior abilities, which has allowed us to minimize the amount of pain and suffering in our lives, does not mean we owe the other animals the same lifestyle. We shouldn't pretend to treat them humanely as we slaughter them and stick them on the bbq. The only thing that accomplishes is making the process of bringing those delicious animals into my belly less efficient--and the killing of an innocent animal.

/rant

Obligatory maddox link: http://www.thebestpa...c.cgi?u=sponsor

[mikeyg]

mikeyg: Why are you so concerned about the welfare of these delicious animals? As organisms on this indiscriminate planet called Earth we all feel pain. Just because we (homo sapiens) evolved and developed intellectually-superior abilities, which has allowed us to minimize the amount of pain and suffering in our lives, does not mean we owe the other animals the same lifestyle. We shouldn't pretend to treat them humanely as we slaughter them and stick them on the bbq. The only thing that accomplishes is making the process of bringing those delicious animals into my belly less efficient--and the killing of an innocent animal.

/rant

Obligatory maddox link: http://www.thebestpa...c.cgi?u=sponsor

Of course I am aware that almost every animal, the exception being humans taking medication for pain relief, experiences and dies in pain. My point is that humans are now putting an incredible number of these animals through a ridiculous level of UNECCESSARY pain. Not only are a lot of them born and/or raised in conditions where they are subject to continuous pain, fear, and stress, but they suffer and die by unnecessarily cruel methods simply because those methods happen to be the cheapest ways to raise and kill them. If you think I am at all exagerating or blowing this out of proportion, I'll again refer you to the documentary I mentioned in my previous post which thoroughly covers this.

Just because we (homo sapiens) evolved and developed intellectually-superior abilities, which has allowed us to minimize the amount of pain and suffering in our lives, does not mean we owe the other animals the same lifestyle

I'm not implying anything here, but if you make some obvious substiutions above, precisely this argument has been used many times before by racists to commit atrocious acts against "lesser", "less evolved" humans- who of course didn't deserve the same lifestyle as white people [ang]

As to "earning" the right to a lifestyle with minimized pain and suffering, what have you done yourself that makes you deserving of this lifestyle?
The reason some humans are unnecessarily cruel to other animals is because they CAN BE, not because they are morally justified in doing so-- and this extends to the treatment of other humans through slavery, child exploitation etc.

I choose not to participate in this level of cruelty towards these animals for the same reason I would choose not to be that cruel to you. What that reason is, well that's another discussion. Incidentally, I recently watched a 3-part documentary on the "emotional brain" and empathy is now starting to be accepted as a real observable (using brain scans) emotion. And after taking a physical anthropology course I can say that there is evidence for altruism dating back to the time of the Neadertals.
I also know that someones level of concern for others, or lack thereof, is highly influenced by their own experiences (particularly with violence/abuse). And as an aside, and this would make for an interesting conversation for another time, in my own experience I have noticed in general that a lot of the people who are concerned for the wellfare of animals and work for animal rights etc., tend also to care for exploited humans, and work to end poverty, child-slavery, and against racism and for environmental causes as they relate to the wellfare of both humans and other animals.

We shouldn't pretend to treat them humanely as we slaughter them and stick them on the bbq. The only thing that accomplishes is making the process of bringing those delicious animals into my belly less efficient--and the killing of an innocent animal

Your right, we shouldn't pretend here at all. We shouln't pretend that the way they are treated while alive and the way they die is trivial. Here's a question for you-- given the choice between being in pain, fear, and misery the majority of your life, and then dying a painful death, or living a life that has a vastly reduced amount of suffering before dying a painful death, which would you choose? Is the differnece between the life of someone who is tortured (by another human) for years on end before they die and someone who dies by another cause(which may also be painful) trivial?

Given the choice (and there is one) between eating an animal who has experienced a life of intense pain and suffering (and being complicit in it by buying the meat), or by buying an animal who has led a reletivley "normal" life, being free to exibit it's natural behaviour and living under fairly natural conditions(on a family farm say), which would you choose?

Now choose.

[lanky]

As to "earning" the right to a lifestyle with minimized pain and suffering, what have you done yourself that makes you deserving of this lifestyle?

Please tell me where I used or even alluded to the word "earning". Anyways, I didn't "earn" a higher intelligence than other animals, I was born with it. It is a characteristic of the human's place on this planet.

The reason some humans are unnecessarily cruel to other animals is because they CAN BE, not because they are morally justified in doing so-- and this extends to the treatment of other humans through slavery, child exploitation etc.

Yeah, and those humans who are unecessarily cruel to other animals just because they can be are not relevant to this discussion.

But, I'm going to assume you're talking about the animal farmers. Are they being "unnecessarily cruel"? I personally don't think so. Cruel? Yes. Whatever low standard of living they impose while farming animals is because of efficiency. More efficient == higher quantity and lower priced food. They're looking out for the best interests of humans, here. Not cow.

Your right, we shouldn't pretend here at all. We shouln't pretend that the way they are treated while alive and the way they die is trivial.

We've both made our points and this is what it comes down to. It is where we fundamentally disagree; where each of us have a different firm spiritual belief. It is also the basis of our other disagreements. I don't know what else to say. I respect your opinion.

[DJS]

Mikeyg

There is some "progress" on this front. Organic, Free-range/or free-run products are now fairly easily accessibly. Also, In Canada, at least in my area, there is meat, poultry, and eggs that are certified by the local humane society to meet certain conditions such for the animals producign them such as: no hormones or unnecessary antibiotics, no animal caging for prolonged periods, mandatory space allowances, natural flooring and light, and madatory farm inspections. This will not do much for those who view it as unethical to eat animals at all, but for those who choose to eat meat, I doubt there are very many people who if they could wouldn't choose to have better conditions and treatement for the animals they end up eating.

Does anyone on this thread care to take a shot at explaining the difference between ethics and morality?

[Athanasios]

To start off, I myself am a vegetarian. I very rarely still used dairy or eggs, but do on occasion. There are a few reasons for my choice, mainly health and moral ones.

Personally, I don't feel as if it is morally right to kill animals for the sole purpose of eating them. This, of course, would be nullified if I was starving or if eating meat was in some other way my only way to survive. Also, various types of animal testing, depending on exactly what they are, seem to be ok to me since they have a societal benefit.

As far as the health reasons, I know that most meat (red meat especially) causes lots of health problems including heart disease, increased rates of cancer, etc. while some meat (fish mainly) has some net health benefits.

Socially, I know that it takes a lot more resources to produce meat than it does to produce vegetables. For instance, 40,000 pounds of potatoes can be grown on an acre while only 250 pounds of beef can be produced on an acre. Another comparison: 16 pounds of grain and soybeans are needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef. So, it would seem a good way to begin putting a dent in world hunger would be to switch to a more vegetarian based diet.

Just a few of my thoughts to start things off...

If you take out beef in the equation of product per acre, and then think more of chickens, goats, fish, etc, then the picture looks a bit different. For example, goats and chickens can be raised in areas that are not efficiently farmable, and sustainable fishing, by definition, wouldnt be a burden. Also, taking beef out of the health equation as well, you have a similar result (not as clear cut decision).

I do think that many people in the U.S., eat too much meat. Many are obsessed with it. When one of my friends wants a "light meal", they will eat just meat. Huh? I would rather eat just fruits and veg than meat without the fiber, but they can not concieve of having a meal without meat or cheese. It was this mentality that drove me to be vegetarian. Once I was sure I wasnt in the "meat obsessed" category, I rethought the position with the new viewpoint in counter-balance. I dont think I, personally, could have made an informed decision without being vegetarian first.

One thing that I am not sure everyone knows, is that killing techniques, and cooking techniques, try to minimize the sufering of the animal. I found this interesting when I first found out. The reason is monetary. The meat spoils less quickly, and is more fresh, when this is done. It spoils so much less, that if done improperly the meat is rotten by the time it reaches the stores or restaurant. In beef, it is called "dark-cutting", and it is tracked back to the slaughterhouse for it to be shut down.

Edit...Oh, one more thing. People are starving in the world today due to distribution of resources, not lack of them.

[Athanasios]

Mikeyg


Does anyone on this thread care to take a shot at explaining the difference between ethics and morality?

The best I can do, or willing to do:

ethics is to science as morality is to religion

Oh boy, I am about to get flamed [mellow]

[Live Forever]

If you take out beef in the equation of product per acre, and then think more of chickens, goats, fish, etc, then the picture looks a bit different. For example, goats and chickens can be raised in areas that are not efficiently farmable, and sustainable fishing, by definition, wouldnt be a burden. Also, taking beef out of the health equation as well, you have a similar result (not as clear cut decision).

Yes, the point of the post was 1) for the most popular meat consumed in the US and Europe, and 2) to show how foods produced that are lower in the food chain produce much more total quantities of food than if you feed those items to animals and then eat the animals instead, I think most people understood that.

I like your point about the distrobution of wealth, it should be a concern as well.

Also, if animals have to be killed, I agree with your statements about using the most humane means.

[mikeyg]

Please tell me where I used or even alluded to the word "earning". Anyways, I didn't "earn" a higher intelligence than other animals, I was born with it. It is a characteristic of the human's place on this planet

I wasn't quoting you, I was trying to paraphrase what I thought you were saying.

You wrote:

Just because we (homo sapiens) evolved and developed intellectually-superior abilities, which has allowed us to minimize the amount of pain and suffering in our lives, does not mean we owe the other animals the same lifestyle

Why do we (our society) take care of mentally hadicapped people? Some don't share all the developed intellectually-superior abilities available to members of our species and so without help aren't able to minimize the amount of pain and suffering in their lives on their own.

If your saying we don't owe other animals the right to avoid a life of *unnecessary* pain because they don't have the same intellectual abilities (defined by humans) as humans, and so can't afford themselves a lifestyle free of *unnecessary* human cruelty, why would we automataically owe all members of our own species, even ones who can't look after themselves and don't have intellectually-superior abilities, this lifestyle?

Some humans don't have the fully developed higher intelligence that meets the criteria you gave (of being able to attain the lifestyle using that intelligence) so that they can escape being not owed minimized pain and suffering. So If a lifestyle of minimized pain and suffering is not automatically owed all humans by that criteria, have they done something to EARN it?

Aside from god-given entitlement, then why?

In my opinion, we don't owe (or not owe) anyone or anything this lifestyle. And no one earns it. We CHOOSE who to afford it to and who not to. And we choose because we have the choice and prefer to (the reasons we prefer to will vary from person to person).

Yeah, and those humans who are unnecessarily cruel to other animals just because they can be are not relevant to this discussion.

They are very relevant to this discussion as they include many more people who are not direclty being cruel to the animal.
They wouldn't be relevant to this dicussion if one humans actions in the marketplace didn't affect anothers. This is not the case. If you buy meat from someone who is *unnecessarily* cruel to the animal the meat was derived from, you are supporting that behaviour indirectly and so are complicit (If you know about the behaviour).

But, I'm going to assume you're talking about the animal farmers. Are they being "unnecessarily cruel"? I personally don't think so. Cruel? Yes. Whatever low standard of living they impose while farming animals is because of efficiency. More efficient == higher quantity and lower priced food. They're looking out for the best interests of humans, here. Not cow.

No, not entirely as stated above. It also depends what you mean by "animal farmers." What exists in factory farming today is probably exactly unlike what you picture inside your head when you think of a famer on an "old-fashioned family farm." Think warehouse not pasture. (WATCH DOCUMENTARY) The people working in factory farms aren't what you'd think of as a farmer. They are paid wages, don't have any connection to the animals except through their pay check, and for the most part don't make the crucial descisions that affect the animals welfare (such as the conditions they are raised and die under). The people who make these decisions wouldn't subject themselves to that working environment; they are allowed to be disconnected from what's going on (as are consumers), and see animals as "units" from which to derive the most money. It is part of the "black box of production" that is pervasive in our current economic system----a setup, for instance, that also alowes "deserving" (not quoting you, don't worry) or fortunate members of our species not to have to look at the reality of the conditions the cheap cloths etc., made by exploited people far away out of our of site and out of mind, are made under.

You are largely correct in saying the stardards are low to raise efficiency. The lowering of standards exist entirely for business reasons- to raise profits. But to use the "better business" argument to justify lowering of standards and cruel treatment is a terrible argument. Slavery is great business. Man could you ever produce a "higher quantity and lower priced" product if you didn't have to pay the labourers a wage or worry about thier working conditions or rights. Do you remember how that was (and is) justified? The slaves weren't the equals of the owners, they were an inherently "lesser" animal who wasn't "owed" the same rights.

QUOTE (mikeyg)

Your right, we shouldn't pretend here at all. We shouln't pretend that the way they are treated while alive and the way they die is trivial.

(lanky)

We've both made our points and this is what it comes down to. It is where we fundamentally disagree; where each of us have a different firm spiritual belief. It is also the basis of our other disagreements. I don't know what else to say. I respect your opinion

I'm taking you at your word, but I struggle nontheless to believe you find the diference trivial. Would you find it trivial in your own life?

Since you didn't answer the last question I put to you in my previous post, I'll ask it again:

Given the choice (and there is one) between eating an animal who has experienced a life of intense pain and suffering (and being complicit in it by buying the meat), or by buying an animal who has led a reletivley "normal" life, being free to exibit it's natural behaviour and living under fairly natural conditions(on a family farm say), which would you choose?

**********
I put a star around *unnecessary* above when writing unnecessarily cruel because I wanted to state it's importance and a bit about what I mean by it:

Killing an animal that doesn't want to die in general could certainly be considered cruel. There are a very many different ways and methods I could use to kill it. I could try and cut off it's head quickly and cleanly. I could electricute it until it's dead. I could cut it's throat and then boil it while still alive to remove it's hair. I could inject it with a drug to kill it quickly and relatively painlessly. I could torture it for a long time using various methods until it died. I could pay someone else to do it and tell them to use whatever means they desired as long as it was as cheap as possible for me. But If my goal is to eat it( because I believe it's necessary for my health), and not to cause it pain, then certainly some methods of killing it would be unnecessarily cruel. There are also methods of raising it and keeping it alive until killing it that would be unnessarily cruel if my goal was to eat it and not to cause it pain.

Edited by mikeyg, 14 May 2006 - 03:23 AM.

[Athanasios]

Socially, I know that it takes a lot more resources to produce meat than it does to produce vegetables....

foods produced that are lower in the food chain produce much more total quantities of food than if you feed those items to animals and then eat the animals instead, I think most people understood that....

Yes, what I am debating is how much this argument matters in terms of vegatarianism or omnivore diet choice. Many vegatarians over promote their side, when they use this argument, and do not think through the reality of it seriously. My point in the previous post was that resources do not always overlap. Some resources that are used to get meat can not reasonably be used to get veggies.

If I was REALLY deeply concerned about how much resources are taken up, shouldnt i research how much labor each veggie takes to grow, and only eat the ones that take the least resources? This is the extreme of the situation. I also think that it is a similar extreme to not eat ANY or almost any meat because of this argument of resources.

The amount of feed it takes to raise chickens, goats, or fish CAN be nil or almost nil. I know that at the farmers market here, I can get chickens that have been fed grain only as a "snack",in small amounts, to help ensure health. Most of the chickens diet came from free range scavenging.

What would be most reasonable is to decide what takes up UNREASONABLE amounts of resources to reach final product. I also conclude that beef is one of these, but that does not make all meat fit this category. To use beef as an example of how much resources it takes to make MEAT is misleading.

I am not saying that you are not deeply concerned or trying to mislead. I do think the people who first put forth that argument were trying to fulfill an agenda, and did not care about the means.

edit: fixed the quote box

[mikeyg]

grail

I'm sure when artificially grown meat becomes readily available, all of us will switch to that.

Actually, if your a millionaire, that day is now (download short movie clip on left side):

Lab Meat - NOVA science now

And for the rest of us maybe that day isn't too far off.

And check out their list of episode video segments on current scientific research which you can download for free:

Past epidsodes - NOVA science now

There are interesting video segments on how close scientists are to creating artificial life from "little more than dust", the most recent stem cell reaserch, and how some birds(which could be alot more intelligent then we thought) can make tools with the intention of using them to get food.
For a really interesting segmant in an episode relevent to longevity and the abolishment of disease and cancer scroll down (on page from last link) and check out the RNAi segment on the right hand side.

Also interesting is Wired for Weight on top left side of page here: Wired for Weight-NOVA science now

[doug123]

Moslems with nucs--see EMP scenario.

Sharp observation. Seems to be impending doom...solutions?

Do you think dubya will take care of this in an...efficient manner?

[mikeyg]

I'm going to sum up the argument I've put forth in my previous posts and state it here simply:

For those of us who choose to eat meat (whether we believe we need to eat it for health reasons or because we like the taste etc.):

Our goal is to eat the animals, not to cause them pain or be cruel.

Even if, as some here contend, that the animals we eat don't have the right to a life of minimized pain and suffering,

In light of our goal,

It is certainly possible (and I contend this is the reality) to cause them (and here it comes ) UNNECESSARY pain.

We have a choice in the degree to how much pain we cause them while achieving our goal.

This choice reflects something about us as individuals (possibly something undesireable upon reflection).

[Grail]

grail




Actually, if your a millionaire, that day is now  (download short movie clip on left side):

Lab Meat - NOVA science now

And for the rest of us maybe that day isn't too far off. 

And check out their list of episode video segments on current scientific research which you can download for free:

Past epidsodes - NOVA science now

There are interesting video segments on how close scientists are to creating artificial life from "little more than dust", the most recent stem cell reaserch, and how some birds(which could be alot more intelligent then we thought) can make tools with the intention of using them to get food.
For a really interesting segmant in an episode relevent to longevity and the abolishment of disease and cancer scroll down (on page from last link) and check out the RNAi segment on the right hand side.

Also interesting is Wired for Weight on top left side of page here: Wired for Weight-NOVA science now

Thanks for the info. [thumb]

Good summary too.

I wonder if more intelligent or advanced life forms saw the way we treat living things on our planet, would they have any reason to treat us any better? Would they be disgusted by it? Would they even comprehend it...? Who knows. Just something to think about. As I said, I am sure one day we will stop killing animals for food.

[Neurosail]

I like the ideal of using artificial meat and plants grown in a lab as a food source. I work in a micro lab at a chicken plant and I would still need to test the product for Listeria monocytogenes, and other pathogens and allergens to keep the food safe. I don't like the idea of following a chicken truck to work. If the meat (chicken breast meat for example) could be cloned from a cell and grown in heart shape petri dishes on a large scale, I think that the food companies would jump on the chance. If the public is willing to buy the product.

[Live Forever]

I like the ideal of using artificial meat and plants grown in a lab as a food source. I work in a micro lab at a chicken plant and I would still need to test the product for Listeria monocytogenes, and other pathogens and allergens to keep the food safe. I don't like the idea of following a chicken truck to work.  If the meat (chicken breast meat for example) could be cloned from a cell and grown in heart shape petri dishes on a large scale, I think that the food companies would jump on the chance. If the public is willing to buy the product.

I want to see some double blind taste tests [sfty]

[theone999]

A simple question which you may have read in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

Would you eat a cow if it wanted to be eaten?

[Live Forever]

ortho, I totally agree that you have to watch what you eat and make sure you are getting the right nutrients. This, of course, is the case whether you are vegetarian or eat meat.

Also, the amount of bad stuff that can come from a vegetarian diet is far eclipsed by the amount of bad stuff that can come from eating meat. (save probably fish) I have no personal problem if someone else chooses to eat meat (just as I have no problem if people wish to smoke, eat fried food, or do anything else...freedoms are great!), and I am definitely not a "militant vegetarian" or whatnot. (I rarely tell anyone I don't eat meat unless a situation forces me to do so)

Also, the health reasons for becoming a vegetarian are possibly less important (to me personally) than the moral reasons. (and possible the societal ones as well, but not by much)

[Centurion]

When kept as a sensible part of your diet, meat isn't the great evil it is put forward to be by some overly enthusiastic vegetarians. I lived with a vegetarian for two years and was constantly subjected to moral rants about the evils of my eating meat. Some may find eating meat immoral, I do not. However I don't fill my face with burgers at every opportunity. Like everything in life your diet is about balance and good solid well informed sense, not ethics or societal concerns.

[Live Forever]

That is a very sensible statement centurion. Balance is always the key. Despite the "perception", there are plenty of unhealthy vegetarians, and plenty of healthy meat eaters. Being a vegetarian does not automatically mean you are health concious and being someone that eats meat does not automatically mean you are not healthy. No matter where you lie in the spectrum, you should always make sure you are getting all of the nutrients that you need, and try not to eat too much junk. (whether it be burgers or twinkies)

[Mind]

Another story about the production of lab meat

I would probably try it.

[Live Forever]

I might give it a try as well, Mind. I would think they would have the ability to make it better for you when grown in the lab (full of nutrients) as well as not having to kill something to be able to eat it. Also, depending on how efficient it is, it might alleviate some of the societal reasons for being a vegetarian. (being able to produce many times more vegetables on an acre of land than meat with the same acre) I am always for technological solutions whenever feasible.

[bender]

Some animals are food, some animals are friends, and some are none. Some people are meat eaters, some are vegeterians and some fluctuate in between. As I see it, for now eating meat is healthy and tasty, since we all don't live in heavens. In the future, there will probably be artificial meat or something, so no animals will be killed and mother nature will make her natural selection.

[william]

What about these deadly "zoonoses" I've being hearing about? See http://www.cdc.gov/n...4no3/murphy.htm. With all these diseases coming from meat production and meat consumption what's next? We just might not survive "yukabunga" disease that's right now developing or mutating in some critter in a far off land or our back yard somewhere. Meat eating just doesn't seem consistent with living forever. It just doesn’t seem wise or healthy at all.

[bender]

Eating natural meat is perfectly healthy.

[william]

Eating natural meat is perfectly healthy.

When you say natural do you mean "wild" like venison you've hunted and killed yourself? Some of the wild stuff can carry diseases too. Like deer with chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin, chimpanzees with HIV they believe started the AIDS epidemic, bats they believe started the SARS epidemic, etc. What's to say diseases developed in farm produced meat can't escape into the wild like they say the avian flu has done.

They also say "[n]umerous studies have shown that meat-based diets contribute to heart disease, cancer, and several other diseases." See, for example, http://www.christian...vegbenefits.htm. I'm for setting an example by no meat eating period.