If eating meat is wrong because animals suffer, is it bad to eat animals that don’t suffer? Most farm animals are man-made, genetically modified by breeding, to provide food for man. I have been told that some humans cannot experience pain. I suppose that condition may occur from time to time in domestic animals. Suppose pain was bred out of animals raised for food or labs genetically modified animals to eliminate pain. Would meat eating then be less immoral?
Because domestic animals are bred for food, they are highly specialized. Dairy cattle and chicken cannot survive without human assistance. A friend likes to say that a farmer is just a cow’s way of living like a queen. The animals will die and be food for something. Is it morally better to let the animal die of foot and mouth and feed the death beetles instead of man?
I suspect that hanging a moral issue on meat eating because of suffering is anthropomorphic to some degree. All things die and become food. Even me.
To demonstrate that eating meat is unhealthy would require a sample of non-meat eating humans for comparison. Does such a population exist? My impression is that as economies have grown and more meat has been added to the diet that overall morbidity decreases. It is true that over indulgence in animal fat can cause problems in my culture but Eskimos ate nothing else for generations without ill effect. Today they get fat on sugar and starches. Is it the food that is bad or the lifestyle?
Unsustainable agriculture is agriculture that drains the soil of nutritive value. In the 17th and 18th century soils all over Europe were depleted. North America was the solution. But modern farming and so-called factory farming have reversed that trend. Soils that could no longer support people are now producing excesses of crops. Instead of increasing exports, the European Union has had to mandate ‘set asides’ where no crops can be grown to prevent mountains of over supply.
Fact is that domestic animals have better lives and better deaths then any of their wild fellows enjoy.
Fact is that a meat eating diet improves the overall health of developing nations.
Fact is that intensive modern agriculture and factory farming have reduced the burden on nature and virtually eliminated human hunger wherever it is practiced.
Vegetarianism is a choice but it is not a moral choice.
If eating meat is wrong because animals suffer, is it bad to eat animals that don’t suffer? (...) modified animals to eliminate pain. Would meat eating then be less immoral?
You probably know The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. There, the food presents itself before committing suicide to be eaten later. Nice thought, though as I think currently I would disapprove of creating a sentient being that wants to kill itself. But maybe that’s just me.
However, I would rate it as much less bad to kill a no-suffer animal, as I already disapprove much less of killing insects than of fish.
Dairy cattle and chicken cannot survive without human assistance.
Well, most of humans could not survive with other humans assistance either… I for instance would definitely not survive on my own.
I suspect that hanging a moral issue on meat eating because of suffering is anthropomorphic to some degree.
Not eating meat is often anthropomorphic too. Try killing a kitten on the streets to eat it by yourself. Even better: Buy a dog, go out, kick it. You will be charged with cruelty to animals (at least where I live, and I support that charge).
All things die and become food. Even me.
Most people here want that to be changed. Some people here, EY for instance, even simply want to change it, if it just would be so simple...
My impression is that as economies have grown and more meat has been added to the diet that overall morbidity decreases.
From statistics within industrialized countries we know that not eating meat does not cause earlier death. So I would cancel the meat out of the causality loop here. There is lot of protein deficiency in the 3rd world. Meat is one way to solve that issue, but not the only. Depending on the natural givens around, local food production may even depend on it.
Fact is that domestic animals have better lives and better deaths then any of their wild fellows enjoy.
Well, only partly agree. Even in Austria (with relatively high de-facto standards for farm animals) wild animals do not live worse, and for pigs, for instance, the standard for farm animals is horribly low. Cows, in general, die very painlessly. There are some farmers who even shoot the cow while on the grass, to reduce any pre-death stress to practically zero.
Fact is that a meat eating diet improves the overall health of developing nations.
Well, taking the correct amount and relations of macro- and micronutrients is healthier than incomplete diets. Meat is a (health-wise) good possibility, but not the only option.
Vegetarianism is a choice but it is not a moral choice.
Well, I am glad you explained my moral system to me.
Ugh. Without paragraph breaks, the above is very unpleasant to read. Please add more structure to your posts.
some humans cannot experience pain
Human vegetables cannot experience pain. Some aware humans may not experience pain from being burnt or cut, but they still experience emotional and psychological pain. This is a very important distinction. I think much of the suffering we cause animals is in the latter categories, although I think they have far less ability to experience such (so the same situations cause far less pain then they would a human).
That said, if we treat and kill animals humanely, their deaths don’t bother me unless the animals seem aware and intelligent enough to be invested in goals that we might be thwarting by ending their lives.
Likewise, if we could engineer animals so that they could not feel any sort of pain or distress, physical or emotional, I don’t think I could object to any sort of ill-treatment. I wouldn’t necessarily approve, but that’s more of a squick thing than an actual offense to my morals.
If eating meat is wrong because animals suffer, is it bad to eat animals that don’t suffer? Most farm animals are man-made, genetically modified by breeding, to provide food for man. I have been told that some humans cannot experience pain. I suppose that condition may occur from time to time in domestic animals. Suppose pain was bred out of animals raised for food or labs genetically modified animals to eliminate pain. Would meat eating then be less immoral? Because domestic animals are bred for food, they are highly specialized. Dairy cattle and chicken cannot survive without human assistance. A friend likes to say that a farmer is just a cow’s way of living like a queen. The animals will die and be food for something. Is it morally better to let the animal die of foot and mouth and feed the death beetles instead of man? I suspect that hanging a moral issue on meat eating because of suffering is anthropomorphic to some degree. All things die and become food. Even me. To demonstrate that eating meat is unhealthy would require a sample of non-meat eating humans for comparison. Does such a population exist? My impression is that as economies have grown and more meat has been added to the diet that overall morbidity decreases. It is true that over indulgence in animal fat can cause problems in my culture but Eskimos ate nothing else for generations without ill effect. Today they get fat on sugar and starches. Is it the food that is bad or the lifestyle? Unsustainable agriculture is agriculture that drains the soil of nutritive value. In the 17th and 18th century soils all over Europe were depleted. North America was the solution. But modern farming and so-called factory farming have reversed that trend. Soils that could no longer support people are now producing excesses of crops. Instead of increasing exports, the European Union has had to mandate ‘set asides’ where no crops can be grown to prevent mountains of over supply. Fact is that domestic animals have better lives and better deaths then any of their wild fellows enjoy. Fact is that a meat eating diet improves the overall health of developing nations. Fact is that intensive modern agriculture and factory farming have reduced the burden on nature and virtually eliminated human hunger wherever it is practiced. Vegetarianism is a choice but it is not a moral choice.
Well, you start with an interesting tidbit:
You probably know The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. There, the food presents itself before committing suicide to be eaten later. Nice thought, though as I think currently I would disapprove of creating a sentient being that wants to kill itself. But maybe that’s just me.
However, I would rate it as much less bad to kill a no-suffer animal, as I already disapprove much less of killing insects than of fish.
Well, most of humans could not survive with other humans assistance either… I for instance would definitely not survive on my own.
Not eating meat is often anthropomorphic too. Try killing a kitten on the streets to eat it by yourself. Even better: Buy a dog, go out, kick it. You will be charged with cruelty to animals (at least where I live, and I support that charge).
Most people here want that to be changed. Some people here, EY for instance, even simply want to change it, if it just would be so simple...
From statistics within industrialized countries we know that not eating meat does not cause earlier death. So I would cancel the meat out of the causality loop here. There is lot of protein deficiency in the 3rd world. Meat is one way to solve that issue, but not the only. Depending on the natural givens around, local food production may even depend on it.
Well, only partly agree. Even in Austria (with relatively high de-facto standards for farm animals) wild animals do not live worse, and for pigs, for instance, the standard for farm animals is horribly low. Cows, in general, die very painlessly. There are some farmers who even shoot the cow while on the grass, to reduce any pre-death stress to practically zero.
Well, taking the correct amount and relations of macro- and micronutrients is healthier than incomplete diets. Meat is a (health-wise) good possibility, but not the only option.
Well, I am glad you explained my moral system to me.
Ugh. Without paragraph breaks, the above is very unpleasant to read. Please add more structure to your posts.
Human vegetables cannot experience pain. Some aware humans may not experience pain from being burnt or cut, but they still experience emotional and psychological pain. This is a very important distinction. I think much of the suffering we cause animals is in the latter categories, although I think they have far less ability to experience such (so the same situations cause far less pain then they would a human).
That said, if we treat and kill animals humanely, their deaths don’t bother me unless the animals seem aware and intelligent enough to be invested in goals that we might be thwarting by ending their lives.
Likewise, if we could engineer animals so that they could not feel any sort of pain or distress, physical or emotional, I don’t think I could object to any sort of ill-treatment. I wouldn’t necessarily approve, but that’s more of a squick thing than an actual offense to my morals.
I did. It seemed fine in the ‘post’ window. But the original formatting was done in Word.