Animal food-Is it acceptable?

[sin_is_fun]

I cannot come to a decision on this.Humans have multiplied to a huge extent.We dominate the world.All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.We kill animals very cruelly.

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

[sin_is_fun]

Nonsense. You are providing your own spin on history. You are assuming what the thoughts of people are based on how they treated other people. This is a flawed assumption.

Thoughts lead to treatment.Thus by seeing how a person treats other person we can estimate what he thinks about the other person.How is this a flawed assumption?If x kills Y cruelly we can easily assume x hates Y.Mostly it will be correct.

Dan Brown is definitely incorrect, and I have no interest in knowing what he writes in a work of fiction and am quite surprised to see you present it as evidence. Modern scholars who have research to back up their claims say the number is significantly lower.

He has claimed that the details in his book arent fiction.I dont know the actual number.I read it and hence quoted it.

[ST88]

Well, since your argument is against servitude as well as slaughter, shouldn't we also eliminate dairy from our diets? After all, the milk doesn't belong to us any more than the meat does.

since cows cannot survive on their own in jungles we can protect them and get milk in turn.If we raise them in organic farms cruelty will not arise.

So servitude is OK if we justify it with "protection". Are you saying that slavery is just fine through genetically engineering more stupid animals as long as we can commit to taking care of them? The meat-industrial complex created these cows in the first place. Why continue the line if it just means more servitude?

This is wishful thinking on your part. The instinct to hunt is still there, but we don't have an outlet for it, so we must channel it into something else, like sports, video games, and the work ethic. We may have evolved as a civilization, but we have not evolved physically for many thousands of years.

I disagree.When we were hunting we had sharp teeth and nails.Now those teeth and nails have disappeared.We have physically become unsuitable for hunting.We cannot run like animals.cannot live in trees anymore-so hunting has to end.

Ummm.. er... The human body has not changed all that much from the hunter-gather days. The only thing that's changed is the technology of recordable collective knowledge.

For example, there is currently a soybean fungus epidemic that is threatening the world's soybean supply. Soy is one of the most important products for obtaining nutrients in a non-meat diet. The problem will probably be solved by genetically engineered fungus-resistant varieties, but I think this illustrates the problem. If there is a source for nutrients that we can use, why in the world would we want to cut it off?

If you dont get soy protein you can very well live with a protein supplement/multivitamin now.The reason we want to cut off a food source is the cruelty and pain it inflicts on animals.When we only had that option we were justified in eating meat.But now we have so many other options there is no more justification in killing them.

My example wasn't meant to show that soy is the end-all and be-all. It was to show that there will be unforseen interruptions and problems with the food supply.

As far as killing animals is concerned, what's the problem? We are predators. We are also scavengers and gatherers. Very much like bears and canines. It's the circle of life.

YYYessss.... as I said. These foods were not as widely available as meat when humans were evolving.

I did not say eating meat when we were evolving was wrong.Now that we have evolved and since now we have wide options why still kill animals?

They provide nutrition and they add to the quality of life.

Who would be offended by being called a hunter-gatherer? I'd be interested in knowing. Ranching animals is the domestication of hunting, and agriculture is the domestication of gathering. There is no difference if we pay someone to do it for us. We are hunter-gatherers by proxy.

Many buddhists in East who never touch meat will certainly be offended.
They dont hunt or dont pay someone to hunt for them.Once we too stop paying for hunting animals we too will not be called as hunters.

This is not entirely true. Some Buddhists are vegetarian, and some aren't. As I understand it, Buddhism does not specifically proscribe the consumption of meat, instead it makes distinctions between hunting and eating meat, it's true, but it does not forbid purchasing meat and consuming it.

The issue of meat eating raises difficult ethical questions. Isn't the meat in a supermarket or restaurant killed "for" us? Doesn't meat eating entail killing by proxy?
Few of us are in a position to judge meat eaters or anyone else for "killing by proxy." Being part of the world economy entails "killing by proxy" in every act of consumption. The electricity that runs our computers comes from facilities that harm the environment. Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it. One way to do so is to reflect on how the suffering and death of sentient beings contributes to our comfort. This may help us to be less inclined to consume out of mere greed.
Are all Buddhists vegetarians?

It is encouraged as a means to practice compassion, but the act of living in a society makes it impossible to live a truly "clean" life in this respect. And like most other features of life, it encourages a contemplative activity rather than a strict behavioral activity. But the point is, even Buddhists acknowledge that hunting and killing other animals is necessary for survival.

[Corvus]

Nonsense. You are providing your own spin on history. You are assuming what the thoughts of people are based on how they treated other people. This is a flawed assumption.

Thoughts lead to treatment.Thus by seeing how a person treats other person we can estimate what he thinks about the other person.How is this a flawed assumption?If x kills Y cruelly we can easily assume x hates Y.Mostly it will be correct.

It's a generalisation that doesn't always work, especially for certain situations, like determing whether x thinks y is not exactly human because of what x did to y. X's opinion can be entirely disassociated from his actions. It's like determining that because x gives z some chocolates, x thinks z is a good mother. This isn't true.

But now we are going off topic.

Dan Brown is definitely incorrect, and I have no interest in knowing what he writes in a work of fiction and am quite surprised to see you present it as evidence. Modern scholars who have research to back up their claims say the number is significantly lower.

He has claimed that the details in his book arent fiction.

And respectable historians disagree.

[sin_is_fun]

It's a generalisation that doesn't always work, especially for certain situations, like determing whether x thinks y is not exactly human because of what x did to y. X's opinion can be entirely disassociated from his actions. It's like determining that because x gives z some chocolates, x thinks z is a good mother. This isn't true.

But now we are going off topic.

I said "Mostly it will be correct.We can never know what a person thinks.We can only estimate what he thinks by his actions.Most of the research in human sciences are done in this way only.It has its weaknesses,but it is the best tool we have so far.

And respectable historians disagree.

Then I take back that 5 million figure.

[Leon_Magnus]

I think most domesticated animals would like to live with humans and help us in our original purpose but that bond was sacrificed when we started using them far war and hunting them for sport. Surprisingly during the world war era animals in zoos (all of them) had to be switched over to a vegetation diet (for economical reasons) and they switched over quite easily. So a lion can choose a herb over gazzelle but since they were given the right to eat meats eventually their digestive systems would fit to MAINLY meat diet NOT an ONLY meat diet.

[lifeisboring]

I cannot come to a decision on this.Humans have multiplied to a huge extent.We dominate the world.All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.We kill animals very cruelly.

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

Sure, it's ok to eat animals, but not humans since humans are smart. That's such crap. Maybe one day some higher being will eat us since we're so stupid.

[inobaba]

I cannot come to a decision on this.Humans have multiplied to a huge extent.We dominate the world.All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.We kill animals very cruelly.

We can survive without animal food.All nutrients like protein,vitamins can be got at from plant foods and supplements.So why is it that we still justify eating meat?

Hey man... survival of the fittest. If the other animals dominat the planet they'll be eating us, if they're herbivores then they might enslave us.

[Bugmaster]

All other animal species have become our slaves.We use horses,dogs and guinea pigs as our slaves.

Hang on. As far as I understand, the term "slave" only applies to a subjugated human being (or another sapient entity). In other words, slavery is what happens when you strip a person of his rights, and turn him into property. However, in order for this to happen, the slave has to be a person to begin with, with all rights and responsibilities thereof.

If you call animals "slaves", then, implicitly, you're endowing them with the same exact rights and responsibilities that humans possess. That can't be right. Does free speech apply to cows ? Is a cat responsible enough to own property ? Can mice comprehend the concept of taxes ?

I say it's morally acceptable for us to eat meat for the same reason that it's morally acceptable for us to eat carrots. Neither animals nor carrots are sapient beings.

[Bugmaster]

Sure, it's ok to eat animals, but not humans since humans are smart. That's such crap. Maybe one day some higher being will eat us since we're so stupid.

"Sure, it's ok to eat plants, but not animals, since animals are furry. That's such crap. Maybe one day some higher being will eat us since we're not furry enough."

So... why do you think it's ok to eat plants, but not animals ?

[melikio]

So... why do you think it's ok to eat plants, but not animals ?

I can see many sides of the overall argument.

But to be truly honest, I must say that most of us discussing this have choices that relatively few in the world can imagine. We are VERY self-actualized and can be choosy (one way or the other); not many (or any) of us are scraping for survival from one moment to the next.

However, if we were all a little lower in "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs", we wouldn't even be having this discussion as we are. And for many of us, a few days/weeks without electricity might change our views quite a bit. Our technology does tend to "shield" us from the less-plesant aspects of reality indeed. But when people become hungry, they will find ways to EAT, and will eat whatever they can (in most cases).

I talked to a guy who went to a survival school. When they were set out into the widerness on their own, they were given a single rabbit (yes, a fluffy, cuddly rabbit). The school knew they would come to a point where the rabbit would be a "meal". The man relating the story told me that the test wasn't soley about whether or not they would actually eat the animal, but how they all dealt with it mentally as well. The school realized that some of the men would certainly become attached to the animal (as a pet), so the test wen't far beyond just finding a meal...it was about "survival".

Now, let's take it up a notch: Ever wonder how many people would kill another human being to "survive"? Think hard about that, because it's likely more than many would realize. It would break my heart to have to kill an animal, but I know I need to survive. I'm trained to kill people as well, but there are qualifiers, guidelines, morals and laws mitigating such a dire choice on my part. But in my job, survival is as important as anything else (the majority of the time).

So ultimately, it boils down to survival; it's very difficult and often impractical to try and slice it any other way.

-Mel-