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

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that modern industrialised farming is perfect, but there are ways of producing meat which are better for animal welfare, biodiversity and human health (which where we came in).

The good news is that the same changes can have benefits in all these areas.

Yep. There is common ground here - which is precisely that almost every poster agrees that current farming practices can be both morally wrong and have various other bad consequences, and would like to see changes even if that means that most people end up having to eat less meat than they might otherwise choose to eat. That's a pretty big thing for everyone to agree on, imo.

 

[Dr Jon]

Here we go - apex of civilisation:
Black pudding ice cream


Tripe Tiramisu and Cow-Heel Cornetto coming soon?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I thoroughly approve of black pudding, tripe and cow heels in all their forms.

If you kill an animal, you should pay respect to the animal by eating all of it.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

It's certainly true that animals are currently treated primarily as an economic resource (and this means that some areas which would once have been grazed are no longer because it's not considered economically viable).

But they're also potentially a human resouce for us to use, and providing we do it humanely, I don't see that that's inherently problematic.

If we imagine a post-capitalist society where the profit motive is no longer the main driving force, would you then be happy with animals being used as a resource for human use, or does your objection go further than merely the economic instrumentalism?

And if you object more generally to the use of animals for food, what alternative use can you suggest for those areas which are not suitable for productive human uses other than grazing, and what way of life do you have to offer those currently living in those areas and engaged in that activity?

My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property. I see no reason why I should have to come up with proposals for alternative jobs for sheep farmers any more than I have to suggest alternative career paths for bear baiters or new hobbies for fox hunters.

As an aside, I very much used to be of the school of thought that the slaughter of animals for food was ethically acceptable provided that it is done 'humanely'. However having spent a while scrutinising that assumption I have come to the conclusion that it is indefensible, both in principle and as an achievable empirically reality. On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences. Nobody on this thread has seriously attempted to address this question, though LBJ hinted that the lower cognitive capacities of some species provides the justification - a claim that I have a great many problems with. Empirically, I think the idea of a 'humane' meat industry is on a par with calls for 'ethical' capitalism - it is a fantasy. Once you establish a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends, the thought that Bs interests will ever be adequately protected is a dangerous illusion. As I said earlier, it's no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences.

Do I think it's ok to end the life of an animal so that I can eat it?

Yes, with certain provisos.

Second point about cognitive abilities is a tricky one. I will kill a fly simply because its presence is annoying me. I care not one jot about its life for itself. Somewhere up the line, I start caring about the creature's welfare. Where exactly? It's a fuzzy line.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Do I think it's ok to end the life of an animal so that I can eat it?

Yes, with certain provisos.

I'm aware that's your view, I don't know what your reasons for it are.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm aware that's your view, I don't know what your reasons for it are.

There are no reasons beyond the opinion. Yes, I think it's ok to kill animals for food. There are lots of things I think it is not ok to do, such as killing animals for fun or making animals suffer while alive to make the food taste different (such as with foie gras), but 'for food' is a reason that I think is valid.

If you're after a level of reasoning beneath this, there simply is none.

I also don't accept that 'palate preferences' are necessarily trivial.

 

[andysays]

My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property. I see no reason why I should have to come up with proposals for alternative jobs for sheep farmers any more than I have to suggest alternative career paths for bear baiters or new hobbies for fox hunters.

As an aside, I very much used to be of the school of thought that the slaughter of animals for food was ethically acceptable provided that it is done 'humanely'. However having spent a while scrutinising that assumption I have come to the conclusion that it is indefensible, both in principle and as an achievable empirically reality. On the point of principle, I've yet to find a single argument that stands up to scrutiny as to why it is okay to kill animals for trivial palate preferences. Nobody on this thread has seriously attempted to address this question, though LBJ hinted that the lower cognitive capacities of some species provides the justification - a claim that I have a great many problems with. Empirically, I think the idea of a 'humane' meat industry is on a par with calls for 'ethical' capitalism - it is a fantasy. Once you establish a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends, the thought that Bs interests will ever be adequately protected is a dangerous illusion. As I said earlier, it's no coincidence that the global meat industry is the way it is.

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I'm afraid that I find your reduction of meat eating to killing animals for trivial palate preferences as so ridiculous that it suggests no sensible exchange of views or discussion is likely to be possible.

I would also question whether it is, as you seem to be suggesting, humanity which has established a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends; it's actually evolution which has done this.

Many other species have evolved on the basis of eating other animals - it's a totally natural part of the process of living and dying. Is there some reason why you think humans should not interact with the natural world in the way they have evolved to do? And if so, are there other species which should, similarly, go against their natural evolved instincts?

It's not for meat eaters to justify their position, TBH, it's for those who claim it's unethical to justify that position, and neither you or anyone else has come close to doing that here. You're welcome to choose whatever personal ethical position you like, but unless and until you persuade me that I should adopt it, I will happily continue what I consider a perfectly natural and ethical way of behaving.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

There are no reasons beyond the opinion. Yes, I think it's ok to kill animals for food. There are lots of things I think it is not ok to do, such as killing animals for fun or making animals suffer while alive to make the food taste different (such as with foie gras), but 'for food' is a reason that I think is valid.

If you're after a level of reasoning beneath this, there simply is none.

I also don't accept that 'palate preferences' are necessarily trivial.

Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Thank you for clarifying your position.

I'm afraid that I find your reduction of meat eating to killing animals for trivial palate preferences as so ridiculous that it suggests no sensible exchange of views or discussion is likely to be possible.

I would also question whether it is, as you seem to be suggesting, humanity which has established a system in which one group of beings ('A') have power over other beings ('B') in which A treat B as a resource or a means to achieve their own ends; it's actually evolution which has done this.

Many other species have evolved on the basis of eating other animals - it's a totally natural part of the process of living and dying. Is there some reason why you think humans should not interact with the natural world in the way they have evolved to do? And if so, are there other species which should, similarly, go against their natural evolved instincts?

It's not for meat eaters to justify their position, TBH, it's for those who claim it's unethical to justify that position, and neither you or anyone else has come close to doing that here. You're welcome to choose whatever personal ethical position you like, but unless and until you persuade me that I should adopt it, I will happily continue what I consider a perfectly natural and ethical way of behaving.

I have tried to justify my position, I've answered a number of questions in which I've tried to clarify my position and support it with reasons (both today and yesterday). You might not think my responses have been adequate but at least I've given it a go. The defenders of meat eating on this thread have by-and-large refused to justify their positions (look at LBJs post above for example, which at least has the virtue of being honest) or just issued arbitrary statements like saying the views of those that disagree with them are 'so ridiculous' that they are not worth engaging with, or taken refuge in moral relativism. Your claim that defenders of the status quo don't have to provide reasons for their position is pretty reactionary tbh. Everybody, either in the minority or majority, should be able to defend their views, whether or not they're popular.

 

[spanglechick]

Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?

I would. If they were free-range farmed and dispatched with minimum distress. I wouldn't wear fur, because I don't like the way it feels, but I've no problem with it if it's not farmed in battery conditions.

I would also eat a kitten if I was reliably informed that they tasted nice and it had been farmed well.

My ethics are not aesthetic.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

I would. If they were free-range farmed and dispatched with minimum distress. I wouldn't wear fur, because I don't like the way it feels, but I've no problem with it if it's not farmed in battery conditions.

I would also eat a kitten if I was reliably informed that they tasted nice and it had been farmed well.

My ethics are not aesthetic.

That's what I'm wondering, whether the cut-off point, for some people, is defined by the level of cuteness.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Many other species have evolved on the basis of eating other animals - it's a totally natural part of the process of living and dying. Is there some reason why you think humans should not interact with the natural world in the way they have evolved to do? And if so, are there other species which should, similarly, go against their natural evolved instincts?

This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have tried to justify my position, I've answered a number of questions in which I've tried to clarify my position and support it with reasons (both today and yesterday). You might not think my responses have been adequate but at least I've given it a go. The defenders of meat eating on this thread have by-and-large refused to justify their positions (look at LBJs post above for example, which at least has the virtue of being honest) or just issued arbitrary statements like saying the views of those that disagree with them are 'so ridiculous' that they are not worth engaging with, or taken refuge in moral relativism. Your claim that defenders of the status quo don't have to provide reasons for their position is pretty reactionary tbh. Everybody, either in the minority or majority, should be able to defend their views, whether or not they're popular.

Problem is that in the end I think your project is unachievable. I don't think there is a 'first principles' position that can be worked out from the bottom up in this way. I just don't think ethics are absolute like this. As with many of our opinions, we often work out why we think as we do after we've realised what our position is. In my case, the position that I'm ok with killing animals for food in principle arises in me without my knowing exactly the process by which I arrived at it. But after carefully reviewing it, I find that I'm ok with it.

 

[TruXta]

This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?

Amongst both Buddhists and Hindus you'll find plenty of meat-eaters.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is a particularly weak argument. That humans have the capacity to eat meat doesn't tell us anything about whether or not we should. Saying that eating meat is a 'natural evolved instinct' ignores the fact that there are millions of humans that don't eat meat and live perfectly long healthy lives. For thousands of years Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities have not eaten meat - are they any less 'human' for it?

This is the point at which I came in on this. We humans are characterised by our flexibility and plasticity. We can thrive on many kinds of diet, which are shaped by circumstance and culture. I certainly don't think people should eat meat. However, the existence of cultures in which meat is not eaten in no way negates the validity of cultures in which meat is central. It doesn't produce a should not.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Amongst both Buddhists and Hindus you'll find plenty of meat-eaters.

I know, you'll find plenty of vegetarians too.

 

[TruXta]

I know, you'll find plenty of vegetarians too.

Why even mention it then? There are and have been veggies all over, just as there have been meat-eaters. Religion rarely comes into it, Jains possibly excepted.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Problem is that in the end I think your project is unachievable. I don't think there is a 'first principles' position that can be worked out from the bottom up in this way. I just don't think ethics are absolute like this. As with many of our opinions, we often work out why we think as we do after we've realised what our position is. In my case, the position that I'm ok with killing animals for food in principle arises in me without my knowing exactly the process by which I arrived at it. But after carefully reviewing it, I find that I'm ok with it.

What's unachievable about not eating meat? And even if the full implications of my position aren't achievable that doesn't suggest that movement towards them wouldn't be desirable. I agree that morality isn't worked out purely in the abstract, but that doesn't imply that reasoning and first principles can be elided altogether. There needs to some sort of 'reflective equilibrium' between our general principles and our lived experience. Without the former we run the risk of our intuitions merely being confirmation biases and without the latter we are just unthinking dogmatists.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Why even mention it then? There are and have been veggies all over, just as there have been meat-eaters. Religion rarely comes into it, Jains possibly excepted.

In my experience you're statistically more likely to be a vegetarian if you're Hindu (although I agree that this is a very diverse group) or particularly buddhist than if you're not - and I gave it as an example because these traditions go back thousands of years, demonstrating long pedigree, that there are other examples doesn't affect my point.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What's unachievable about not eating meat? .

Nothing. What is unachievable, imo, is to produce a line of reasoning that will seal the argument. While eating meat may not be universal to humans, using animals instrumentally has a long and nearly ubiquitous history. We certainly wouldn't be the species we are without it.

 

[8ball]

Nothing. What is unachievable, imo, is to produce a line of reasoning that will seal the argument. While eating meat may not be universal to humans, using animals instrumentally has a long and nearly ubiquitous history. We certainly wouldn't be the species we are without it.

The 'instrumentalism' angle is quite interesting. I wonder whether this is a kind of anthropomorphism. While we can tell with some confidence whether an animal is suffering, and whether it can behave in accordance with its nature, we can't say much about whether they care, or should care about whether they are used instrumentally by another species.

I think we could be imposing our own cultural values on animals when deciding it is in their interests to 'protect' them from this. It's not like a respect for human individual autonomy is even a universally respected value among humans.

edit: this isn't specific to eating meat, btw, where i see more potential ethical issues than LBJ does, but in terms of any instrumental use of animals

 

[Spymaster]

Just as a matter of interest... Where would you stand on killing baby seals for their fur? (don't say their heads ) Would you consider it acceptable, if it was done in a humane way, rather than battering them to death with a club?

<<responding to a question posed to another poster who may well disagree with me>>

Totally.

If there is a market for baby seal fur, and baby seals could be harvested with minimal suffering and without causing endangerment, I see no ethical discrepancy between wearing it and eating it.

Jeff Robinson is the most reasonable (anti-meat) poster that we've seen on U75 for years, and worth debating with, imo.

My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property.

Here we have a fundamental difference of opinion which ska invita identified earlier.

I see humans at the top of the food chain. Unless we're swimming in the ocean or fucking about in swamps and jungles, we're less likely to be predated than chickens, deer, bison, or anything else.

That's just how nature has developed.

The majority of (non-Hindu/Bhuddist/baptised Sikh) humans use animal derivatives or eat meat. We can further divide the "HinBhudSikhs" by asking which are comfortable with using animals as beasts of burdon or other suppliers, but not as food. Then we're left with the moral conundrum "if we use them to pull our carts or take their milk, why not eat them?"

Then we can play the tired old "Who's The Hypocrite?" game

You've been asking for meat eaters to justify their position, but with respect, we're the ones who are following what seems to be the law of nature in predating/dominating/farming the less developed species. The development argument, touched on by LBJ earlier, cuts two ways. You'll say that we should find a way to exist without exploiting animals. I say we should find a way to minimise our impact whilst using/exploiting the earths resources in as sustainable way as we can agree to.

It falls to you to convince us to do otherwise since we're not telling you to commodify animals. You're telling us not to.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

My opposition to the human use of animals goes beyond their killing and captivity for profit, it extends to all forms of treatment that reduce them to chattel or property...

Instead of killing rats and other pests, we should have to take them to court and prove our case, maybe get them locked up for spreading disease.

 

[Greebo]

Instead of killing rats and other pests, we should have to take them to court and prove our case, maybe get them locked up for spreading disease.

Contributory negligence if you don't store your food in rodent proof containers?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

You've been asking for meat eaters to justify their position, but with respect, we're the ones who are following what seems to be the law of nature in predating/dominating/farming the less developed species. The development argument, touched on by LBJ earlier, cuts two ways. You'll say that we should find a way to exist without exploiting animals, I say we should find a way to minimise our impact whilst using/exploiting the earths resources in as sustainable way as we can agree to.

It falls to you to convince us to do otherwise since we're not telling you to commodify animals. You're telling us not to.

It wasn't so very long ago that slavery was considered acceptable and I'm sure people would have used the same justifications to convince themselves they were doing nothing wrong.

I wonder if slave owners took solace in the fact that they were more developed than their slaves, and considered this adequate justification for using this less developed animal for their own needs?

I'm sure some people even considered themselves to be 'ethical' slave owners, because they didn't beat their slaves, and they gave them plenty of food and a bed and roof over their head.

So... where do we draw the line? Does it have to be a different species, so we can place an emotional barrier between us and them, and convince ourselves that it's OK because they don't look like us, so they probably don't have feelings, and even if they do, what does it matter, because we're the dominant species?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You want emotive arguments?

Ok.

My brother and sister are both type 1 diabetics and have been for 40 years plus. Back when they became diabetic, insulin was produced from pigs. Human insulin production was only developed much later.

If humans didn't treat animals instrumentally, I'd have grown up an only child. *

I'll kill the pigs myself if it means saving human lives. I'm afraid a lot of these arguments giving equal weight to animal and human lives are total bullshit, and the consequences of such beliefs are monstrous.

*Mind you, I'd have had my own room, and wouldn't have had to wear my brother's hand-me-downs.

 

[ddraig]

oh ffs, completely different ball game

 

[littlebabyjesus]

oh ffs, completely different ball game

No. It's not. Animals had to die to keep my siblings alive. That's that. Kill a pig or lose a brother or sister.

As for comparing this to human slavery, that's the most moronic argument on this thread.

ETA: it's a pretty insulting argument, too. Don't let slavers off so bloody lightly.

 

[ddraig]

No. It's not. Animals had to die to keep my siblings alive. That's that. Kill a pig or lose a brother or sister.

As for comparing this to human slavery, that's the most moronic argument on this thread.

now stop being hysterical!
you are presuming disagreement