Is eating meat morally wrong

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Theoryofrelativity, Mar 14, 2006.

  1. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,024
    Maybe, if they had vitamin supplements artificially mixed in with plants.

    What do you think of the "Meat Plant" idea anyway, James R?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    ok, James and Alpha Wolf, what about the point I made that if we didn't farm cattle, they'd cease to exisit? Is that morally just? Eradicating a species? We'd need the land they live on for crops, they wouldn't be able to roam wild (not in Uk any way, maybe in USA as lots of land) so if we all went vegetarian overnight what future for the cattle?

    Not arguing about what you've already said re cruelty etc, just always pondered this point re what happens to the species!

    Thanks
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,200
    Yeah, hence "omnivore", government fiend.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    nicely edited Hapsburg; your original message:

    Here is the message that has just been posted:
    ***************
    Yes, hence "omnivore", government fuckwad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    not so polite
     
  8. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    perplexity can you answer this question?

    If we didn't farm cattle, they'd cease to exisit? Is that morally just? Eradicating a species? We'd need the land they live on for crops, they wouldn't be able to roam wild (not in Uk any way, maybe in USA as lots of land) so if we all went vegetarian overnight what future for the cattle?

    Not arguing about what you've already said re cruelty etc, just always pondered this point re what happens to the species!

    Thanks
     
  9. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    So its ok for cattle/pigs etc to cease to exist? Is that animal friendly?
     
  10. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    I googled the question and found this? Thoughts please?

    "Animal rights activists may cause animal extinctions!

    Submitted Monday, May 23, 2005
    Submitted by: Patti Kahl


    We all love cute little rabbits and horses, pigs and chickens, right?! And it may seem cruel to kill and eat them and certain animal rights activists would make it illegal to do this. But I wish they would think through to the end consequences of this attirude, for both the animals and for humankind, before pushing this agenda.

    The fact is, cows, chickens, turkeys, sheep, goats, pigs, dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, asses (and others) are only alive today because of their symbiotic relationship with humans. In short, they are domestic livestock and their survival is dependent upon humans keeping and breeding them.

    Domestic animals must be kept & bred by humans or they will go extinct! A hundred years ago, with 95% of Americans living on farms, every area kept and bred it's own distinct breeds of pigs, chickens, horses, cattle, rabbits, etc.... But, because most farming is done today by huge "mega-farmers", who only keeps one or two breeds of each of these farm animals, many breeds of domestic livestock go extinct every year. To make matters worse, fewer people enter into raising & breeding them because of the expense, time involvement & pressure from activists! Because of this, we are loosing our rich genetic inheritance to extinction. Keep in mind that animal extinction is not limited to wild animals!

    In order to maintain a specific breed, domestic animals must produce offspring, from which the best (a small fraction) are kept for breeding. So what becomes of the remaining offspring? The only humane, & financially practical, plan is to butcher them for humans to eat. Would these activists (who purport to "love these animals so much") prefer these animals never be born (extinction) instead of have a purpose for humans?

    I have heard the theory of converting the land, currently being used for grazing by (or production of food for) domestic livestock, to grain & vegetable crops for direct human consumption. This flawed theory fails to take into consideration the facts that

    1. Most domestic livestock are grazed primarily on hilly, rocky, forested & non-irrigated land. Should we chop down forests to plant grain crops? Should we plow hillsides, exposing top soil to erosion? Should we tap into our (already strained) natural water sources to irrigate vegetable crops?

    2. Most grain crops fed to livestock are crops not fit for human consumption. The mold content is to high, it sprouted in the field before harvested or it’s an agricultural by-product that humans don’t eat (like corn stalks, straw, etc…). Should we waste these resources instead of converting them to high quality protein for people?

    Plus, what is the logical conclusion to taking all the food away from animals? EXTINCTION! Thus, the true end goal of these activists is the extinction of our domestic animals! Most of them do not seem to understand that, but rather just want to do the right thing for the animals. However, because most are city people they do not understand the realities of domestic animal care & breeding nor the very important part they play in sustainable agriculture.

    Along with the realization that chemical farming is not sustainable, and with more and more farmers making the transition back to traditional sustainable farming methods, the important role of domestic livestock [to sustainable agriculture] is becoming increasingly apparent. The manures, that the animals produce, plus the effects of proper grazing, do away with the farmers' needs for chemical fertilizers and herbicides. Without our domestic livestock animals, humankinds' transition back to sustainable agriculture would be very difficult (if not impossible)

    I raise, butcher & eat meat rabbits but if activists have their way I'd have to stop and thus I would also stop keeping and breeding them altogether as I could not afford the luxury of keeping them as just pets. Thus moving this breed one step closer to extinction! "So what", they might say, "we don't need meat animals anyway?" But the reality is, if we allow our rich heritage of livestock breed diversity to dwindle to just a few "pet" breeds, when an infection comes along ("when" not "if") and wipes these out, we will have no genetic diversity to fall back on. Thus the entire species would become extinct! No more domestic pigs, rabbits, etc..! We need the genetic diversity and, to keep it, people need to be able to breed, butcher & eat the domestic animals, including rabbits!

    Over the centuries farmers, the world over, have bred and nurtured hundreds of different breeds of each of these species. They occasionally cross bred the different breeds (of say pigs) in order to keep the genetics strong and to ensure the ultimate survival of the species.

    Therefore, this variety of domestic livestock breeds is our genetic inheritance and it is paramount to the ultimate survival of the different species themselves. On top of that, our domestic livestock hold a very important place in sustainable agriculture. They not only provide a way to turn marginal (rocky, hilly, forested) land and waste agricultural products into a food source for humans but they also provide an organic source of fertilizer for crop plants. Thus, in the face of ever increasing fossil fuels (the source of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides) this genetic variety is critical to agricultures’ future (our food supply) and thus to the very survival of mankind.

    However, today we have fewer and fewer small farms, to propagate and care for the diverse breeds, while the larger modern "mega-farms" keep only one or two breeds of each species. With this scenario, all it would take is a disease to infect one particular breed and (with no other breeds to fall back on) the species will become extinct! Just picture a world without pigs, chickens, sheep, cows and (even) horses and understand that this could happen if we do not act now!

    For more information, see http://www.harmonyhomestead.net"

    I am not saying I agree with this, I myself am aspiring to be vegetarian one day, meanwhile the question re animal extinctions is of interest to me. Thank you
     
  11. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    so you are saying it is ok to eradicate species? If we stopped eating meat tomorrow we'd have to slaughter millions? Is that moral?
     
  12. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    Reason for this questioning, here in Uk few yrs ago, we had foot and mouth amongst few cattle, result thousands upon thousands had to be slaughtered and burned, whther they were infected or not.

    I was very dismayed at this terrible loss of life. Milking herds for example slaughtered in thousands.

    Meanwhile i was shocked that animal rights activists only concern was the glee they felt about farmers losing their livlihoods. they would not comment on the deaths of the animals, they really did not care.

    How can you care about animals and not care about this wasteful slaughter?

    How can you promote vegetariansim (which I hope to be soon...but shan't push my will onto others) to the point of species extinction?

    What is the defence for this?
     
  13. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,024
    So, you would rather the cattle have died of disease than being humanely slaughtered?
     
  14. Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    the VAST majority slaughtered NEVER had the disease hence the post, I doubt the UK population will go kill themselves whehn bird flu hits...incase they get it.
     
  15. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    Theoryofrelativity :
    First off, cattle wouldn't cease to exist if we stopped eating meat. They'd still be needed for milk and stuff like that. Although yeah, they are treated inhumanely too... but way back when I said the only reason I'm against eating meat is because most of it is factory farmed and that's inhumane, not because I think the actual act of eating meat is wrong. If cattle/etc were treated humanely, i'd have nothing against eating meat.
    secondly, I don't think there will ever be a time when my arguments apply to every single person on earth. There ARE people who HAVE to eat meat in some of the poor countries in the world. There are others with diseases and stuff that also have to eat meat to survive.
    and third, I really wouldn't mind if domestic cows and others went extinct. first, domestic cattle and stuff are not separate species, they're subspecies. Meaning that the species wouldn't go extinct. second, even if they were different species, they were created by humans, and have zero role on the natural environment. It wouldn't negatively affect the environment in any way if they went extinct.

    Hapsburg, about what you said about animals eating meat:
    That's comparing apples and oranges. What other animals do has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with what WE should or should not do, or what is moral or not. Other animals eat their own kind, does that mean we should too? I mean, c'mon comparing things like that is ridiculous.

    theoryofrelativity:
    It may not be animal friendly, but yes it's ok for them to cease to exist. There are reasons why it's wrong for the vast majority of speceis to go extinct, and not many of those apply to cattle/pigs.
    Oh c'mon, whoever said we should slaughter them all?
    And be a little more realistic- even if all humans did stop eating meat (which is fairly unrealistic but not completely), it would happen in years. There'd be no need to kill them all in one night, we'd just stop breeding them so much.
    Ugh, people keep going off tangents. This really has nothing to do with whether eating meat is humane or not, but whatever. I do care about that wasteful slaughter, same right now with chickens and a while back with hundreds of lovebirds (I have two lovebirds and I love them to death... no pun intended), but I realize that sometimes these things are necessary. Nobody's saying we should worship animals and never touch a hair even if they're about to kill and eat us... I'm just advocating not treating animals cruely, the only purpose being for our pleasure. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. When it comes to diseases and stuff, many times you're saving lives (both human and other animals') by killing a bunch of cattle, chickens, ducks, lovebirds, whatever it may be. It's good for the bigger picture.

    see above.
    I never get this... what exactly is pushing your will onto others? I mean... we're not going around FORCING people to be vegetarian. at least I'm not... I'm just telling you why it's morally wrong to eat meat, and why you SHOULDN'T eat meat. And why am I doing that? did I just bring it up in some random place and start ranting about it? no, people ASKED what our views were. I'm just giving you all what you asked for, and then people go around saying i'm pushing my will onto others and crap. Oh please.
     
  16. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    It is probably best to eat meats sparingly, at best. Increased meat consumption leads to bad health.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,376
    The argument that stopping meat production would make cows and sheep go extinct is ridiculous.

    At present, these animals are bred especially so that they can be used as food. In other words, millions of animals are brought into existence every year only so that they can be killed and eaten.

    If humanity converted to a vegetarian diet tomorrow, then the currently-living animals could be allowed to live their natural lives, but we would restrict their breeding to gradually reduce numbers. We could still preserve the species at whatever level was deemed appropriate - perhaps in special wildlife sanctuaries like the ones we already have for other species which we don't eat.

    Arguing that the meat industry is somehow being kind by creating animals to be killed is a very stupid argument indeed.

    Take a similar argument. We do not, in general, eat dogs. Have dogs gone extinct? Why not?
     
  18. TW Scott Minister of Technology Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,149
    Okay, I have it. It is actually morally wrong not to eat meat. See, meat is a highly effiecent way to make common grass an edible product. Thus refusing to eat meat is refusing to use a resource that is renewable and does the least ammount of environmental damage.
     
  19. Communist Hamster Cricetulus griseus leninus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,024
    James R, you still havn't answered my query. Would eating meat that has been grown in a vat by genetic science be morally wrong? It never had a brain or indeed any other organs
     
  20. Facial Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,223
    I don't get what you are saying, Scott. Can you explain some more?
     
  21. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,200
    I calmed down a bit. You have to admit, though, he is a bit of an ass, telling what I can and cannot fuckin' eat. It's my food, bitch! My food, god-fucking-dammit. My motherfuckin' food.
     
  22. TheAlphaWolf Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    445
    That's sad. Are you really that desperate?
    Communist hamster:
    I don't really get that either... but if it never had a brain or any other organs, it's not morally wrong to eat it, since it never suffered or anything like it.
     
  23. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    Eh, I don't think you were being sarcastic.
    Too bad.

    Free range cattle, while better for the environment than America's grain-fed stock, still do a lot of environmental damage to feed lots of people. One patch of land could be used to grow, as perplexity pointed out, 40 thousand kilos of potatos, or 330 of beed. Not very efficient.
     

Share This Page