Why should intelligence be linked to not eating meat?

The fact that we still eat meat even though we have a higher intelligence shows you that it makes sense to do so, no?

And did you say healthy, cost effective alternatives with less work required and less environmental impact? Is that REALLY true? How many people have the health, the money and the time and work required to grow their own fruit and veg? Their own "variety" of veg to make up for the protein. I mean c'mon! Let's cut the crap here. If everybody had to grow or kill their own food how many people would be vegans exclusively? If you had to choose between digging the land, planting the seeds, watering it for months, using chemicals to make sure it's a successful batch, then harvesting it months later for you to have a plate of beans for dinner... How many would give up and just kill a chicken instead?

The vegans are as hypocritical about food as meat eaters, cause at the end of the day, its always somebody else that has to do the work and provide you with your "morally acceptable" alternatives. You have a problem with the "usage" of animals, but you don't have a problem with the "usage" of other humans to prepare your food. Talk about acceptable morals!

OK so let me get this clear in my head.

You would rather blind people not benefit from the help of a dog that is otherwise well fed, and loved, and trained to do something very useful...

Yeah... Fuck those blind people. Set the dogs free!

You would rather have no pre-testing of drugs on animals whatsoever, and instead inject them to human patients and pray that nothing goes wrong... All those doctors that have used mice to gather data on new drugs are basically idiots.

Yeah... Fuck those cancer patients. Set the mice free!

Also, all those poor third world country farmers should stop using horses and cows to help in agriculture. Their families should stop using the wool off the sheep to clothe themselves. They should also stop milking the cows for milk for their children. We can send them powdered milk and synthetic clothes right?

Yeah... fuck those farmers... and their children. Set the horses and the cows free!

At this point I think it has become evident that we have some HUGE differences in opinion, to the point that I don't think it serves anything to continue the debate. But I am more than thankful to have engaged in it because I truly needed some insight into the mindset behind this debate's slogan. Please don't take this post as an attack towards you. As a human being I love you as much as I love all my neighbors and having different opinions has never made me perceive people with an un-friendly eye. Some of your opinions on other debates have expressed my ideas as well.

LOL

Well what else do you think racism stands for, if not for the belief that one race carries with it an inherent superiority?

You really think that by saying that you are a "specie-ist" you are saying something other than that your species is superior to another species?

And also, having read your response about humans having abolished slavery and persecution of homosexuality etc.... can I just point out that all those issues pertain to how we conduct our affairs within our species, none of them have anything to do with other species, they were a "family" problem. It's not the same thing...

No, a retarded person will never be the same thing as an animal. The genetic standpoint will always be present, and a human is a human regardless.

You called it "speciesism", which is a pretty neat and diplomatic way of admitting that not all life is equal.

You doubt the abolition of the use of animals? Really? What about blind people's guide dogs? Should we abolish them? What about police dogs? Should we abolish them? What about the mice used for cancer research drugs?

C'mon, face it, animal life is NOT equal to human life. You would rather test a very dangerous drug on an animal first before you give it to a human and risk killing them instead.

And where do you stop with the "use" of animals? Is it acceptable to use cows for milk? Or sheep for wool?

Oh, and, veganism may have been with us for a "whopping" six decades (basically since supermarkets came around), but meat-eating has been with us for thousands of years. So you can't tell me that we know as much about being vegan as we do about meat eating.

Red meat is detrimental to your health (in large quantities), but white meat is actually very healthy. Anything in large quantities is detrimental to your health, even beans.

The reason the doctors are skeptical about a diet that completely excludes one group of foods is because we still don't know the full consequences of a vegan diet. What we DO know however, is that if you eat a bit of everything in moderation then that is a good thing. So, personally, I see a risk with vegan diets. Why would I want to impose that risk on everybody else?

I'm also interested in something else. How do you see the ideal world in your mind? Humans are not allowed to eat animals, but its OK for other animals to eat animals? Or should we go around taming every lion and every tiger in the wilderness to prevent and stop ALL killing for food?

Because that is not the normal state of affairs. From an evolutionary point, it makes sense to not eat from your own species because they carry the same genes as you. Also, a human being is more likely to contribute to your life than another animal (sheep, cows, chickens, etc). If it was between you and a chicken, I would always eat the chicken, because with you lies the hope that you might discover the cure to cancer for example. With you lies the hope that you will contribute to society (and by extension, contribute to MY life) by doing a job and by being productive. Now do you see why human life is not equal to any other animal life?

I have read you saying that all life is equal and that all sentient beings are equal. Now, let me ask you something. If you were to walk by a river and you saw a little boy and his dog drowning in the stream. Their distance from you is equal, but if you go for one, the other is likely to move down the stream and possibly drown and die. Which one do you go for? Is there any doubt in your mind that you would try to save the boy first??????

Please read my last post again.

No one "chooses" to eat from their own kind. Cannibalism, whether between humans or animals, is a rare occurrence and only happens under extreme circumstances. For humans, those circumstances are even more extreme, i.e. your life has to be at stake and the other person is probably already dead.

The point is that just because we have evolved the capability to do something doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

LOL

Do you realize you've just shot yourself on the foot with that one?

Those actions are only "evil" once they are processed through the human judging brain. Nothing else on this earth is known to make a similar judgment. For animals, death and suffering are as much part of life as anything else. But they never judge it or dwell on it. They kill to eat and that's it. "Evil" as we understand it, is a description that resides only in the virtual world of our brain.

As for building a society that allows us to transcend our primitive state of being, that is an illusion. We are part of nature and we will always be bound to the same observed behavioral patterns we see in nature. Whether we do it by putting our fists up or by suing each other in court rooms, we are still doing the same thing. "Brutal ancestry" has simply taken another shape.

No, taste is not the only reason people eat meat. There are a few sources of protein, such as Meat, Poultry, Fish, Eggs and Vegetable sources such as Nuts, Soya and Beans.

But it's only the protein from animal sources that contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.

If you were to stick to vegetable sources, you would need to supplement your diet with a larger variety of foods and possibly some additional vitamin supplements.

So you see, it doesn't come without consequences.

Think about this for a second. We all know there are bad consequences if your diet excludes fruit and veg. What makes you think that there are no consequences at all if you completely exclude meat from your diet?

First of all, we HAVE eaten humans. Watch a movie called "Alive". It's a true story.

Secondly, eating from your own species is something that already happens in nature but for two significant reasons. One, is that when an animal is extremely hungry, it will eat the dead flesh of a same-species animal. The story above, proves that humans do the same thing.

Two, is when the eating of your own species is linked to social structure. For example, some lions, when they become leaders of the pack, they will eat the young baby-lions of other couples in the pack in order to prevent any future rivals and also in order to make it easier for the babies that they will produce to have less opposition as they grow. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing, especially when they become kings.

There is also another reason why some animals will eat their own. It happens when the baby-animal is born with a disability. Some mothers will kill their own disabled or weak babies if they think that the chances of their survival in the environment are slim. Humans have been known to do exactly the same thing (Spartans).

So there you have it. These are the rare reasons why animals and people resort to eating each other.

But it is in no way the normal state of affairs. The normal state of affairs is that lions eat gazelles, giraffes, elephants, and every other animal apart from their own kind. Which is no different to the normal state of affairs for humans, i.e. we eat other animals instead of other humans.

The number one source for protein is Meat, Poultry, Fish and Eggs. You can also get protein from Vegetable protein foods such as Nuts and Seeds, Soya products, Beans, and some Dairy products.

From the above, protein from animal sources contains the full range of essential amino acids needed from an adult's diet. The best one being Poultry and Fish because they contain less fat than red meat.

Plant sources, however, don’t contain the full range of essential amino acids and so are not as high in nutritional value as animal protein. But it's still possible to consume the required amino acids, by eating a well-balanced diet that contains a variety of different foods. Which is why a lot of vegetarians complement their diets with powdered protein and vitamin pills. So, taste aside, you can be more certain that you have it all in your diet if you eat white meat than if you eat only the vegan alternatives.

That's from the BBC healthy living website, I didn't make it up.

There is consequences if you don't have any fruit and vegetables in your diet. What makes you think that there is no consequences if you exclude meat? We are not meant to eat from just one group of foods. Why do you think doctors are so skeptical about not eating meat at all?

You can make a case about the standards of animal welfare, and the living conditions in farms etc. I'm totally with you on that one. But that is entirely different to telling people to stop eating meat.

Preaching is to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action. Which is why I think this is nothing short of preaching.

Lions and sharks are incapable of moral reasoning.

Moral reasoning is nothing more than a by product of a comfortable society.

You take that comfort out and moral reasoning vanishes in thin air.

Have you seen the movie "Alive"? Those people possessed as much "moral reasoning" as you and me. But when it comes to your life being at stake you will eat the dead corpse of your own brother to survive. That's how set in stone your moral reasoning is... (I was gonna say something about "shoving it" but I'm more polite than that)

Humans can decide to renounce their brutal ancestry.

I would be careful before going around telling people to renounce their brutal ancestry altogether. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would keep you alive if you were to find yourself stranded somewhere with nothing by wilderness. Your "brutal ancestry" is what would make you put your fists up and defend yourself against the playground bully. And it's not all physical neither. Your "brutal ancestry" is what makes you apply for a job and not really care for all the other applicants, regardless of how much more than you they need the job.

If you think that this "brutal ancestry" is only part of our cave-living past, you are deluded!

I am in complete agreement with you that we need to improve the conditions in which these animals live and also find better ways to make the killing perhaps completely painless.

But that is not what you have been advocating at all. That is not what the people that carry this slogan in the streets are advocating neither. They want us to stop eating meat period (someone else here used that word actually). That's what I have a problem with.

On the face of it, killing is something that sounds fundamentally wrong. But by your admission, the killing of animals for food is not so fundamentally wrong. What is more morally acceptable? That the Eskimos respect the fish and allow themselves to die? Obviously not. Why? Because that would be MORE wrong than killing the fish to survive.

Now, just because I'm not an Eskimo doesn't mean that somehow all the reasons that justified me eating meat are gone. What comes to play is choice. I am luckier than the Eskimo because if I don't feel comfortable eating meat then I have other alternatives to choose from. I can choose to eat meat one day and beans on the next day. But arrogant people feel really compelled to want to impose only one choice to everybody. And that is nothing short of fascism.

The logic is still the same regardless of whether you agree with the content. Which is why telling people to not eat meat because they can live on other foods is as strong an argument as telling people to drop bombs because they can.

The fact is, we wouldn't be having this argument at all if we were Eskimos. Right?

Your opinions are only valid and honorable as long as there is a supermarket nearby for you to buy your vegan alternatives. Right?

If the food industry hadn't progressed to the point where you can get your protein from a powder and other vitamins from pills, then you wouldn't be so tough and preachy on people that eat meat.

So if you can do something, do it? That is the absolute worst argument for anything.

And yet, that is exactly what you are advocating...

What you are saying is: if you can live healthily on other foods other than meat, then you should do it.

I have read all your arguments with a lot of attention cause for a long time I have wanted to understand the mentality behind this slogan.

I would like to point out that first you stated that Killing an animal painlessly would be morally acceptable, but you then took that back and said that killing is wrong regardless. I would also like to point out that modern day slaughter houses have made the process extremely quick and as painless as it can get (after all we are killing them), in any case it's a lot more humane and a lot less torturous than it would have been in the wild.

My last point is this: Morality is a very fickle thing, it changes all the time. Your opinion and arguments about this is only valid for as long as you live near a super market where you can buy your variety of vegan alternatives. If you were to go visit an African village where you either eat the killed pray or you starve to death, you would be singing a different tune. Am I wrong? Or if you were to go live with the Eskimos, and fish is your primary food source. Somehow, killing that fish doesn't sound so wrong, does it?

So the killing of animals for food is not a fundamentally wrong thing to do, after all.

This "moral obligation" attitude only comes to play once we advance to a level where you can choose to not eat meat without any consequences. But just because you can choose, doesn't mean that you have the moral obligation to make the choice. And to take the moral high ground and preach onto others is extremely self righteous and arrogant, especially as you would be very willing to eat meat if you had to eat it in order to live.

Just be thankful that you have the choice.

I'm not pseudo arguing. Science is still divided on the matter of consciousness and there is no agreement on where in the brain it is found. Of course we can presume it's in the brain but no one knows which part of the brain. And given that the brain doesn't have to be entirely dead for it to be declared legally dead, you already have a serious flaw. That's all I'm saying.

There is some interesting information there, but when it comes to some of my serious concerns their answer is in the tune of "that's just not true".

I am aware that different doctors perform different tasks, especially in Western countries, but I also know for a fact that in some hospitals, especially in Balkan countries, the surgeon that is in charge of saving your life is the same person that would extract your organs if you were a donor and died.

How about they tells us what measures they go to to make sure the person has died, instead of saying "people don't start to wiggle a toe after they're declared dead". I just found that part a bit patronizing. No one said anything about moving toes. In my previous post I was more concerned about consciousness as it exists in extremely minimal levels.

I'm not "opposed" to your opinion per say but a few statements made here are questionable.

When I eventually die, that's it. I'll be dead.

When bodies are harvested for organs, they are not ENTIRELY dead. As I have mentioned on the other side, death is not clear cut. The harvesting happens so soon after you have been declared legally dead and the reason is you must not be DEAD dead. So I agree with you on a philosophical perspective, but that perspective does not take into account the blurry line of when you are fully dead.

The delusion of a requirement for any part of your body after death is extremely selfish and costs many lives that could otherwise be saved. 100,000 people currently require donated organs in order to live in the US alone.

Although it may be a delusion, you cannot hold people responsible for the death of those that need an organ. Just because modern science has enabled organ transplantation, you cannot call for a moral obligation to participate. It's great that the choice is there, but you can't make that choice a line for judgment (i.e. if you don't take it you are selfish). The high number of those in need of organs, in my opinion, is more a case for stem cell research.

Organ donation upon death should be mandatory.

Now this is were you lost me the most, because that statement is ludicrous. Mandatory? Surely you don't believe that.

My body is mine and no one should have authority over what happens to it when I die but me, and those closest to me. Science is there to enable and create possibilities and give you choices. It's not there to pass judgment and enforce morality.

In the same way that I find your will to give your organs upon death honorable, you also have to respect the people that choose not to take that option.

.

This is very similar to vegetarians protesting with banners of "meat is murder". Just because the modern food industry has made it possible for you to get all the nutrients you need without eating meat, does not mean that we should enforce that lifestyle upon everybody and ban the consumption of meat.

My problem is this:

Do I want my organs to be donated if I die? Maybe.

Do I want to be an organ donor? Definitely not.

I will explain why.

First, I find it incredibly hard to imagine myself dead and someone taking my organs. As a conscious being it's impossible to visualize being un-conscious. And I'd like to believe that there is ALWAYS a chance that I might SOMEHOW come back :o)

On top of that, I find the world of organ donation to have a few too many problems.

The first is the blurry line of death. No, death is NOT as clear cut as you think. The reason I say blurry is because for doctors there is two kinds of death: brain death, and cardiac death.

If you are brain dead, it means there is no blood flow to the brain but the rest of your organs work normally or can be kept alive under life support. According to doctors a dead brain is irreversible and there is no consciousness. However, although "brain death" is a legal term that describes brain inactivity, it does not equal brain inactivity.

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

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/301/11/1172

The problem is, if you do a search on consciousness, you'll see that no one really knows where consciousness exists. Some say it's the brain or perhaps an activity somewhere in the brain. So they conclude that if the brain is dead then the "person" is "gone". Legally however, the brain doesn't have to be dead in its entirety for it to be declared dead. On top of that, some brain activity is so dormant that even current equipment cannot detect it. So you can never be sure that the person's consciousness is gone. On top of that, you have so many miracle stories of people that have come back even after decades on life support.

http://www.geocities.com/athanasiafoundation/nobrainactive.html

A cardiac death is when your heart beat and breathing has stopped (usually for 2-5 minutes). But a cardiac death does not mean that your brain activity has stopped as well. So for a few minutes after cardiac death has occurred, the brain is still active (albeit dieing).

A lot of questions have also been raised about the "eagerness" of certain doctors to pull the plug on someone because they are registered as donors. I don't even need to cite anything on this because I have first hand experience with a relative. The pressure put on relatives is sometimes unbelievable.

I also find the attitude of guilt tripping those that do not want to donate their organs to be unfair. You don't have to be a dick to everybody else that doesn't think like you. To say that I am condemning someone to die by not giving them my organs is outrageous. Death is not clear cut and no one guarantees how "dead" I am when they harvest my organs. It seems to me that for organs to be good for transplant, the body has to be "alive" even on a minimal level. This idea that consciousness only resides in the brain is too clinical for me.

Put it this way. If there was a way that science could make organs good for transplant after I've been dead (both brain and cardiac) for 3 days then I would be more willing to sign up. At the moment, I'm still not comfortable with the idea of "dieing" now, and 30 minutes later being cut up in the operating room.

Well we also give the most respect and admiration to people that excel in sports, sciences etc etc. This is not something exclusively granted to people that make money.

And it's not a modern phenomenon neither. It's happened since the beginning of civilization and it's part of our "evolution". It usually starts at childhood when your parents subtly infuse your brain with role models. It's not done to idolize these people, it's done in an effort to motivate you.

I'm standing on this side because I find the article a bit too gloomy. Most people posses healthy bugs of wanting to keep fit, do well at work, study more, make more money etc, precisely because of this attitude towards success.

Having said that, I am with you on the belief that soon there is going to be an "awakening" of some sort and people will examine what really matters.

Although many of those statements have been true for myself, like wanting to make money for the sake of having money, I find the whole thing a gross generalization.

None of my friends shares the same passion for money as I do. Most of them are happy with a wage and they are happy to use every penny on holidays, clothes, things they need and things that just make them happy. I on the other hand want to save it.

To say that we live in a society full of people that are power and money hungry would be a generalization of the bad kind.

The beauty of capitalism as that it allows people to do what they want and what makes them happy. It also allows the harmonic co-existence of driven money-hungry individuals and laid back people.

You mentioned Bill Gates, and I've heard many people slate the guy for making so much money. To me that is a travesty. I'm not saying that Bill Gates set out to do good or to help the public. I'm pretty sure that all he was interested in to begin with was the money. But in his quest to make that money, he has given the rest of us some of the most widely used technology, some very helpful applications that have enabled other businesses, and he has also employed thousands of people who are not interested in money but are happy with a wage that they can spend on enjoying life. So there you have it, Bill Gates got his money, and thousands of people got their pay checks.

Just because the media sometimes glorifies people that have made money, doesn't mean that everybody aspires to do the same.

A healthy level of the "wanting to make money" bug is not only helpful for the individual but for society as well. There would be less people on state benefits if they had that bug in them.

They both have their own flaws.

I'm judging this when it comes to issues about equality, civil rights and foreign policy, and I have to tell you, the Democrats have come forward with far better ideas so far.

Take abortion. The Republicans want it illegal, thus forcing all pregnant women to have babies they don't want. The Democrats say "hey, when you are pregnant yourself, then you make a decision for yourself".

Take gay marriage. The Republicans recognize that it is a right but have it for nothing to take that right away. The Democrats say "hey, why are you so bothered anyway, no one is forcing you to marry a guy! they want to get married not sell drugs and guns FFS!"

Take terrorism. The Republicans go and bomb anything and everything that moves regardless of evidence. The Democrats say "hey, why not get friends with their neighbors and their enemies, and altogether tie the noose on them, that way we don't spend billions and no one hates us".

Overall the Republicans have many times stepped too far because they think they have the moral authority.