DescentBB

....with reality.





well, it's polyester for you vegans, I suppose???

Strange that no one told them you don't have to kill sheep for a sweater.

isn't that the truth?

I believe that killing animals will be one of those things that hundreds of years from now kids in school will be taught about how horrible people in the year 2016 were for doing it. I don't think it will be because we will have become all that much more morally enlightened by then, but by then, I suspect there will be substitutes to meat and other animal products that will be better and cheaper than the ones derived from animals and that will be produced without killing an animal. In other words, I think the right decision will just become easier to make in most cases. (FYI: I eat meat.)

Jeff250 wrote:I believe that killing animals will be one of those things that hundreds of years from now kids in school will be taught about how horrible people in the year 2016 were for doing it. I don't think it will be because we will have become all that much more morally enlightened by then, but by then, I suspect there will be substitutes to meat and other animal products that will be better and cheaper than the ones derived from animals and that will be produced without killing an animal. In other words, I think the right decision will just become easier to make in most cases. (FYI: I eat meat.)

and yet, we are evolved to be meat eaters. Real meat, flesh and stuff. Tinkering with that reality may or may not be fruitful. There is nothing 'right' about humans not eating meat. Everything about our physiology, from dentition to digestion argues against that.

I guess home schooling does have its drawbacks.

callmeslick wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I believe that killing animals will be one of those things that hundreds of years from now kids in school will be taught about how horrible people in the year 2016 were for doing it. I don't think it will be because we will have become all that much more morally enlightened by then, but by then, I suspect there will be substitutes to meat and other animal products that will be better and cheaper than the ones derived from animals and that will be produced without killing an animal. In other words, I think the right decision will just become easier to make in most cases. (FYI: I eat meat.)

and yet, we are evolved to be meat eaters. Real meat, flesh and stuff. Tinkering with that reality may or may not be fruitful. There is nothing 'right' about humans not eating meat. Everything about our physiology, from dentition to digestion argues against that.

A person can eat nothing but vegetables and still be healthy. My sister is a vegan and is in better health than I am. Vegans don't eat refined sugar or bad fats either, usually only olive oil when they do eat fat. But personally, I like a good steak or a nice piece of salmon or a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

tunnelcat wrote:A person can eat nothing but vegetables and still be healthy.

yes, and another can eat nothing but sausages, sweet tea, bourbon and biscuits and gravy and live to 97. The human physiology is a marvelous thing, and slightly variant from individual to individual. Neither extreme could be seen as a wise choice for large numbers of the population. We are designed to be omnivores, our physiology is generally suited to a mix of amino acids typical of an omnivorous diet, our dentition indicates a design for such. Omnivores are pretty forgiving of diet, as a rule, sort of evolving to deal with uncertainties in food supply, and thus versatile. At any rate, my point wasn't that an individual shouldn't, for a variety of reasons, choose a vegan diet(or paleo, or other types). What I meant to suggest was that there was nothing 'better' about creating a diet where meat was no longer an option in favor of some 'created' protein source. The complexities of what make up 'meat' go FAR beyond simple things like protein makeup. Being without meat is not inherently better for most people.

Silly vegan, if you craft two iron ingots into a pair of shears, you don't have to kill the sheep!

tunnelcat wrote:
A person can eat nothing but vegetables and still be healthy. My sister is a vegan and is in better health than I am. Vegans don't eat refined sugar or bad fats either, usually only olive oil when they do eat fat. But personally, I like a good steak or a nice piece of salmon or a plate of spaghetti and meatballs.

Correct, TC. I just read two studies comparing vegetarian intake vs meat eater intake. And if appropriately planned, A mostly vegetarian diet, that is a diet with mostly plant based food with a modicum of meat, is generally healthier -- reducing the risks of chronic ailments.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-h ... vegetarian

callmeslick wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:I believe that killing animals will be one of those things that hundreds of years from now kids in school will be taught about how horrible people in the year 2016 were for doing it. I don't think it will be because we will have become all that much more morally enlightened by then, but by then, I suspect there will be substitutes to meat and other animal products that will be better and cheaper than the ones derived from animals and that will be produced without killing an animal. In other words, I think the right decision will just become easier to make in most cases. (FYI: I eat meat.)

and yet, we are evolved to be meat eaters. Real meat, flesh and stuff. Tinkering with that reality may or may not be fruitful. There is nothing 'right' about humans not eating meat. Everything about our physiology, from dentition to digestion argues against that.

This is sort of my point, but also that in the future, when technology exists to make meat that is cheaper, healthier, and tastier than meat from killing an animal, we will realize that killing animals for meat is barbaric and cruel.

There are things that were commonly accepted hundreds of years ago that we now know are morally wrong. It is an interesting exercise to think about what are we are doing now that people hundreds of years in the future will think is morally wrong. I think that killing animals for meat is a strong contender.

Jeff250 wrote:we will realize that killing animals for meat is barbaric and cruel.

and, yet, thoroughly consistent with what we are designed to do. I guess I have issues with the whole idea of cruelty and barbarism when applied to the food chain of which we are part of by design or evolution(not going to get into the theological issues, if at all possible).

The irony I find with the whole vegan ideal: How do you objectively draw a line between living organisms that are "okay" to kill for our uses, and those that aren't? I realize that there's a fairly each subjective line to be drawn - if it walks/swims/flies around and looks "aminal-ish," then don't touch it. If it grows in a place and looks "plant-ish," then eat it... but from an objective scientific standpoint, there isn't such a nice, clear line. If you're going to say we need to save the animals based on philosophy, then it begs the question: down to what scale, and how do you objectively define the "line" past which it becomes morally wrong? If it's not okay to kill mammals, what about fish? If not fish, what about invertebrates? If not invertebrates, what about bacteria? (And, what do you do about your immune system?) If not bacteria, what about phytoplankton - and from there on up to all matter of plant life. I think that forces a practical response: well, you have to eat something that at one time had life... there aren't many other options - okay, but I'd like to hear a case for what scientifically objective, acceptable criteria defines the line between things that are and aren't morally acceptable to eat.

On the other hand... if you simply want to appeal to emotion - then you can make up whatever rules you like as long as they make you feel happy, but your made up rules also become pretty unenforceable when it comes to other people. If you want to say that you choose to not eat x y and z for personal preference, then have at it... just don't expect me to live by your ideals.

(Note: under the philosophical idea that we human are just another member of the animal kingdom, arguments against cannibalism also loose their objective sting... why should one species of animal kingdom be off limits while the rest are okay? Objectively, what makes humans different? Ultimately this gets us back to discussions about moral authority.)

very few species are cannibalistic.

snoopy wrote:The irony I find with the whole vegan ideal

What is ironic? As you allude to, everyone has a line. Virtually everyone thinks that you can't eat humans. Most people (I think) wouldn't eat a dolphin or chimpanzee. Others have further restrictions. It comes down to what you value. Science can help inform your values, but it ultimately can't choose your values.

Jeff250 wrote:There are things that were commonly accepted hundreds of years ago that we now know are morally wrong. It is an interesting exercise to think about what are we are doing now that people hundreds of years in the future will think is morally wrong. I think that killing animals for meat is a strong contender.

Plants are living things. They die when we eat them.

However, on the meat side, if most modern Americans actually had to kill and clean an animal just to eat one, we'd probably have a lot more vegans around. Most urban people today are clueless when it comes to cleaning and dressing an animal carcass just to cook and eat it, hunters and fishermen aside. They probably think in grows in stores right in the package. We're living in an age where food production is so far removed from it's consumption, people are totally disconnected from the actual process of how we obtain our food.

Jeff250 wrote:

snoopy wrote:The irony I find with the whole vegan ideal

What is ironic? As you allude to, everyone has a line. Virtually everyone thinks that you can't eat humans. Most people (I think) wouldn't eat a dolphin or chimpanzee. Others have further restrictions. It comes down to what you value. Science can help inform your values, but it ultimately can't choose your values.

Two words....Solient Green. People will eat it if you tell them it is made from vegetable matter

Meat is always going to have to be grown, it isn't something that can be simply manufactured. Granted, in the next couple hundred years it may become possible to just grow the meat without needing the rest of the animal, but doing so economically is probably a different story entirely. And then it will have to contend with the same resistance that genetically modified organisms have run into.

If the subject of GMOs comes up and someone says they should be banned or something, just smile and say you only eat organic foods (as in the chemistry definition).

Krom wrote:Meat is always going to have to be grown, it isn't something that can be simply manufactured.

They're trying.

http://www.wired.com/2013/09/fakemeat/

Krom wrote:If the subject of GMOs comes up and someone says they should be banned or something, just smile and say you only eat organic foods (as in the chemistry definition).

Organic and hormone free doesn't mean the food is pathogen free.

Krom wrote:And then it will have to contend with the same resistance that genetically modified organisms have run into.

I hope it's not too optimistic to think that in a couple hundred years there will be progress along those lines as well.

Krom wrote:If the subject of GMOs comes up and someone says they should be banned or something, just smile and say you only eat organic foods (as in the chemistry definition).

My favorite is people who complain about food that contains "chemicals" (as though everything in their food like even water isn't a chemical).

preaching to the choir, above. The opposition to various diets and foodstuffs borders on comical. Are there legitimate risks and concerns? Sure, but I think I've read far too many goofy rants about GMO(HYBRIDIZED) corn or soy crosspollinating and contaminating croplands by folks who don't realize that most hybrids aren't going to be creating viable seed to begin with.....

edit, by 'viable' I mean actual productive, useful seed. Second generation seed from hybrid strains tends to be wildly unpredictable in both quality and yield.