Scoffing too much meat and eggs is ‘just as bad as smoking’, claim scientists

[xenon]

I think you could make a case for saying that keeping a cat indoors 24/7, not letting it hunt and express its other natural behaviours, and feeding it a vegan diet is actually less ethical than keeping animals for food in humane conditions and allowing them to do their natural animal thing before they're killed, but in deference to cesare I'll try not to derail the thread any further

I'd agree with that.

On the topic though. The page linked by Fractionman IIRC pretty much pours cold water on the misleading tabloid headline. Not that scoffing too much of anything is the key to a healthy lifestyle either...

What is "too much." You can have guidelines for saturated fats and so on but beyond common sensical ideas about not eating half a pound of sausages every day, it's difficult to give a definitive answer applicable to the population as a whole.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

so you think it has been born so might as well kill it, at least it has had a bit of a life?

how about not mass producing animals for consumption and letting be more like, natural?

Why? What's natural? And what's so great about it?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Do you go with something like the Peter Singer view of things?

I agree with much of what he writes on this topic, but I think that he's too fixated on welfare as the sole metic to assess these questions.

 

[ddraig]

Why? What's natural? And what's so great about it?

what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?
oh and nature=natural if the similarity of the words weren't clear enough for you to make the link

 

[8ball]

I agree with much of what he writes on this topic, but I think that he's too fixated on welfare as the sole metic to assess these questions.

What other factors would you bring into it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?
oh and nature=natural if the similarity of the words weren't clear enough for you to make the link

So no rice or wheat or soya or any of the other domesticated crops.

It will be a challenge to feed 7 billion humans without them.

 

[fredfelt]

I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years. In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.

Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt. He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals. Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents. I've no problem with him hunting. If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.

Before I started him on the diet I gave the animal a choice between his regular food or Ami. He expressed no preference.

He's a pet. Of course I put my ethics on him. In the same way a cat owner feeding their pet factory farmed meat puts their ethics of the food which is fed to their animal.

You may think that feeding your pet vegan food is the act of a loony vegan. It may well be but I'm not. I take no issue with eating meat in moderation that's been shown respect during its life. I'm happy to cook quality free range meat. My issue is with unnecessary cruelty. If there were any signs of the cat food being detrimental to Luke's health either to me or to the vet I'd change it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

What other factors would you bring into it?

Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

tbf it sounds like Luke is far from a strict vegan.

 

[xenon]

I'll probably regret saying this, I've been feeding my perfectly healthy cat vegan food for the last ten years. In common with all cat food the taurine in its diet is synthesised as the recovery process of turning the remains of factory farmed animals into pet food destroys the naturally available taurine.

Luke's a farm cat and there's plenty of vermin around for him to hunt. He also gets the occasional leftover meat from meals. Despite the woodshed and the milling barn being in easy reach he doesn't bring back many presents. I've no problem with him hunting. If there is anything natural about owning a cat that's the animals desire to hunt.

Before I started him on the diet I gave the animal a choice between his regular food or Ami. He expressed no preference.

He's a pet. Of course I put my ethics on him. In the same way a cat owner feeding their pet factory farmed meat puts their ethics of the food which is fed to their animal.

You may think that feeding your pet vegan food is the act of a loony vegan. It may well be but I'm not. I take no issue with eating meat in moderation that's been shown respect during its life. I'm happy to cook quality free range meat. My issue is with unnecessary cruelty. If there were any signs of the cat food being detrimental to Luke's health either to me or to the vet I'd change it.

TBF this doesn't quite fit my idea of what I meant. Your cat eats meat. You're not curtailing it's natural instincts any more than any non vegan cat food buyer.

 

[ddraig]

So no rice or wheat or soya or any of the other domesticated crops.

It will be a challenge to feed 7 billion humans without them.

do you defend this?

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/05/luncheon-meat-with-faces-just.php

oh and this purile piece will amuse some of the meat defenders here
"look, boobs and bacon!" what's not to like (unless you are a vegi/gay/woman etc)
http://geekologie.com/2009/01/highly-questionable-the-bacon.php

 

[8ball]

Non-instrumentalisation. Respect for autonomy. Intrinsic value.

Got a long way to go before we manage that with humans tbf. See where you're going with that, but not sure whether non-instrumentalism kicks in until you're dealing with something pretty-near human, and intrinsic value sounds a bit subjective (at the extreme end possibly just being a cipher for 'cuteness').

 

[ddraig]

tbf it sounds like Luke is far from a strict vegan.

why the smug smiley?

 

[8ball]

why the smug smiley?

That's just the regular smiley, though a 'smug smiley' might be a worthy addition to the site.

 

[NoXion]

what's not great about nature? why the need and desire to change and fuck with it so much?

Because natural processes have no interest in the welfare of humans in general. In fact they have no interests at all. Look at the exemplar of natural processes, evolution; in order for it to work, living things must die, often in really horrible ways. I think humans can do better than nature, although that's not a very fashionable viewpoint among some circles.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

why the smug smiley?

I like it. It reminds me of all the animals I've eaten.

 

[ddraig]

I like it. It reminds me of all the animals I've eaten.

childish prick

am out, again!

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Got a long way to go before we manage that with humans tbf. See where you're going with that, but not sure whether non-instrumentalism kicks in until you're dealing with something pretty-near human, and intrinsic value sounds a bit subjective (at the extreme end possibly just being a cipher for 'cuteness').

I just mean that we shouldn't just treat them as means to our own ends. For me the obsession with 'cuteness' in animals is a reflection of precisely the way we instrumentalise, objectify and anthropomorphise them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

childish prick

am out, again!

What do you expect when you call someone smug for using a smiling smiley?

fyi, I used a smiley to indicate an absence of hostility. Such is the versatility of smileys, however, that it's also possible to use the same ones to indicate presence of hostility. Context.

 

[8ball]

I just mean that we shouldn't just treat them as means to our own ends. For me the obsession with 'cuteness' in animals is a reflection of precisely the way we instrumentalise, objectify and anthropomorphise them.

I understand what you mean, but 'autonomy' is a human value and perhaps of only limited relevance to most non-human animal species unless you are just talking about their ability to express natural behaviour patterns. For example, I think sheepdogs have a much better life than feral dogs, and I would think the welfare angle would more than outweigh any moral negatives from their use as a farming instrument, or their lack of personal career choice.

I agree with what you say re: the 'cuteness' angle, but am now less sure what 'instrinsic value' would mean.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Historically, it is part of the genius of human beings to use other animals instrumentally like this, from transport to beasts of burden, etc. You might say that we ought to move beyond this, but we are only where we are now because of it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I understand what you mean, but 'autonomy' is a human value and perhaps of only limited relevance to most non-human animal species unless you are just talking about their ability to express natural behaviour patterns. For example, I think sheepdogs have a much better life than feral dogs, and I would think the welfare angle would more than outweigh any moral negatives from their use as a farming instrument, or their lack of personal career choice.

I agree with what you say re: the 'cuteness' angle, but am now less sure what 'instrinsic value' would mean.

Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.

Every organism uses the environment around it as a means for its own ends. I see no contradiction between using animals and caring about their welfare at the same time.

 

[8ball]

Depends how we are understanding autonomy, but I broadly agree with you points here. My point simply was that I think there are considerations other than welfare that should be taken account when assessing our treatment of animals, but I have not made up my mind about the weighting to give to these considerations. To draw an example, there are certain human beings that we limit the autonomy of - small children for example. But we don't deny them autonomy altogether, neither are children reduced to means for our own ends.

So it sounds like the 'autonomy' angle is mostly kicking in with a very select group of species if we're talking about more than the ability to express natural behaviour (which is obv a valid concern in the case of battery hens for example).

What do you mean by 'intrinsic value'?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Every organism uses the environment around it as a means for its own ends. I see no contradiction between using animals and caring about their welfare at the same time.

I might not necessarily be contradictory but it may nevertheless still be morally unsatisfactory. However, I am doubtful as to whether the welfare of sentient beings will ever truly be cared for in a context where they are reduced to chattel and commodities. Its no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

So it sounds like the 'autonomy' angle is mostly kicking in with a very select group of species if we're talking about more than the ability to express natural behaviour (which is obv a valid concern in the case of battery hens for example).

What do you mean by 'intrinsic value'?

By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.

 

[8ball]

By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.

Thanks. I can see how it works as something of a rebuttal to the Douglas Adams solution of breeding a cow that wants to be eaten

 

[Spymaster]

By intrinsic value I meaning respecting an animal as an end in itself, not merely treating it as a means. Respecting its autonomy would entail not holding it in captivity against its will etc. Just to repeat, this is not some sort of absolute principle, but I do think it is consideration to be taken into account, independent of welfare considerations.

Bit of a tangent but what's your take on humans getting involved in culling animals for their own welfare or that of other species?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Bit of a tangent but what's your take on humans getting involved in culling animals for their own welfare or that of other species?

It's not something I have very much knowledge about, but given that culls are large scale killings there should be a very strong presumption against them and they should only be used where there is a firm evidence base that their use is (1) absolutely necessary in the sense that no alternative means could have reasonably have been used to achieve the same ends and (2) that the ends to be obtained are proportionate to the level of harm inflicted by the cull. I know that's rather schematic, but I would reject current positions that allow for culls merely on the basis of their economic efficiency without any weight being given to interests of the animals being killed.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's not something I have very much knowledge about, but given that culls are large scale killings there should be a very strong presumption against them and they should only be used where there is a firm evidence base that their use is (1) absolutely necessary in the sense that no alternative means could have reasonably have been used to achieve the same ends and (2) that the ends to be obtained are proportionate to the level of harm inflicted by the cull. I know that's rather schematic, but I would reject current positions that allow for culls merely on the basis of their economic efficiency without any weight being given to interests of the animals being killed.

I agree with this. The effects of the culls of elephants in South Africa are only now starting to be understood - ripping experienced adults from family groups has produced a whole generation of elephants with developmental disorders, still evident even decades later. Elephants are an example of a species whose conscious awareness is certainly sophisticated and extended in ways that are comparable to ours. I would want the welfare and interests of the elephants both as a species and as individuals to be taken into consideration.

The recent idiotic, pointless, and failed badger cull in the UK is another example of a cull decided upon without a strong enough presumption against it.

The relative intelligence and self-awareness of the animals is relevant, imo. Elephants are at one end; locusts, say, at another. But there will always be a grey area in between - consciousness isn't just a present/absent quality; it's a sliding scale.