Popsonian

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200 ... nofanimals

So...how do you feel about the article and what it means in terms of your own effect on other species' survival? If you hunt, use animal products of any sort...that means you are contributing to the decline/demise of other species, and in turn to the decline/demise of our planet. Knowing that your choices have such a devastating effect, how do you feel about it?

Interesting article. Your comments about it are a very, very wide slippery slope from the established conclusions of the article however; i'll address that in a moment.

Articles like this are some of the reason why I don't like reading lay science articles though. I spotted several inaccuracies when discussing even very basic evolutionary concepts- nit picks, if you will... but what I really don't like, is that they seem to be putting words into the mouths of the researchers.

The idea that said animals have a decrease in size over a period of time is in fact very interesting to me. It very well could be attributed to humans hunting animals- but what argument did this article give to support this claim? remember in our other discussion, correlation does not equal causation. It's an interesting relationship, and a cool hypothesis, but they need to show some more evidence, aside from correlation.

However, let's assume that hunting is responsible. How does decreased size lead to a species demise, as the article mentions? It doesn't say. It even mentions,

"Researchers have long known that big beasts are more vulnerable to quick demise. In general, large animal species (think dinosaurs, woolly mammoths) must invest more energy in gestation and weaning precious few young, and they reach sexual maturity slowly."

Therefore, would it not follow that our *controlled* hunting of animals, reducing their size over the years, is actually aiding them in their survival? (keyword is controlled, as we should remember that uncontrolled hunting can, has, and will result in extinction; that's not up for discussion, the question is whether controlled hunting will).

In fact, the only evidence that hunting was leading to the "demise" of the animals, was a quote from some biologist who had nothing to do with the research the article was referencing. With all of the out of context scientific quotes I have seen in my life, I'd be very weary to accept this one at face value.


Now... all of this said, I support hunting and gathering of some animal species- specifically, animals which used to have natural predators, and no longer do (IE, the white-tail deer, who used to be hunted by the timber wolf, now extinct in the area).

I do not support the hunting of predatory creatures, however. black bears, grizzly bears, mountain lions, wolves- These are required for an ecosystem to function, and are creatures that are not designed to be hunted. They have long gestation rates, they are larger, and take much longer to reproduce. They were not evolved to be hunted.

Deer, rabbits, birds, on the other hand, have short lives, are replaced readily, breed at a prolific rate, and are more than able to accommodate hunters. In fact, since we have removed and replaced their natural predator, we are effectively a part of that ecosystem. Without human hunting of white tail deer, they would over-populate the area, and crash the ecosystem. This is why there are trained biologists staffing the fish and wildlife service, closely monitoring the populations, regulating hunting and fishing permits, etc.

-------------

All this said, even if this article was bulletproof, solid research, and not open for discussion; I don't see what it has to do with consuming animal products, which were not obtained from natural settings. How does my eating a burger contribute to the decline and demise of other species- especially since cow, was genetically engineered by humans over hundreds and hundreds of years, specifically to be consumed and used for dairy products?

I could, with this same argumentation, call into question your vegan lifestyle and how it has the potential to result in hundreds of thousands of species of animals going extinct due to the burning down of rain forests, and hordes of other natural land to plant crops. I would be on equally fallacious grounds if I did so, however, as I like to consume soy beans as much as most vegans

On a vaugely related note, I found this, and it amused me. Apparently, PETA is attempting to make fish more adorable to people, by re-naming them "Sea Kittens". I think that's very discriminatory to all of those fresh water sey kittens that we know and love. My cichlids are going to be furious when they find out tonight.

I was just using the article as a springboard. It is not a hard science article, as you stated, and it has holes, holes, holes... but it's a good way to start a debate on an important topic, at any rate. My conclusions are drawn from elsewhere, lots of elsewheres.

What does consuming animal products have to do with the health of other species and our planet?: Let's start with farm land for the beef and shrimp industry. Those big industries permanently destroy rain forests, mangrove swamps... which destroys other species, which destroys the whole planet... just to raise food to keep people (mostly Americans) full-bellied and fat. Is it good for anyone in any way? I don't see what there is to gain.

Cichlids... My dad used to have an oscar (named Oscar), and I thought Oscar was pretty cute. I like all fish, though. I think fish have as much personality as people, once you get to know them.

I'm not a PETA member. I appreciate what they are trying to do, as far as raising awareness, but I don't agree with all of their policies/practices, and I'm not a group joiner. Mainly, I don't like that PETA supports certain methods of pet birth control/animal sterilization (those used in US) or euthanasia of sick, but not that sick, animals.

...

OK, just read the cuddly fish, NPR article. Someone needs to tell that Alaskan lady that mercury is not a healthy thing to eat.

elbush wrote:I was just using the article as a springboard. It is not a hard science article, as you stated, and it has holes, holes, holes... but it's a good way to start a debate on an important topic, at any rate. My conclusions are drawn from elsewhere, lots of elsewheres.

Well, that's good, although i'm confused on what exactly you are arguing. How does the meat industry relate to hunting and the alleged decrease of animals over time? Also, my beef about the article wasn't that it's not a hard science article; Science needs to be communicated to the general population- i'm all for that. What I was snarking at was that many, many of these science journalists have absolutely no science training. They got their degrees in journalism, and were thrown into writing about science. They have to go throuh technical papers with language designed to transmit information quickly between experts- and attempt to translate it- and very often fail.

That's the root cause of people's distrust of scientists. You can see it every day- Eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you. Cholesterol is bad, cholesterol is good. dihydrogen monoxide causes cancer in rats- Journalists who don't understand the science behind these things just look for a neat soundbite, and very often mis-represent the studies they are looking at. The point of my almost irrelevant rant is to caution people to be skeptical of science articles in the national media.

elbush wrote:What does consuming animal products have to do with the health of other species and our planet?: Let's start with farm land for the beef and shrimp industry. Those big industries permanently destroy rain forests, mangrove swamps... which destroys other species, which destroys the whole planet... just to raise food to keep people (mostly Americans) full-bellied and fat. Is it good for anyone in any way? I don't see what there is to gain.

Interesting outlook. I grew up in Colorado, a state with many a cattle ranch for the beef industry. The cattle ranches that I have seen there look something like this:




Conversely, this is what farming industry land looked like where I grew up:



Now, the question is, which of these two practices appear to be permenantly destroying natural habitat, and destroying other species, just to raise food to keep people fat? Obviously, we need the farming industry. People will starve, and civilization as we know it would crash without it. However, I think to call out the meat industry for doing the same things the farming industry does is a bit falacious- especially when, after all, it's the farming industry that is a huge reason for the destruction of the rainforest.. Soy is a huge product of Brazil, and soy crops have exploded since the US started to consume more soy products. Consuming tofu isn't entirely guilt free either.

Cichlids... My dad used to have an oscar (named Oscar), and I thought Oscar was pretty cute. I like all fish, though. I think fish have as much personality as people, once you get to know them.

I think we have a tendancy to anthropomorphize animals. We try to see human characteristics within animals. My fish do have personalities though- they are extremely creul to each other. I remember placing a new fish into the tank, and it ended up consumed and stuck to the filter by morning. It all just depends on what personality traits you prefer to pick out though. I like my fish, don't get me wrong; but if I were to compare their personality to human beings, they would compare either to a sacrificial cult, or to serial killers

I'm not a PETA member. I appreciate what they are trying to do, as far as raising awareness, but I don't agree with all of their policies/practices, and I'm not a group joiner. Mainly, I don't like that PETA supports certain methods of pet birth control/animal sterilization (those used in US) or euthanasia of sick, but not that sick, animals.

I know you aren't, my wife just sent me that link while I was writing my response, and I just thought it amusing enough to share with everybody

I also, aggree with some things they say; but most of what they do is abhorrent to me. Funding animal rights terrorist groups like the ALF; berating the abuse of animals in the humane society; then turning around and doing the same exact thing in their own "shelters". The protest of genetically engineered crops is also a travesty, but I don't think they are as guilty of this as other groups though.

Yes, PETA is full of hypocrisy. I'm not a member, and I don't know too many animal rights advocates who are. A year or so ago, I got into an argument w/ a TV producer who was very pro-PETA. I was supposed to be on a reality TV show sharing my views on animal rights. After the argument, he jerk cut out all of my scenes; PETA members don't take criticism very well. He wasn't vegan, but was trying to sound so pro-animal rights, so I kinda (verbally) ripped him to shreads for his own hypocrisy. Blah, blah...

I have seen cattle farms in Kansas, Colorado... I remember riding by one that said Sirloin Stockade on a huge sign, and the cows were grazing on the grass right under the sign. It was so sad, it made me sick. At any rate, there are cattle farms and shrimp farms that are a major cause of deforestation and mangrove swamp destruction, and you can't deny that. As far as the soy farms, well, I don't use a lot of soy; it's very processed and not that good for you (I'm a lentil lover). Most of that soy is used in feeding cattle, anyway, so put that in your burger and chew on it (No meanness intended).

Whether fish have swell personalities doesn't really matter. They feel pain. That's all that matters to me. I don't want other living beings to feel pain or be robbed of their lives. "Thou shalt not kill" is a philosophy I live in non-speciesist terms.

I know all about the cattle industry. My grandmother was a butcher. That might be why there are so many vegetarians/ vegans in my family.

...

Well, keep in mind I wasn't calling into question the ethics of eating meat/not eating meat, but rather, it's effects on the environment, since that's what the original post was discussing. I see the effects on the natural environment and the idea of animal rights in general to be two completely different subjects.

I can't deny that cattle ranching does have an effect on natural land, and I never claimed that it doesn't, but so does agriculture. In fact, agriculture has more of a devastating effect on a natural environment than ranching, and especially more of an effect than hunting.

Fertilizers get into the water and poisons wildlife. They even seep into the groundwater and contaminate entire aquifers; in some cases traveling many hundreds of miles underground to contaminate entirely different areas (and yes, even "organic" fertilizers will do this. Just because a chemical is carbon based doesn't mean that it can't hurt the environment). Entire forests are chopped to the ground and burned, destroying with it all of the animal life within those forests. Animals which are not burned to death or killed outright move deeper into the forest, causing over-population, famine, pestilence, and vast numbers starve in a long, drawn out, torturous death. Ranching might affect ecosystems and kills a certain type of animal, but large scale agriculture destroys entire ecosystems and causes animals to dye prolonged, painful deaths. Any animals that might brave the fields and live in them are either killed purposefully by the farmers, or are mutilated within the harvesting combines.

There is no such thing as a guilt free meal. Whatever you eat, the development of that food has an effect on the natural world, and something has had to sacrifice itself and experience pain for you to enjoy it.

I guess before we discuss animal rights at large, it would be good to conclude this discussion first. Would you agree that the meat industry's effect on the natural environment is not a good argument against eating meat- especially since the agriculture industry has an equally devastating effect? Would you agree that "trophy hunting" can't really be related to the meat industry, and comes nowhere near to the environmental impact that tearing down forests and harvesting grain has?

I agree that all we do effects other life. I have to read up more on agriculture before answering you. I would think that using manure as fertilizer (My dad used to have a truly huge garden, and that's how he did it--goat manure from my stepmother's many pet goats, and, yes, goats produce a lot of it) can't be too harmful, but where to get the manure if you don't have animals in your care, I don't know.

I think it's a big part of the animal rights debate (cattle industry), so it can't really be ignored. As for game hunting...I don't see the point at all. I think it's no different than taking one's frustrations out on an innocence person. Why not try football, instead? Not to be weird or anything, but I think men hunt due to sexual frustration...all of that testosterone has gotta go somewhere (Yes, women hunt, too, and, yes, we all have testosterone and estrogen, but different amounts of it). Still hunting is murder, and depending on what you hunt, it definitely effects eco-balance... (I bet I'm going to get the culling of deer argument here, right?)

My motto is to live a life that does as little damage to other living beings as possible, and not to cause fear, hurt... if at all possible, you know.

I'm curious about agriculture practices that you mentioned. I don't agree with using chemical junk for fertilizer (Yes, I know it helps to save crops, but at what cost?), so I'll be reading up on big scale, organic farming and its impact on the environment, life...

It's been a while since I last researched organic vs non-organic farming- but last time I checked, all that you had to do in order to be counted an organic farmer is use some sort organic products in your production. Now- Organic in this sense doesn't really mean things like manure, or "all natural" fertilizers- even though the word does bring forth images of fresh, natural stuff. Organic, in this sense basically means anything that's formed using carbon chains. Granted, most organic herbicides and fertilizers are not as environmentally damaging as synthetic or inorganic products- but don't think that just because it's organic, it isn't toxic.

as for chemical junk for fertilizer, When it really comes down to it, the stuff they use to fertilize non organic farms is the same chemicals used to fertilize organic farms. The chief chemicals required by plants from the soil to grow, is ammonia, and nitrate. Non-organic farmers get this stuff produced synthetically, non-organic farmers get it from bacteria breaking down cow poop. Same exact chemicals, just different origins. So, to answer your question- where do you get manure if you don't have animals in your care? Why, you make the chemicals that the plants use from the manure!

-----------------------------

Now- GE vs non-GE. GE crops have the potential to reduce the amount of pesticides and chemicals used to grow crops- while producing larger yields, with no real adverse health effects. Believe it or not, but humans have been genetically engineering their food for centuries. Corn has been genetically engineered by native americans from wheat through a process of artificial selection- using evolution before we knew what it was. Modern GE is no different, except instead of modifying things by selectively breeding a product and using random mutation as the changing agent, they go right for the throat, and modify the genes themselves.

GE crops have been created that use less nitrate (reducing the amount of needed fertilizer). GE Cotton crops have been created which carry BT (a naturally occurring bacteria, mostly harmless to humans, which is used as a pesticide in organic farming) that have reduced the usage of pesticides on said crops by 80 percent. Essentially, more food, for less space, and less chemicals pumped into the ecosystem.

The biggest reason that I am a huge proponent of GE crops is that without them, 1/3 of the human race would die. If we were to somehow transition completely to organic crops, using non-genetically engineered food, it would drive food prices sky high, create less food, and reduce the total amount of land which is usable to grow crops (remember, GE crops can make use of land that normal crops can not). Most calculations I have read seem to show that such a food source can only feed a max of 4 billion people, leaving the remaining 2 billion to starve. It simply isn't feasible for a global economy.

So in essence, sure, organic crops might be thought to be healthier than non-organic (although, I've never seen any scientific study showing as such)- but really, at what cost?

---------------------------------------

Hunting:

I think men hunt to relieve sexual frustrations in the same way that women want to have jobs because they have p**is envy; That is, I don't think that's why at all, I think it an oversimplification, a straw man, and a tad sexist and offensive. On what grounds do you base such an assertions?

I think men hunt many reasons. Some of which include- a natural instinct given to us by our ancestors, the desire to be able to bring home meat which was not grown, but harvested by their own hands, to manage the population, and yes, even personal survival. These are the answers my grandfather gave me- an avid bow hunter in his day. He and my grandmother lived for quite some time in extreme poverty, and were it not for his hunting and fishing, do not feel that they could have made ends meet.

Football? Now foot ball is something that I don't understand. You roll around in the mud with other dudes all day in a public show if testosterone, slap each others butts during the break time, take a nice big shower with each other after everything is done... and what do you have to show for it?

One more bone to pick though- hunting is *not* murder. This is a strawman, the same type of strawman that anti-abortionists use to say that abortion is murder. hint- is murder the same as killing?

Sorry so long-winded. It's a slow day at work today, and I had the time to kill lol!

The hunting as sex therapy comment was meant to be a teeny bit offensive. Sorry. Football was just something I threw in as an option to hunting, because I view it just as you do--so it was supposed to be a teeny bit offensive, too. Sorry.... I'm still going with my testosterone theory... There have been studies conducted that indicate those with higher testosterone levels are more aggressive and violent than the average person. There have also been studies conducted that indicate higher testosterone levels make people prone to greater sexual appetite. I know I can't rest my case with that, but I'm not so sure that either of us is equipped to put that argument to rest.

I don't need your hint, thanks. Hunting is not technically considered murder, because "murder" is a legal term (If only..and that's the point in my tagging hunting that way...I wish it were legally considered murder, and if people say it is loud enough and often enough, and get the ugliness imparted by that word across in reference to hunting, then, maybe, one day it will be considered murder...). Another thing is that I think hunting instructs violence, insensitivity...and that spills over into how people treat each other, but that's another argument, I suppose... No, it's not the same as saying abortion is murder... I own my body, and if I don't want to host a parasite, it hardly seems unethical to terminate the relationship. The deer, wolf, fox, polar bear, seal (I could go on) you or another may kill is not feeding on anyone. Terminating the life of an entity who is not using you for sustenance just isn't even close to terminating the existence of something that is.

I read your GE vs organic vs regular chemical crop explanation. You probably wont like my response, but...I think the earth is overpopulated, so for a less populated planet, organic farming would be fine. I really think people should be breeding a lot less, as that would solve a whole lot of problems. I do understand that we need food for everyone... Organic and natural products aren't that different from what I've always heard; organic just means the product has been certified that it meets whatever the legal standard is... I really don't know enough about the GE vs non-GE, and it's really something I need to know more about before I'm able to argue about it, but I can say that I'd rather not eat food that has been modified by people (You know what I mean). What is the old saying?: Don't mess with mother nature.

Something else: Just what do you mean by hunting being part of our "natural instinct"? Are you saying that you walk around all day with some (not based on learned behavior) desire to kill (something other than time)? I don't have that problem... People have the "instinct" for self-defense and survival, so I'm not taking a shot at your starved grandparents by condemning hunting. I'm saying that WE have a freaking choice about how we survive...by killing other animals for food and setting ourselves up to live in a more violent world, or by eating some lentils and rice instead.

Maybe, I can't change your mind about how you eat to survive, but I try, as I believe killing is wrong unless the act is committed in immediate self-defense.

So why do you eat meat? You never said.

I wonder what are we accomplishing by debating? I don't eat meat, but you do. You like the idea of genetically engineered foods, but I don't. I think hunting is mean, but you think it's OK. We have different opinions. My point is that debate really brings people closer to attacking each others basic value systems, and I don't even know why we should, unless we are bringing out something better in people through debating. I don't know that we are.

Where did we begin? I think the article was about human behavior ruining the planet through hunting or something. Now we're back on topic, sort of. We are debating GE foods and hunting as good or bad for our planet, all life on it... What we've really come down to is having different approaches to how we best think things should be, and, maybe, all we'll end up doing is butting heads, because once people strip away the evidence in any argument like this, it always comes down to values. In the end, we are trying to argue right and wrong cloaked as factoids....

You may say that GE foods save lives. I may respond by agreeing that it's true, but that the outcome is more devastating for all future lives if people continue with that response to human need. We both have good points and bad points to our arguments, but what we are really saying is that we probably can't agree. If we want to share information (which I think is good), we should, maybe, just give each other a reading list and leave the head butting out of it.

My hunting being testosterone driven comment bugged you. I understand. It wasn't meant to be taken personally or anything, but I knew it might bug you, as I was trying to make a subtle point... Honestly, your cow photos bugged me; I know what ranging cattle look like, and I also know the cows in the photos are destined to be burgers. I don't like thinking about that, you know, and I think you didn't realize that, because you are desensitized to it.

Hi! First off, no hard feelings, I don't take anything personally in a debate environment. The idea is to evaluate what one thinks, and why they think it. I'm looking at what I think just as hard as what you think, be sure of it

Anyway, I am not sure how much longer I can write long posts in this thread, since I have a few things coming up that will be sucking up most of my time- but here goes. Since we went off on about five tangents, I'll just mark them separately.

-----------------------
Hunting as sex therapy:
Naw, I did not take personal offense to the argument, I just didn't like the bad argumentation for it. For instance, when people say things like "people just believe in evolution because they want to deny the existance of God, and they hate biblical truth", I would probably get equally snippy, because saying such is a vast oversimplification, not provable, and certainly not based on anything other than the accuser's mind. Evolution has mountains of evidence in support of it, and many people who believe in God also accept the idea; similarly, many people with abnormally low testosterone levels hunt, and no hunter on earth would cite "latent sexual frusteration" as the main driving force.

Sure, I believe there are studies that say what you claim; but remember that what you view as violence, another person may not. While I don't view the act of going out onto the lake and fishing while drinking beer to be overtly violent, you probably would see the idea of baiting fish into biting a steel barbed hook and dragging it helplessly through the water, and out into the thin, suffocating air as a very violent act. How would said studies define "violent behavior" when conducting these studies? Most that I have seen define violent behavior by linking person on person violence. While we might disagree that fishing is violent, nobody would dispute that one human punching another in a bar is violent behavior. As for hunting, I have not seen very convincing data correlating hunters to human/human violence; moreover, most hunters I have met and speak with don't see what they do as violence, but rather, along the same lines as fishing. If one doesn't see their acts as violent, then how can they be correlated to violent tendancies?

As for football used as an example, just be careful; we all know what a football is commonly made of

------------------------
hunting =murder

Actually, hunting is murder, and abortion is murder are very relatable. Anti-abortionists will very often claim that the 'parasitic' fetus is deserving of rights, and is a person, therefore, terminating it is murder. You on the other hand, are of the opinion that it is not deserving of rights. However, you are of the opinion that animals deserve rights, but hunters and meat eaters are of the opinion that they are not deserving of rights.

As for it seeming unethical for terminating the relationship, imagine if you were a conjoined twin, and the other twin was determined to be the parasitic one- IE, if you separated, you would live and the other twin would die. Would it be unethical to force the operation?

wolves, polar bears, foxes and seals do not feed on anyone? Last time I checked, they were an essential form of the environment, being carnivores. In fact, I would say that the very fact THAT they feed on other animals is the very reason we shouldn't hunt them- they are responsible for population control of herbivorous species.

I understand your desire to label hunting as murder, but I typically choose not to make "appeals from emotion" in my argumentation. The fact that murder has a very specific definition, and the fact that hunting does not fig that definition means that dispite ones moral opinions, hunting is not murder, and to say otherwise, is not being completely honest Now, hunting is killing is truthful, or you could say, "hunting is the killing of innocent animals", while again delving into the debateable, appeal to emotion, wouldn't be entirely inaccurate. However, hunting is murder... not so much.

-------------------------------
GE vs non-GE

the earth's overpopulation. The earth may very well be over-populated- but there's only one of three solutions that can take care of that: either we kill out at least two billion people through starvation, just because we don't want to eat genetically engineered foods for whatever undisclosed reason, we get the government to restrict human breeding, or we make the best of it, and try to feed everybody we can. I could say that "if everybody stops having sex until they are married and after that only have sex with their spouse, the AIDS virus will be gone very quickly"- but that's not really a solution, is it?

Frankly though, I don't see why GE crops are thought to be the opposite of organic crops. Being "organic" has to do with the growing conditions, what type of fertilizer is being used, what types of pesticides are being used, etc- GE has to do with whether humans have genetically modified the plants. Remember as I said before, corn is genetically modified wheat; in fact, it's been so heavilly modified by humans, that it can't even grow without the help of humans cultivating it. The only difference is the method we used to genetically engineer it. Technically speaking, one can have genetically engineered organic food, and frankly, what is stopping us? remember, GE food can reduce our reliance on fertilizer, pesticide, and make organic food less expensive by producing more of it, at reduced costs.

"don't mess with mother nature"
This is at face value, a noble statement, but what would you think of as messing with mother nature? surely, mining the rocks for coal and electricity to run your heater and power your computer is messing with mother nature. Surely, drilling for oil to transport you around is messing with mother nature. I don't know of many natural things that we humans can say that we do. Besides that, would you consider artifical selection as messing with mother nature? Remember, this is the process by which we genetically engineer food over time by artifically selecting genes that we like, and those that we don't. I for one, would argue that turning this:

into this:

is messing with mother nature.

Along those same lines, I would also argue that turning teosinte, a form of wheat, into corn:

would be messing with mother nature in the worst way. Corn, bananas, commercial wheat, strawberries, beans, cabbage; these are just a few of the many foods that have been produced through genetic engineering by way of artificial selection, messing with mother nature. I'd say when it comes down to the human race, messing with mother nature is what we do best. In fact, one could say that it's what developed us to do for tens of thousands of years


-------------
Hunting due to "natural instinct"
I used that one because that's a reason I was told by other hunters why people hunt. I didn't mean it to be a formal reason, or one that I specifically feel is worthy, but to me it seems an offshoot of the "argument from tradition". I've never been one to give respect to something simply because of tradition, so I wouldn't view it as a good reason either

Lentils and rice, lentils and rice. Now the ultimate question is, does everybody on the planet have the choice of eating lentils and rice instead of animals, even in developing countries? Would you have the capacity to grow all of the lentils and rice required of the world organically as you would like, without the appropriate fertilizer that comes from domesticated animals? The problem I see is that overpopulation or not, if food gets scarce because agriculture can't keep up with everybody, then it will become a much more violent world indeed.

---------------------------------------
Why do I eat meat?

In short, the reason I eat meat is because I have not seen a coherent logical reason why I shouldn't, and I eat it because I like the taste. There are no health problems associated with eating meat in moderation (read- I don't eat very much meat; I only eat it on occasion); of course, i have imbibed many things in my life which do have recorded health problems anyway, so that isn't a big problem. I see no sins against nature being committed in the act of eating meat, because surely, lions eat meat, snakes eat meat, wolves eat meat, chimpanzees eat meat, and nobody seems to think a problem with that--even though chimpanzees do in fact have a choice not to eat it. Even if I made the personal choice not to eat meat (which, I have before), I would recognize that that choice is not an option to many people around the world.

elbush wrote:Where did we begin? I think the article was about human behavior ruining the planet through hunting or something. Now we're back on topic, sort of. We are debating GE foods and hunting as good or bad for our planet, all life on it... What we've really come down to is having different approaches to how we best think things should be, and, maybe, all we'll end up doing is butting heads, because once people strip away the evidence in any argument like this, it always comes down to values. In the end, we are trying to argue right and wrong cloaked as factoids....

The beginning of this was a very badly written media article which said that controlled hunting is causing the demise of the species being hunted. You seemed to interpret it as having to do with the meat industry, and the morality of eating meat, and thus the discussion went off in about fifty different directions While we might disagree on all of those other ethical ideas, I think that we both agree that about 90 percent of that argumentation in that artical was bunk anyway, which at first, was the only thing I was trying to say

If we want to share information (which I think is good), we should, maybe, just give each other a reading list and leave the head butting out of it.

Yes, but what's the fun in that? There's no discussion, no interaction. I think the socratic method is the best way to learn- evaluate ideas, ask questions. Defending your ideas is the best way of forcing yourself to do both. I have learned more from debating with people than I ever have by sitting in some classroom reading a book.

My hunting being testosterone driven comment bugged you. I understand. It wasn't meant to be taken personally or anything, but I knew it might bug you, as I was trying to make a subtle point...

Naw, it didn't bug me, I was just away from the internets all weekend as I was doing other things- throwing a birthday party, cleaning my house, going on a bike ride, playing xbox video games with my wife. Im a big boy, I has a thick skin ::grins::

Honestly, your cow photos bugged me; I know what ranging cattle look like, and I also know the cows in the photos are destined to be burgers. I don't like thinking about that, you know, and I think you didn't realize that, because you are desensitized to it.

It wasn't my intent to bug you with those pictures. My focus wasn't the cows themselves, but rather it was the land they were in. my point was that cattle ranching is not as destructive to the natural environment as agriculture, in contradiction to your claims that the meat industry is wrong because it destroys natural environments. By that logic, agriculture in all its forms is bad, as i'm sure that tens of thousands of square miles of natural environment destroyed to plant crops (I have not measured the amount of cultivated land), wheras cattle ranching has nowhere near that kind of effect on the land it uses.