the great vegetarian debate

[PadmaVonSamba]

When a carnivore hunts they tend to given a choice, always prey on the weak, the diseased the dumb in a herd or population, since they are easier to catch and kill.

Just want to clarify a point here (I like the "given a choice' part). As part of the process of natural selection, the weaker, slower or sicker animals do tend to be the ones most often caught. But this is only because the stronger, faster ones are able to get away sooner. This in turn improves the overall gene pool of the species being hunted (herd animal or otherwise). To suggest that this is a conscious choice on the part of the predator is really a misunderstanding, and a projection (and very funny, in a Disney sort of way). If such were the case, the predatory species as a whole would, over time, likewise be weakened from catching and eating only the weakest, sickest animals.

As I posted before, it is precisely because of the need to escape predators that homo sapiens evolved.
If you can make a conscious choice about what you eat, thank a saber-toothed tiger.
Too bad they are extinct.

By the way, what is to happen to cows and pigs if nobody eats them or uses their skins?
Will they be adopted as house pets, or be put on the endangered species list?
Kept in zoos?

I mean really...what will they do???
.
.
.

[David N. Snyder]

As I posted before, it is precisely because of the need to escape predators that homo sapiens evolved.
If you can make a conscious choice about what you eat, thank a saber-toothed tiger.

Lots of species get chased by predators and they don't become more intelligent simply because they have been chased.

By the way, what is to happen to cows and pigs if nobody eats them or uses their skins?
Will they be adopted as house pets, or be put on the endangered species list?
Kept in zoos?

I mean really...what will they do???

The world will not become completely vegetarian overnight. It would be a gradual process (if it even happened, of course this is just hypothetically speaking). Even if 10,000 new people stopped eating meat everyday, the agri-businesses would simply stop breeding the livestock so much. The breeding would slow down, even stop if necessary until everyone became vegetarian or vegan. And then you have less slaughtering going on and eventually close the slaughter houses.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Lots of species get chased by predators and they don't become more intelligent simply because they have been chased.

Intelligent? Perhaps not. Adaptive? Yes, because the ones who get eaten aren't reproducing anymore.
Having two free hands, the humanoid primate developed "intelligence" as part of their "upwardly mobile" (two-legged) adaptive process.

Again, the point is missed. Many species evolve in a large part the way they do in order to eat or to avoid being eaten. Humans are simply a type of primate whose ancestors escaped being eaten.
Do you want to know which species didn't escape? Too bad! None of them exist!

If there hadn't been carnivorous predators chasing our early family members up into trees,
we wouldn't be having this goofy conversation.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The world will not become completely vegetarian overnight. It would be a gradual process (if it even happened, of course this is just hypothetically speaking). Even if 10,000 new people stopped eating meat everyday, the agri-businesses would simply stop breeding the livestock so much. The breeding would slow down, even stop if necessary until everyone became vegetarian or vegan. And then you have less slaughtering going on and eventually close the slaughter houses.

Yeah, but what where will the Angus cow live? It has no natural habitat.
Where will our cat food and dog food come from?

[David N. Snyder]

Yeah, but what where will the Angus cow live? It has no natural habitat.

I am not familiar with Angus cows and their natural habitat. Couldn't they survive just being out to pasture, roaming freely in a meadow? If there is no natural habitat, I suppose they could all be phased-out as people stopped eating meat, with just some kept for zoos if people or scientists wanted to keep some around. I don't think the environment would need to have that specific breed around if it did go extinct. And [to anticipate the follow-up question] no, that is not killing. If a being is not born, it does not get killed.

As mentioned previously, it is not as if millions of cows would be let loose. If everyone turned vegetarian it would most definitely not be overnight and rather a gradual process. The final 100 or less could be let loose or placed in zoos, if needed.

Where will our cat food and dog food come from?

That is perhaps another issue, but there are many animal rights activists who don't like pet ownership. Pet ownership could be phased out too or alternatively there are vegetarian dog foods that can be made with all the nutrition and protein a dog needs. Cats on the other hand are pretty strict carnivores. As the food science advances I imagine they may come up with a vegetarian alternative for cats too.

[Malcolm]

The world will not become completely vegetarian overnight. It would be a gradual process (if it even happened, of course this is just hypothetically speaking). Even if 10,000 new people stopped eating meat everyday, the agri-businesses would simply stop breeding the livestock so much. The breeding would slow down, even stop if necessary until everyone became vegetarian or vegan. And then you have less slaughtering going on and eventually close the slaughter houses.

Such sentiments display a complete lack of understanding of sustainable agriculture. It is not about agro-business. It is about environmental sanity. Environmental sanity requires animal husbandry since it is the primary way soil fertility is ensured.

[Malcolm]

That is perhaps another issue, but there are many animal rights activists who don't like pet ownership. Pet ownership could be phased out too or alternatively there are vegetarian dog foods that can be made with all the nutrition and protein a dog needs. Cats on the other hand are pretty strict carnivores. As the food science advances I imagine they may come up with a vegetarian alternative for cats too.

Nonsense. This is just a fantasy.

[Virgo]

Yeah, but what where will the Angus cow live? It has no natural habitat.

I am not familiar with Angus cows and their natural habitat. Couldn't they survive just being out to pasture, roaming freely in a meadow? If there is no natural habitat, I suppose they could all be phased-out as people stopped eating meat, with just some kept for zoos if people or scientists wanted to keep some around.

This goes against the nature of man. So who would enforce it, a government with lots of guns?

I have a lot of respect for you David, but on this one particular subject you seem to be a bit over the top.

Kevin

[David N. Snyder]

This goes against the nature of man. So who would enforce it, a government with lots of guns?

No one said anything about forced vegetarianism. I don't know where that came in? Guns? What do guns have to do with this? I thought the hypothetical was about what would happen to the cows if everyone (voluntarily) became vegetarian. No one is forcing anything on anyone in this hypothetical situation.

It was an answer to a hypothetical situation that will probably never happen and then I am accused of being "over the top"? Calling a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question nonsense? These are just logical fallacies of straw men, red herrings, etc. Better to address the issue rather than name calling.

And what I answered is correct. A vegetarian world is not going to happen overnight and in the unlikely event everyone did eventually become vegetarian, it would be gradual and thus, you can gradually reduce the numbers of livestock. Sustainable fertilized agriculture could still come from existing livestock and dairy farms if it were a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian world. Again, these are all hypothetical situations.

[Virgo]

It was an answer to a hypothetical situation that will probably never happen and then I am accused of being "over the top"? Calling a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question nonsense? These are just logical fallacies of straw men, red herrings, etc. Better to address the issue rather than name calling.

And what I answered is correct. A vegetarian world is not going to happen overnight and in the unlikely event everyone did eventually become vegetarian, it would be gradual and thus, you can gradually reduce the numbers of livestock. Sustainable fertilized agriculture could still come from existing livestock and dairy farms if it were a lacto or lacto-ovo vegetarian world. Again, these are all hypothetical situations.

Yes, I agree, this would be an ideal and is hypothetical. As far as addressing the issue is concerned, as I said I believe such a hypothetical proposition goes against the nature of man. However, with time, the nature of man could change. This would take a substantial amount of time, though, in terms of human generations. Perhaps one day it will happen. But, truthfully, I don't even think that will happen. However, my opinion on this is pure speculation.

Kevin

[Thrasymachus]

This goes against the nature of man. So who would enforce it, a government with lots of guns?

You are ignorant as to the underpinnings of the actually society you live in that make things like rampant meat consumption possible. Our whole social order is built on force and regulations, laws which are of course backed with force. In the movie End:Civ, the following example of how the threat of violence is always at the end of a small chain of consequences if we don't obey:

Second I said, “Ok well do you pay rent?”

And he’s like, “Yeah.”

And I said, “Why?”

And he said, “Because I don’t own.”

And I said, “No, no, no, what would happen if you didn’t pay rent?”

And he said, “Well the sheriff would come and evict me.”

I said, “I don’t know what that means. What would happen?”

He said, “So the sheriff would come and he’d knock on my door.”

I said, “Ok great, what happens if you open the door? And you say, ‘Hey, I’m just finishing up making dinner, would you want some?’ And so the sheriff sits down and you feed him. You don’t poison him, and then, uh, after dinner you say, ‘Well, You know, you’ve been somewhat pleasant company, but not all that pleasant, so I would like for you to leave my home now.’ What would happen?”

He said, “Well the sheriff would pull out his gun and say, ‘I’m here to evict you because you didn’t pay rent.’”

I said, “Ah, so the reason you pay rent is because if you don’t some guy with a gun is going to come and take you away.”

He said, “I think I get it.”

Now that is for people, for animals, especially livestock, they live with much more restrictions, with almost no choice possible and much more violence used against them to suit taste preferences which demand cheap meat. What people like you don't want to realize is that your way of life is predicated on a huge amount of violence, coercion, techniques of manipulation. For the developed world to live their relatively lavish lifestyle, they victimize most the rest of the globe. It is not a way of life you have a right to live, it is maintained by force, by the American military, its allies, by coercive institutions like the IMF, the World bank, etc.

So people are ok with force, what they are not ok is having to do with less than they are accustomed to, that is the root of the issue. If you are an adult and you don't already realize such things it is because you don't want to know.

[Malcolm]

Now that is for people, for animals, especially livestock, they live with much more restrictions, with almost no choice possible and much more violence used against them to suit taste preferences which demand cheap meat. What people like you don't want to realize is that your way of life is predicated on a huge amount of violence, coercion, techniques of manipulation. For the developed world to live their relatively lavish lifestyle, they victimize most the rest of the globe. It is not a way of life you have a right to live, it is maintained by force, by the American military, its allies, by coercive institutions like the IMF, the World bank, etc.

So people are ok with force, what they are not ok is having to do with less than they are accustomed to, that is the root of the issue. If you are an adult and you don't already realize such things it is because you don't want to know.

Oh I see, Veganism is the solution to the world woes? Give me a break.

[Thrasymachus]

Maybe you should be giving it the "breaks". You seem to feel a need to make lots of bad moral, ethical and environmental justifications that cannot be supported for meat eating. Obviously veganism involves displacing and dispossessing via force alot less animals and people(and insects too) from their land base than otherwise. The desire for meat is the biggest cause of deforestation and the destruction of the land base of the few remaining tribal societies. Obviously veganism promotes less violence and not more, if it didn't you could figure out an actual argument instead of innuendo.

[Malcolm]

Obviously veganism promotes less violence and not more, if it didn't you could figure out an actual argument instead of innuendo.

What nonsense.

[Thrasymachus]

That is also not an argument.

Earlier in this thread when you tried to produce what you thought were good arguments or facts for meat consumption you mentioned about hypothetical ideal grass feed livestock operations even specifically mentioning the infamous Polyface farm of Joel Salatin. I dealt with that here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99443&hilit=polyface+farms#p99443
and here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99470&hilit=vegetarian+myth#p99470
Counting the surrounding forest so vital to that operation you can only feed a very meager 2 people per 10 acres. That kind of meat is also very expensive for consumers, and like all other meat it is also costly for the environment and the health-care system.

[Virgo]

This goes against the nature of man. So who would enforce it, a government with lots of guns?

You are ignorant as to the underpinnings of the actually society you live in that make things like rampant meat consumption possible. Our whole social order is built on force and regulations, laws which are of course backed with force...

Now that is for people, for animals, especially livestock, they live with much more restrictions, with almost no choice possible and much more violence used against them to suit taste preferences which demand cheap meat. What people like you don't want to realize is that your way of life is predicated on a huge amount of violence, coercion, techniques of manipulation. For the developed world to live their relatively lavish lifestyle, they victimize most the rest of the globe. It is not a way of life you have a right to live, it is maintained by force, by the American military, its allies, by coercive institutions like the IMF, the World bank, etc.

So people are ok with force, what they are not ok is having to do with less than they are accustomed to, that is the root of the issue. If you are an adult and you don't already realize such things it is because you don't want to know.

I think you forgot the part about the nature of man. Unfortunately, human beings always have and always will use force. Why? Because people are determined to get what they want. You talk about the American military but the American military protects this country and the rule of law here for the most part with force, from others that would, in their absence, use nothing other than force to seize control and replace the rule of law, which works pretty well for the most part here, with some one or another shade of dictatorial, fascist regime, the likes of which the world has seen many, many times over and at who's hands hundreds of millions have humans, on top of animals, have been slaughtered.

Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin

[Malcolm]

That is also not an argument.

Earlier in this thread when you tried to produce what you thought were good arguments or facts for meat consumption you mentioned about hypothetical ideal grass feed livestock operations even specifically mentioning the infamous Polyface farm of Joel Salatin. I dealt with that here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99443&hilit=polyface+farms#p99443
and here: viewtopic.php?f=66&t=213&p=99470&hilit=vegetarian+myth#p99470
Counting the surrounding forest so vital to that operation you can only feed a very meager 2 people per 10 acres. That kind of meat is also very expensive for consumers, and like all other meat it is also costly for the environment and the health-care system.

The idea it their method of animal husbandry is costly for the enviroment is total nonsense. You obviously have not read a single thing written by Salatan.

M

[Malcolm]

Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin

Forget it Kev -- this guy is into the food police all the while complaining about "violence". Vegan fascism, basically.

[Virgo]

Maybe you ought to realize that it is the nature of man to use force. You seem to wish to deny this fact and ignore it. However, you would have the law makers force all people in the land to not eat meat at all, and have the enforcers of the law armed to the teeth to enforce such. Who's the one that's confused now?

Kevin

Forget it Kev -- this guy is into the food police all the while complaining about "violence". Vegan fascism, basically.

Essentially yes.

There is probably no getting through. However, I do admire his fervor for protecting animals, of course, but he needs to sit back and take a look at a few things.

Kevin

[PadmaVonSamba]

This goes against the nature of man.

I'm sorry, but any such concept such as "the nature of man" (aside from sexist phrasing) is complete nonsense and is not supported by any Buddhist teaching.

Ironically (@virgo), it is the very argument that "it is the nature of man to use force" which is the argument from which fascism as a political ideology, which you object to, claimed its legitimacy. Look up Giovanni Gentile for more on this.

The so-called "nature" of beings in the human realm (man and woman) is not defined by the means, but by the ends:
Humans are plagued by a constant state of dissatisfaction (dukkha) which can manifest as anything from the desire for a hamburger to the need to convert others to a vegan diet, or the frustration one feels because people who call themselves Buddhist eat meat and this seems hypocritical, and hypocrisy to some people is unbearable. It is the desire to be free from this constant dissatisfaction which is "the ends" to which means are employed.
But the means can vary. Sometimes people use force and sometimes they do not.

If it were an intrinsic characteristic of humans ("nature of man")to always use force,
then the Buddhist path would have never been taught as it was, and would be pointless to practice.
If it were an intrinsic characteristic of humans to use force, then using force would ultimately result in lasting happiness,
because the result would be in harmony with the basis for the action.

Quite a few, if not most of the arguments used by vegetarians to illustrate why not eating meat is a wise choice are valid. It may be better for your health, better for the environment, and will separate one slightly from the slaughterhouse industry.

But the underlying cause for choosing either to eat meat or not eat meat is exactly the same:
One mistakenly clings onto the idea that choosing one or the other will lead to happiness and will free oneself (and perhaps others) from suffering. maybe it has to do with feeling well fed, or of having a clear conscience. Whatever.
There are a billion different reasons for the things people choose to do.
But the motivation, or the motivation behind one's motivation is always the same.

Obviously, if millions of consumers stop buying beef (and you may remember when Oprah Winfrey's influence caused this to happen) or some other type of meat, it will have an impact on the market. That is all fine and well, but it will only mean that fewer livestock animals will be born (to die) in the future. It has no bearing on the lives of the animals alive right now. If people don't eat them, they will still be butchered anyway, because there will be no point in spending money to keep them alive.

There are a lot of ways to impact society and try to make things better, and a person should do what they can do. Fight injustice. Save the planet. But this has very little with Dharma. It makes absolutely no difference what you eat, if your mental attitude is still generated by clinging and only fuels anger and resentment. That is why I said before, some people pit vegetarianism against Buddhism. They pit clinging against non-clinging.
.
.
.