SxE, Vegetarianism, Veganism

Yet we ARE starting to realise our mistakes and such mistakes are a speck on the scale of higher reasoning if you ask me. I don't see a dog solving mathematical problems or contemplating the meaning of his existence. I don't see cats developing new forms of surgery, advocating for the protection of the environment or trying to clean up past mistakes.
Just to give 2 simple examples.

 

Some realise the mistakes, most don't and probably never will.

What you are doing is quantifying scientific developments as a criteria to justify our own self importance. Isn't this the same god complex that Christians use so to justify their dominion over the birds of the air and the beasts of the field? I mean with all our technological developments in mathematics, surgery, rocket science or whatever we are still royally fucked, are we not?

I accept that we appear to ourselves as having higher faculties than other species, that we are capable of manipulating the enviromnent on a much greater scale than other species etc but it doesn't follow that this somehow gives us permission to inflict suffering on other species.

I think inflicting pain and suffering on any sentient species is inherently wrong and I seek to minimise it in whatever way I can. I think all living things should be given consideration because of the interdependent role they play - we need to stop looking at ourselves in isolation and accept that we are just a part of this incredible thing called life.

 

I never said I disagree with you on that point. I merely made an attempt to rationalise your previous post from my point of view.
Most animals don't even realise they are looking at themselves in a mirror, this to me indicates a lack of self-awareness and sapience (as opposed to sentience).
And technically you are right in comparing it to Christianity, yet from my point of view Christians are worse they inflict their distinction not only on different species, but also on their own species. This in and of itself seems to be the greatest fallacy in Christianity, to me.
And if you're going to call it a God complex, remember that God is not only supposed to be the indifferent bastard that lets everything happen, the bastard that causes famine, plague, etc and blames it on another iconic figure. He is also supposed to be the loving and nurturing father.
As for the non-realisation, this isn't just due to the fact that people don't care, but most people are uninformed, if you ask me.

 

well it's not really that I was skeptical about veganism....it's just that when I became vegetarian I had some pretty serious weight problems with all kinds of fainting and things of the like sonow that I'm a bit fatter i needed to make sure I didn't repeat the same process becoming vegan.

 

i get that. not as fun now, shame on me! i know some vegans with problems like that too, one who's dietician told her to eat more candy

 

Rathryn:

"Most animals don't even realise they are looking at themselves in a mirror, this to me indicates a lack of self-awareness and sapience (as opposed to sentience)".

No. Self-awareness IS sentience - the ability to suffer, for example. Sapience is more concerned with 'wisdom'. A dog who is hot, moves out of the sun and lies down in the shade is showing sapience.
Are you saying that animals are neither sentient nor sapient? Both humans and most animals are sentient - there is a degree of difference in terms of sapience but I'm reluctant to try to quantify that difference even though I'm aware of it because it is counterproductive as I suggested in my last post.

I think the problem is with sapience - what I'm saying is that I agree there are marked differences with sapience between humans and non-humans. I'm just saying that I don't think that justifies their abuse. And the reason is because of their sentience on the one hand and because the balance of humans, animals and the environment is interdependent. In order to preserve the balance we need to collectively minimise our impact upon it.

Regarding animals the philosopher Bentham wrote:

"The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but, "Can they suffer?"

The debate over sentience continued from Bentham's time until 1997 when animal sentience was written into European law and annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam which was enforced from 1999. In effect this is a legal requirment to protect animals and 'pay full regard to their welfare' because they are sentient beings.

 

It's an "absolute" if it's true, if it can be verified to be true. Gravity is an absolute truth, as is evolution. There are philosophical and moral truths as well. I explained the reasons why very clearly, although I shouldn't have to because it's such a basic truism.

This is psychologically interesting. You don't seem to be capable in acknowledging any human progress or anything positive about the human species.

That would be more valuable if that had been what I said. You are free to argue against what I did not say, but it seems a wasted exercise.

That human civilization has created a substantial amount of pollution is a fact, however you're conclusion based on that fact is flawed. Saying that this means humans aren't that smart is like claiming your dog is stupid because he wrote a book, but didn't indent his paragraphs. Moreover, there are innumerable examples that prove most if not all species will exceed the carrying capacity of their local environment, if circumstances allow. The reason this doesn't happen more often is that in the forest, the ocean, wherever,..there is such a large interplay of prey and predators and such that there's usually something else that wants to eat or kill said organism, limiting it's ability for expansion. Part of our problem is the price of success. We have evolved, physically and technologically (The two are inexorably linked.) where other organisms pose very little threat. This is the point of evolution, to become a better survivor, etc., etc. Now we have to learn to keep ourselves in check. If you look at polls, the environment is a larger priority of the public than it is of the ruling institutions; governments, corporations, etc. There is a marked disconnect between the wants of the elites, or the large monolithic institutions, that are totally seperate from the interests of the average person. I would think that's fairly obvious, and is a pretty basic staple of Anarchist thought and literature. We can talk about what to do about that, but it's a seperate subject.

 

You're essentially playing a shell game with words. The fact that you seem to be dancing around is that animals do not posess true consciousness. They lack the higher reasoning, comprehension, and unserstanding of abstract concepts that the human brain can handle. The dog moving out of the sun is responding to physical stimulation, I fully acknowledge many lifeforms have functioning nervous systems. When the dog looks up at the sun and starts to wonder what it is, or postulate about gravity, or say "Cogito Ergo Sum", then we will have to reevaluate it's place in society. This is why I mentioned the study of dolphins; this is coming from the facts. Just as judge Posner insisted in his debate with Peter Singer. (Which he won, as far as I'm concerned.)

In the words of John Adams; " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

How big of you.

No one is defending deliberate animal abuse. No one is suggesting kicking puppies as a pastime. What I do defend, and do support, beceasue it's defensIBLE, is vivisection for medical research, and the consumption of animals as food. You're going to say; "But that is abuse." and perhaps you'll even be compelled to link to some gory Peta video. I would in turn suggest you tune in to the nature channel and view a gazelle being torn to pieces by a lion. I garuntee it's very upsetting for the gazelle.

The reason we kill our food in factories as opposed to with our hands or sharp sticks is because this is the backbone of civilization; agriculture. Without it nine tenths of our energy would be limited to keeping ourselves biologically alive and we wouldn't be able to pursue other endeavors.

If you want to argue about not using antibiotics or hormones, or free range, I'm all for it. However, your kind usually make that kind of conversation impossible, deliberately so.

Here's one of the big points where your argument collides with itself. You insist humans are no better than any other animal, yet you expect us to show deference and care for other species, which no other creature on earth does, and only we are capable of.

"Sentient", "conscious", whatever you want to call it. We have it. They don't. It matters.

This one of the few things you've said that make sense. I totally support efforts to protect the environment. From hybrid or electric vehicles, to recycling, to long-term projects like fusion power or space colonization.

I fully acknowledge vegetarianism/veganism is better for the environment. If you just stuck to that argument which is a sensible and largely unassailible argument, then there would be no problem.

I referenced this several times.

Shell game, again. Most of them have nervous systems, but they do not posess the awareness, the level of consciousness. What I would call true sentience. Call it whatever you want, it's irrelevant.
The end result is the same.

 

My mom's original reasoning behind converting to vegetarianism was because of the poor handling and standards of meet processing in the USA. I mean, you'd figure that in one of the most "technologically advanced" countries in the world our FOOD of all the goddamn things would at least be safe, but the truth is that it's simply not. When she and I converted the rest of my family followed. My reasoning was originally environmental. I decided I could no longer talk about becoming more ecologically sound until I started eating food that would not taint the environment. My dad converted because of his health (overweight and diabetes ridden) and now after about 2 months of vegetarianism for him he's about 50 percent healthier then he was as a carnivore. My little sister converted because of ethical reasons (she's little so that probably could have been predicted). So I'd say that i possess a reasonable amount of understanding on all the reasons to start living a vegetarian lifestyle and I see almost NO valid way to take an anti-vegetarian standpoint. It's sort of like being mad at someone for giving up alcohol..... It has no basis other then petty personal preference.

 

Very true, and a very legitimate concern.

As I said, this is the best argument to give up meat.

Vegetarianism/veganism can be very helpful for people who are struggling with obesity or heart disease. However, unfortunately, a lot of vegan/vegetarian foods tend to be very high in sodium (Veggie burgers contain 3X the sodium, for example.) which can be a health concern.

I have no problem with vegetarianism, or even veganism. As long as people do it intelligently, and make sure they get their nutritional requirements. Actually, I think it's a good thing.

My problem is with this deeply flawed radical animal rights ideology which often accompanies it. First, because it's fundamentally illogical and has many inherent falsehoods, and secondly because I see it as detracting from real issues. My dislike for this ideology is not that different from my disdain for Scientology. It is a set of flawed, irrational beliefs.

 

I pretty much agree with you. When I saw that movie "Earthlings" with all that bullshit about "speciesism" I almost choked on my seitan laughing q: as if the problem of speciesism even deserves to have the same linguistic properties as racism or sexism.....I don't believe humans have any place above animals (as evolution occurs in a circle with humans on the bottom left and not a pyrimad with humans at the top). But "speciesism"? come on. q:

 

With all the rhetoric babel in this thread, i still haven't been persuaded to change my views on anything, but you know where i stand, im a VEGETARIAN BARBARIAN!!! AARRRGGGHHH!!!!

 

The part I will never agree with is the torture of animals for Pharmaceutical purpose NGMN85, for the simple reasons that A. It isn't done primarily for 'Humanitarian' reasons but for an out and out greed for Profits. and B. We continue to extend and expand the amount of people on the planet with only finite resources and space. How can you justify these things ? If these companies had Mankind's advancement as the only objective then your arguments might hold water, but they don't and thats been proved many times over. I think if you compare all animal rights activists to scientologists you'd be the one being shortsighted and intolerant. Like anything in life or any deep philosophical belief, extremism is tantamount to fascism.

 

I think your are being a little patronsing with some of your replies and perhaps it would be 'big of you' to have a little bit more respect. You have posited some interesting questions however and I have agreed with some of your points while others I might tend to agree with but because I don't find them quantifiable I don't consider them qualitive.

I also think that you are adding things into what I'm saying which are not implied however I'll accept that some of my posts are a little off the cuff as I sometimes don't have the time to go into considered replies.

I agreed with you that many vegetarians don't offer good debates for why they are vegetarian. I offered a number of points as to why I personally made the decision. To reiterate those points in no particular order:

1. Animal sentience/issues of cruelty
2. Environmental considerations
3. Health reasons

As far as I can tell you agree wholeheartedly with point 2, agree in principle with point 3 though with some reservation and you disagree with point 1 entirely. Is that correct?
Apologies if I've got that wrong. You say vegetarianism is a good thing. Are you a vegetarian? Perhaps you might consider it on points 2 and 3? I consider the 3 points above to be inter-related however.
Animals do feel pain. That is an incontrovertible fact. Pain in most cases is wrong and unnecessary so from an ethical perspective we should try to minimize it. Peter Singer's argument was that because animals suffer pain, and in some instances are also self-aware, they are also sentient beings. This sentience is widely accepted - you mentioned the case of the dolphins earlier - hence it's adaptation into European law in 1997 for example as I mentioned earlier. Now this is where you are reading things into things.

I am not saying that animal are equal to humans. I am not saying that animals should have the same rights as humans. Nor did Singer. I am saying that because of their sentience we might minimize our impact upon them through the moral choices we make. To argue about levels of sentience is missing the point entirely. Singer talks about giving equal consideration of interests:

"Human beings were seen as quite distinct from, and infinitely superior to, all forms of animal life. If our interests conflict with theirs, it is always their interests which have to give way. In contrast with this approach, the view that I want to defend puts human and nonhuman animals, as such, on the same moral footing. That is the sense in which I argued, in Animal Liberation, that "all animals are equal." But to avoid common misunderstandings, I need to be careful to spell out exactly what I mean by this. Obviously nonhuman animals cannot have equal rights to vote and nor should they be held criminally responsible for what they do. That is not the kind of equality I want to extend to nonhuman animals. The fundamental form of equality is equal consideration of interests, and it is this that we should extend beyond the boundaries of our own species. Essentially this means that if an animal feels pain, the pain matters as much as it does when a human feels pain—if the pains hurts just as much. How bad pain and suffering are does not depend on the species of being that experiences it.

People often say, without much thought, that all human beings are infinitely more valuable than any animals of any other species. This view owes more to our own selfish interests and to ancient religious teachings that reflect these interests than to reason or impartial moral reflection. What ethically significant feature can there be that all human beings but no nonhuman animals possess? We like to distinguish ourselves from animals by saying that only humans are rational, can use language, are self-aware, or are autonomous. But these abilities, significant as they are, do not enable us to draw the requisite line between all humans and nonhuman animals. For there are many humans who are not rational, self-aware, or autonomous, and who have no language—all humans under 3 months of age, for a start. And even if they are excluded, on the grounds that they have the potential to develop these capacities, there are other human beings who do not have this potential. Sadly, some humans are born with brain damage so severe that they will never be able to reason, see themselves as an independent being, existing over time, make their own decisions, or learn any form of language."

(Incidentally this extract was from a letter to Posner, whom you mentioned - I wasn't aware of this debate but reading that Posner had based his ideas on "his own intuition" I stopped reading. Singer is often misinterpreted and that's why I suggest reading the book itself. I'm probably not doing it justice but I accept the basic premise of equal consideration form a philosophical point.)

We also know, and you have suggested the case of dolphins, of instances of higher self-awareness in some animals. We have no real way of knowing to what extent animals are self-aware within their own perception but that is NOT the argument. The argument is about the negation of pain and suffering. My comment on humans not being that smart in relation to the general mess they've made of things is not explicitly relevant to this particular argument but was an off the cuff remark to another poster. It's a different debate which could be discussed in another post.

From the utilitarian perspective, as I mentioned earlier, there are times when it is necessary to kill animals for survival, or as some including yourself have remarked, for the advance of medicine. There may be other reasons. I agree with that in principle. But we might minimize it. I don't accept the argument for vivisection however - using a completely different species with 'similar' systems and functions is at best 40% accurate but more so due to the considerable alternatives now available.

Killings animals for food - again if it is necessary but increasingly it is becoming detrimental to the environment and to human and animal health and increasingly at least it should be minimized. Please don't assume how I will respond and patronize me with references to PETA videos or talking of 'my kind'. Insulting people is not an argument.

To sum up - we should minimize the pain and suffering we inflict on animals because they can suffer pain. You yourself have agreed with this.

 

If you're proposing some sort of democratic or libertarian socialism as a preferable arrangement I'd be inclined to agree. Actually, it's interesting how the european social democracies are doing so much better during this economic crisis, for obvious reasons. However, you have to seperate the product from the producer.
I'll again use the analogy of the Nike controversy some years back with the soccer balls. Now, employing sweatshop labor is wrong, that is a given. However, this does not make soccer balls, the production of soccer balls, or the use of soccer balls inherently malign.
Second, that even though this may be the case, the technology still is helpful when it is availible. Also, on a long enough time scale most technologies become cheap and ubiquitous. Cell phones are a great example.
If scientists were running the world it would be a much better place, they aren't the ones creating all the misery on the planet. Sure, they discovered the ability to split the atom; but governments decided that it should be used as a weapon. Surely Einstein and Oppenheimer never wanted to create such a thing. Both became strong opponants of nuclear weapons.
Expanding human knowledge is an inherently noble and worthwhile pursuit. Unfortunately, we live in entrenched power structures who seek to use these discoveries to less than savory ends, or limit people's access to them. This is a reason to change our social structure, NOT a reason to limit the expansion of human knowledge.

First of all, we're not necessarily talking about increasing the population. In fact, in a lot of the advanced western countries growth is minimal. Population growth is booming generally in the third world for a number of reasons; lack of education, lack of contraceptives, or simple poverty. I find enforcing China-style reproductive limits unpalatable, but I think this can be dealt with with a little thought and education.
I've advocated elsewhere that we need to change our attitudes about reproduction. I think this will happen automatically, barring an existential disaster. Once we perfect radical human life extension there will probably have to be a choice, between a society with lots of children or a society with longer lifespans. I would assume people would choose the latter.

I also fully support initiatives to protect the environment. In fact, cutting-edge tech offers some of the best tools to do that. Like nanotech solar panels, nuclear fusion, genetically engineering microbes to eat plastic or carbon dioxide, I also mentioned expanding into outer space. There are always risks. However, at our present stage of development I think it's clear that the risk of slowing technological progress is actually far greater than the alternative.

Getting back to something resembling the initial topic of conversation; I support vivisection because it is necessary in science which will save human lives and end incalcuable pain of those who suffer from presently incurable illnesses.

Your criteria are flawed. First of all, just because a lot of the science is being done by ethically dubious corporations, (In fact, most of it is actually publicly funded; directly or indirectly.) doesn't mean there isn't any other way of doing it. It also doesn't mean that it still doesn't help people. You're blaming the soccer ball.

Ehh, I'll agree extremism is generally bad. With some exception, like extreme kindness, or being extremely rational. However, ideological extremism is exactly what I'm arguing against. This is an EXTREMIST animal rights ideology. The comparison with Scientology is apt because it is like Scientology in the sense that it is an illogical and irrational dogmatism.
Back to the subject at hand....?

 

As I recall you're the one who started being a wiseass.

I think that's where you're running into major problems.

Consider this thread Exhibit A.

Well, it's two issues. One is the sodium, which is a big issue for people with heart conditions and such. The second is the increased difficulty and care required to acheive ones' nutritional requirements on a vegetarian, or, especially, vegan diet. Given with what I judge to be the intelligence of the average person, militant veggos included, I see a lot of room for problems.
That said I'm more concerned with pregnancies or small children. What adults do to or with themselves is a far lesser concern.

Not entirely. As I said I don't condone beating animals, and such. I'm defending the consumption as food and for use in medical expiriments.

Tried it for awhile, the sodium became an issue and I wasn't getting quite all my necessary vitamins and what have you. I wouldn't mind giving it another shot, presently I'm taking a course on nutrition. I wopuld say, however, that I eat less meat than most Americans.

The second and third argument are drastically superior. As I said, the environmental aspect is essentially unassailible.

Most animals DO have nervous systems.

My key addition to that phrase is; "within reason."

Here's where things get unnecessarily complicated. I generally only use the word sentient to describe a human or equivalent consciousness, such as artificial or, hypothetical extraterrestrial life. Admittedly, the word is used in different contexts by different people, but let's get real. You know what I mean when I talk about sentience, and animals aren't capable of it. That is the point. That matters.

Many animal rights extremists do, including many on this thread.

Again; "within reason."

Au contraire. I think it's paramount.

Generally, yes. For some very good reasons.

...And that is where we head off into left field.

I don't think anyone is considering extending that kind of equality to animals.

No. This is absolutely false.

No, it doesn't. My view does not depend on selfishness and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with religion.

Yes, they do.

BUT they are STILL human, just damaged humans.

You should read Posner's response. I don't agree with all of it, but a lot of it.

110%?, at present, no. However, we can pretty easily discern all we need to know. It IS possible to test intelligence, reasoning, abstract thinking. For example the Turing test, or with the primate expiriments with Nim Chimpsky, or Koko. The dolphin studies I cited, for instance. There are innumerable examples. It's pretty easy. We can also know this simply by studying brain structure.

No, that's not the argument YOU want to have. It's absolutely integral.

Then we can talk of killing cows more gently/quickly, "free range", etc. Good idea, all for it. However, most "animal rights" types make that discussion impossible.

I'll just drop it for the moment.

The alternatives simply aren't sufficient, yet. For example, transplanting cloned or genetically enginnered tissue and organs. There are hundreds of other reasons. In a few years, maybe decades, when we have sufficient computer simulations, THEN, we can stop. At that point the simulation will be far superior, anyway.

Well, the human health factor has more to do with injecting the animals with chemicals that don't belong in them or us, and overconsumption. Again, if you'd stopped there it wouldn't be an issue. Those are solid, legitimate arguments.

I was also making a point. That animals butcher eachother on a regular basis. I also despise PETA.

[/quote]

......"Within reason."

 

Veganism as well as all other forms of conscious consumerism do nothing but perpetuate the social relationships that this society is built upon. If you want to eat meat then do it if not then don't, but if you do choose to maintain a vegan diet don't front like your saving the world. The processes of production are much more complex than "every time you eat meat an animal dies". I don't care if capitalism is vegan or "socially conscious"(tm), it's still equally opressive to both human and non human animals. That's the nature of capitalism and nothing will change if continue to play the roles we have been taught to play.

 

What's sentience got to go with it, they are alive, arn't they? Vegan for some time, you can eat what you want, I suppose, but you eat that shit near me don't be surprised when I throw up on you.

 

I stand corrected, seems I mixed up some definitions...

 

Not really. The most simple definition of 'sentience' is to perceive subjectively, the simplest definition of 'sapiece' is to make judgements. However, in some cases either word is used to describe the same thing, and they are occasionally used interchangeably. I think it's really become more of a stumbling block in this conversation. I encounter the term most often in science fiction, philosophy, or science texts, usually relating to AI. In these instances it is primarily used to denote human or equivalent intelligence. So, that's how I use it.