Athiestic view on animal rights..

[Coldbourne]

I personally think that animals are for eating, but I was wondering what the forum consensus was.
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....

Just a train of thought to get things going :

If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning murder?

[Rhinoqulous]

I consider the killing of certain "high-function" animals, such as the Great Apes, to be more akin to murder. I'm also for ethical treatment animals, I'm not a veggie or a vegan, but I'm against practices like nailing a goose's feet to the floor of a cage and force-feeding through tubes. I like my meat, but you don't need to torture the meat just so it tastes a little bit better.

Rhinoq

[ChiefOfAss]

I like Rhinoqulous' answer, and I agree with it. He's clearly a member of the much maligned and marginalized "Please Be Reasonable" 527 PAC. Notice how he felt obligated to qualify himself as not being a "veggie" or "vegan"? That's cuz, in today's world, we only allow the fringe to speak for either side.

Which is my next point:
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....
You have to question why you feel that way about PETA. They serve an important purpose.


If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
I don't think the origin of morality is based in survival or reproduction. I think morality is a by product of humans living together and the need to establish order. It was first defined by the leaders of the first social orders, then it was slowly standardized into a so-called, "moral code" in order to control larger groups of people than could be administered by a single "alpha" role.

Non-human social structures are small enough do be dominated by a single authority (individual or group). So no. I don't think they do as well (I concede that it's hard to know).

[Red Mage]

I like Rhinoqulous' answer, and I agree with it. He's clearly a member of the much maligned and marginalized "Please Be Reasonable" 527 PAC. Notice how he felt obligated to qualify himself as not being a "veggie" or "vegan"? That's cuz, in today's world, we only allow the fringe to speak for either side.

Which is my next point:
I also would like to catapult dead cows into PETA headquarters, but that is just me....
You have to question why you feel that way about PETA. They serve an important purpose.
An important purpose all right.
They promote terrorism (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2088). They're blatant hypocrites (http://www.huntersunite.com/peta.htm). They're the very definition of domestic terrorism and radical extremism (http://www.animalscam.com/). Look around those sites... PETA isn't all it's cracked up to be.

...Penn and Teller even say so.

[ChiefOfAss]

Well, if Penn and Teller are onboard, then.......

Think a little "bigger", OK. Each end of the ideological spectrum, the means manifest themselves in pretty much the same way.

Without radical organizations like PETA, some component of our world would be left without a counter balance. Maybe we don't like their methods or even their message, but today - as in other cultures through time - the relative strength of the extremes move the center.

Nobody stands up for legalizing weed except for pot-heads. Nobody stands up for gay rights, except for flaming mo's. However, most people probably do not object to either (just a guess). So, we need the extremes to keep society moving ahead (or stumbling backward).

Alls I'm saying is that PETA, while crazed, defends the moderate beliefs of the center, albeit in a 'round about way.

[Rhinoqulous]

I agree with CoA. While I don't agree with much of what PETA does, or the Earth-First movement, they serve an important counter-balance to those that have little to no regard for the environment (such as the Bush administration). Face it, the average Joe or Jane doesn't do much in there day in regards to environmentalism, or animal rights, etc. The extremists are out, causing social pressure, and this pressure effects the moderates, who then place pressure for social change.

There is a problem with how radical groups try to express their message. There's a BIG difference in a radical chaining themselves to a tree to stop logging and a radical using explosives to destroy logging equipment (both of which has happened here in the US by Earth-Firsters). I've come across this first hand recently. A few months ago, when King George II made his first stop on his Social Security "Town Hall" meetings, I did my civic duty and took the day off of work to go protest. Now, the majority of protestors were not radicals, but simply people who disagreed with the Bush administration on one point or another. I went with a few friends; we made some nice signs (courtesy of those fine folks at C-Jack, because Robb's a pussy and doesn't want to be linked to an atheist website (http://robojackstudios.com/)), and shouted slogans against SS and Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto accord. There were a couple of hundred protestors, and a small handful (less than a dozen) was of the "dirty anarchist" variety. The anarchists were rude, shouting, swearing, throwing snowballs at people, and just generally being vulgar (don't get me wrong, I love vulgarity in the proper context). The "peaceful" protestors outnumbered the rowdy anarchists by about 10-1, but who made the bigger impact? The anarchists of course. While most of the protestors were in agreement on a lot of issues, the anarchists went about it the wrong way. Whipping snowballs at Bush supporters and calling people in uniform "Gestapo" and "baby killers" is not going to persuade anyone that Bush's ideas on anything are wrong, it's going to have the opposite effect. I'm sure most of those who went to see the prez went away feeling justified in their beliefs that us "anti-Bushers" are no-good heathens. So, to end this un-interesting ramble, being a radical is all right, as long as the message isn't lost in the antics.

Rhinoq

[ChiefOfAss]

Right, well.. on the other side are literally jack-booted ultra conservatives.. who shout from beneath their hoods.

Then, there's the pro-life people who shoot abortion doc's. The spectrum is meaningful because each of us decides which polar extreme is most repellant.

For example: I'd rather mix it up with some dirty anarchists than dodge the gas chamber with neo-con-Christians. I'd rather avoid them both, but the lesser of two evils depends on how close to each pole you are.

[ocmpoma]

"If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?"
Yes.

"If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning murder?"
Well, murder is commonly used to label an unlawful killing, so, if you don't mind, I'll re-phrase your second question:
If so, would it make killing animals capable of such reasoning wrong?
As for it being right or wrong morally, that is always up to the individual. However, I have never encountered a logical, rational argument pointing out any difference in killing a human and killing an ant.

[ghoulslime]

I think the sage Rhinoqulous has articulated my position exactly.

I eat steak. I wear leather jackets. And on two separate occasions, I’ve beaten the living shit out of my fellow humans for being cruel to animals – one joker for throwing a rabbit by its ears up in the air, two sadistic assholes for twirling a baby magpie around and around until its leg twisted off.

Using our fellow creatures for food is acceptable to me - being cruel is not.

[z3n]

Using our fellow creatures for food is acceptable to me - being cruel is not.
That’s kind of my take on it as well but I sort of take it a step further because I consider current meat production methods to be cruel as well. All of the major meat animals are kept packed tightly together in horrible conditions and killed using brutal methods.

I am constantly working on eating less and less meat in an effort to become a vegetarian. Of course I’m doing it more for the health benefits since if done it's right, it has been studied and found that a vegetarian diet is more healthful then a meat eating one. However, I feel that since it’s no longer a necessity for humans to eat meat then there really isn’t any reason to do so (modern foods and supplements make it fairly easy to be a vegetarian). I don’t value animal life over human life of course, but I do feel for the most part that it’s wrong to kill animals merely for taste and/or convenience.

[z3n]

Eating fish (or any meat) is not vital for a human’s survival.

[Tenspace]

I agree only if it's vital for survival, eating fish and pleny of mushrooms do me fine.
Now we understand. You need to check those mushrooms after you pick them, spark. Search the internet.... learn about the purple skirt and the bruise test. :D

Ten

[whoneedscience]

If humans developed morality as a survival/reproductive mechanism, would it stand to reason that other animals did as well?
I don't think the origin of morality is based in survival or reproduction. I think morality is a by product of humans living together and the need to establish order. It was first defined by the leaders of the first social orders, then it was slowly standardized into a so-called, "moral code" in order to control larger groups of people than could be administered by a single "alpha" role.

Non-human social structures are small enough do be dominated by a single authority (individual or group). So no. I don't think they do as well (I concede that it's hard to know).
I disagree. There's an interresting article in April's Scientific American ("How Animals do Business" by Frans B. M. de Waal) that suggests we share fundamental moral behavior with primates and even fish. While I agree that moral behavior is the result of social interaction, you shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility that it has an evolutionary source, at least not without looking at the evidence first. As it turns out, capuchin monkeys will reward those that help them attain food, and have a fairly well developed sense of fairness regarding the exchange of goods and services. While capuchins are by no means stupid, their lack of advanced language rules out the possibility that morality originated as a result of intelligent humans and their "moral codes".

Another interresting argument is rased by cullumnist and author Michael Shermer in his book "How We Believe". I don't think the idea is originally his, but he contends that morality and primitive human interractions like gossiping are actually the means by which smaller communities maintain order, where humans developed religion and later secular law to control larger groups.

Logically, it only makes sense that social animals share our emotions (including a sense of morality). After all, many of them originate in the primitive sections of the brain, which we share with other animals (including the amigdula, which handles primitive decision making) . Does it really make sense that humans alone, in the extremely short time we have existed as a species, could have possibly made such cognitive leaps of evolution? Unless you believe a god made the world in 6 days and made us in his image, separating us from other animals is simply a ridiculous idea.

That being said, I wouldn't stop anyone from catapulting cows at PETA. Once the sense of morality is seen to be primitive, you have to understand the more logical otensible reasoning behind it. I see no problems with eating tortured cows, except where human health and economics are concerned. For instance, it simply doesn't make sense to keep cows in close quarters and mash them up with hooks to make whoppers because of the increased risk of disease. Similarly, killing great apes is tragic because of their comparative rarity and the damage it could do to the ecosystem.

[Rhinoqulous]

First, welcome to our fair forum, whoneedscience. Browse the posts, submit your own flavor of ramble, and be prepared to argue any inane point someone has issue with. :D

Next, if I were to present you with two cheeseburgers, one of which I told you came from a cow that was tortured for days before being "processed", and the other was killed in a painless manner, you would have no preference between them (especially if you had to pay, i.e., you choosing one burger over the other would support the continued torture of animals and the other would not)?

Second, the "murder" of higher order apes is not tragic only in that it depletes the ecosystem, but in that we are killing semi-sentient beings (in my view killing a bonobo, chimpanzee, or gorilla is akin with killing a 3-4 year old child). Even if, in some possible world, the killing of a great ape would not in any way harm the natural ecosystem, I would see the killing as highly immoral. The same is with their current "rarity"; if there were millions or billions of great apes, I would still consider killing even one to be murder (of course, you could come up with a counterfactual where I would contradict myself, but I think you understand what I'm saying).

Rhinoq

[whoneedscience]

the "murder" of higher order apes is not tragic only in that it depletes the ecosystem, but in that we are killing semi-sentient beings (in my view killing a bonobo, chimpanzee, or gorilla is akin with killing a 3-4 year old child). Even if, in some possible world, the killing of a great ape would not in any way harm the natural ecosystem, I would see the killing as highly immoral. The same is with their current "rarity"; if there were millions or billions of great apes, I would still consider killing even one to be murder (of course, you could come up with a counterfactual where I would contradict myself, but I think you understand what I'm saying).

Rhinoq
You may have a point with the intelligence argument, but is it really based in intellectual respect, or merely one of empathy? If it is the latter, you may have to consider killing anything higher than a reptile in the same way. I'm not trying to be heartless here, I would certainly never kill any kind of higher order animal except out of necessity, and if i had to, I would do it humanely. The point I was trying to make was one of the subjectivity of such morality. On such matters, I would prefer to look at things in a way devoid of emotion, as it can often lead you astray. Thinking, instead, on the logical consequences of your actions is, I believe, a much more objective and intelligent means of behaving morally, as long as there can be a such a thing as reasoning devoid of greed.

On the question of the cheeseburger, however, it would be a simple matter of quality vs. price, and poorly treated cows would probably not make the best meat. I don't see any issue with sympathy for them (not to say i would want to work in a "fast food nation" style butcher shop).

By the way, Rhinoq, I like the quote. Is there perhaps a post anywhere on Descartes? I'd love to tear into some Cartesian dualism.

[ChiefOfAss]

I don't think the origin of morality is based in survival or reproduction. I think morality is a by product of humans living together and the need to establish order. It was first defined by the leaders of the first social orders, then it was slowly standardized into a so-called, "moral code" in order to control larger groups of people than could be administered by a single "alpha" role.

Non-human social structures are small enough do be dominated by a single authority (individual or group). So no. I don't think they do as well (I concede that it's hard to know).
While I agree that moral behavior is the result of social interaction, you shouldn't be too quick to dismiss the possibility that it has an evolutionary source, at least not without looking at the evidence first.
First off... it is I.. the Chief Of Ass, who wrote the cogent words above and not "ocmpoma". Also, I certainly do not dismiss the possibility that morality has an evolutionary source. In fact, I'm convinced of it. Clearly, it wasn't divine nor absolute.

I am less and less convinced, however, that there is anything unique about human beings except for PERHAPS the capacity of our intelligence. It could be that our intelligence permitted the [i]perception[/u] that we possess some new dimension of being through combinations of excess capacities. All in all, it seems like advances in man result from "uncommitted cycles" which we are free to apply to new problems. As I've written before, man's emergence is considered to be when the human animal first began to control emotional responses. But, even this seemingly unique characteristic may simply be the result of additional capacity and not some truly unique component of human consciousness.

If animals have moralities, then that's just another area where human arrogance much once again acknowledge he is not separate from the natural world, but a part of it.

[whoneedscience]

I am less and less convinced, however, that there is anything unique about human beings except for PERHAPS the capacity of our intelligence. It could be that our intelligence permitted the [i]perception[/u] that we possess some new dimension of being through combinations of excess capacities. All in all, it seems like advances in man result from "uncommitted cycles" which we are free to apply to new problems. As I've written before, man's emergence is considered to be when the human animal first began to control emotional responses. But, even this seemingly unique characteristic may simply be the result of additional capacity and not some truly unique component of human consciousness.

If animals have moralities, then that's just another area where human arrogance much once again acknowledge he is not separate from the natural world, but a part of it.
I offer my sincerest appologies to the CheifOfAss for misquoting and perhaps misunderstanding his statements. I too, given the results of studies on animal behavior, see very little fundamental difference between humans and the other higher animals.

I'm no psychologist, but the only real difference I see is in the frontol lobe, which controls planning. I believe that the level of development of this area could account for our seemingly unique ability to formulate sentences for verbal communication, leading to the stimulation and specialization of other areas (those who do not learn to speak within a critical period of the first few years of life exhibit extreme atrophy of other cognitive functions, behaving more like primates than humans) as well as our ability to solve advanced engineering problems. From what I remember of studies with gorillas and bonobos, when taught sign language these animals showed only a very limited ability to plan for future wants and needs, and I believe this has been traced to the thier lack of a developed frontal lobe.

While I do not have time to fully explain this concept, perhaps it can offer a more clearly defined definition of the very specific kind of intelligence that separates humans from other animals. This could account for or correspond to what you were saying on man's emergence, but I wouldn't be surprised if other primates showed some kind of simple deception in emotions, as long as there were some kind of reward for doing so, such as getting a mate :D.

If anyone knows anything about biopsychology, feel free to tear apart my poorly-developed hypothesis.

[Aristarchus]

Aristarchus' equation:

A = (M) * (N) * (T^.5) / (I) * (P) * (R^2) * α

A= acceptability of killing the animal for consumption
M= Mass of edible parts
N= Nutritious value to consumer
T= Tastyness (tastosicty)
I= Intelligence
P= Pain felt by animal (both from its sensitivity and the killing method)
R= rarity (high value denotes a likeliness that the animal will go extinct when killed or cease to give benefit to its environment if it is wild)
α= fine structure constant (I needed a constant)


This equation has many implications. I don't need to use many words to describe them all in detail becasue I used an awsome equation to express my stance on this one with stylish brevity. =D

[Tenspace]

α= fine structure constant (I needed a constant)
How 'bout 137? ;)

Ten

[Rhinoqulous]

You may have a point with the intelligence argument, but is it really based in intellectual respect, or merely one of empathy? If it is the latter, you may have to consider killing anything higher than a reptile in the same way. I'm not trying to be heartless here, I would certainly never kill any kind of higher order animal except out of necessity, and if i had to, I would do it humanely. The point I was trying to make was one of the subjectivity of such morality. On such matters, I would prefer to look at things in a way devoid of emotion, as it can often lead you astray. Thinking, instead, on the logical consequences of your actions is, I believe, a much more objective and intelligent means of behaving morally, as long as there can be a such a thing as reasoning devoid of greed.
My intelligence argument is based in intellectual respect, in that I recognize the "limited" intellectual capabilities of the great apes (and a few other animals) is close to our own, but not as developed. I understand what you are saying about emotional judgment vs. cold logical judgment, but I'm not sure if we could (or even should?) remove all emotive aspects from morality. I don't think morality can be reduced to base emotive responses, but I do agree with Hume in that morality is initially based on "moral sentiments". Even with thinking on the logical consequences of actions would have an emotive element, in that the "preferred" consequence is most likely chosen for emotive reasons.

By the way, Rhinoq, I like the quote. Is there perhaps a post anywhere on Descartes? I'd love to tear into some Cartesian dualism.
Thanks, just changed my quote yesterday (less wordy now), and back at ya. As for posts on Descartes, I don't think there are too many substance dualists (besides the theists) on this forum, but if you want to start a thread on topics in philosophy of mind, I'm game.:)

[BadFish]

well, i found this thread to be very interesting,
however i need to run, i'm having a steak
for dinner made out of a peta member....

I dont know about you, but i was designed to be a carinvore,
and i shall eat meat!

[z3n]

Who designed you to be a carnivore?

Well if nature did then it did a really crappy job. Compared to other carnivores we have pathetic teeth, slow speed, no claws, and an inadequate digestive system.

In every respect, humans show the anatomic and physiologic features typical of an herbivore. While it may be true that most humans are "behavioral" omnivores (that is, they choose to include meat in their diet) this behavioral fact says nothing about whether including meat in our diet is an appropriate choice from an anatomic, physiologic and heath perspective. (source (http://www.all-creatures.org/mhvs/nl-2003-wi-meat.html))

[Coldbourne]

Being a vegetarian is the most annoying thing in the world. Source (http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=sponsor)

[z3n]

Oh sure I enjoy Maddox’s site as well, but it is just satire and most of what he writes should be taken with a grain of salt.

[ocmpoma]

Being a theist is the most annoying thing in the world. Source (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/)

[baric]

"Animal rights" and "human rights" are political constructs and don't really apply to the atheism-theism debate.

In other words, you will both atheists and theists on both sides of the "animal rights" debate without any conflict to their theological positions.

[whoneedscience]

"Animal rights" and "human rights" are political constructs and don't really apply to the atheism-theism debate.

In other words, you will both atheists and theists on both sides of the "animal rights" debate without any conflict to their theological positions.
You might be right, but the theistic argument would be fundamentally different from the atheistic one. The point is that we can make moral arguments based on reason and philosophy rather than on antiquated, bigoted religious dogma. A reasonable construct of rights is necessary for any intellectual atheist.

In every respect, humans show the anatomic and physiologic features typical of an herbivore.
That's not entirely true. We're more carnivore than the great apes. We don't have the advanced digestive system necessary for breaking down vegitative matter (extra long intestine, massive molars, sagital crests), and as for our lack of carnivore hardware, i think the human brain, oposable thumb and bipedalism more than make up for any lack of teeth, claws or pure speed.

[baric]

"Animal rights" and "human rights" are political constructs and don't really apply to the atheism-theism debate.

In other words, you will both atheists and theists on both sides of the "animal rights" debate without any conflict to their theological positions.
You might be right, but the theistic argument would be fundamentally different from the atheistic one. The point is that we can make moral arguments based on reason and philosophy rather than on antiquated, bigoted religious dogma. A reasonable construct of rights is necessary for any intellectual atheist.
OK, but you will find both "pro" and "con" arguments on the atheistic and theistic sides. How reasonable they are would be a matter of opinion since "reason" doesn't really apply here.

As an atheist, here's how I would build a logical case for animal rights.

1. (assumption) All animals are genetically predisposed to certain "lifestyles" according to their historical evolution (i.e. carnivores must eat meat)

2. (assumption) Since genetic predispositions are involuntary, it is unjust to malign an individual animal for those predispositions (i.e. don't blame the lion for eating meat)

3. (assumption) Actions necessary for the survival of a species are considered natural within the framework of evolution.

3b. (follows from 3) Actions unnecessary for the survival of a species are considered unnatural within the framework of evolution.

4. (follows from 2) Animals that cannot comprehend the concept of "individual rights" cannot be expected to respect them (i.e. don't expect a lion to respect the rights of a zebra)

4b. (assumption) Humans can comprehend the concept of "individual rights" and are expected to respect them.

5. (follows from 2) Humans are allowed to kill animals for food

6. (follows from 3) Humans are allowed to kill animals if the survival of the species is at risk

7. (follows from 4b & 3b) Humans are not allowed to perform acts on animals that are not necessary for the survival of the species.

That's how I would go about it.

[ocmpoma]

Unfortunately, 7 contradicts 5, since the species can survive without using animals for food. It's also less efficient, althought that doesn't have anything to do with your case above. I just like to throw it in during these kind of discussions.

[baric]

Unfortunately, 7 contradicts 5, since the species can survive without using animals for food.
Nope. Humans are not vegetarians so you cannot fault humans for eating meat.

[God, my arse]

I don't really like red meat, all the veins and blood and for some reason when I was a little kid I thought the more red blood cells the more pain they feel. But I think murder is the willful torture of an organism which can feel pain and the killing of a sentinent or sub-sentinent organism.

[z3n]

In every respect, humans show the anatomic and physiologic features typical of an herbivore.
That's not entirely true. We're more carnivore than the great apes. We don't have the advanced digestive system necessary for breaking down vegitative matter (extra long intestine, massive molars, sagital crests), and as for our lack of carnivore hardware, i think the human brain, oposable thumb and bipedalism more than make up for any lack of teeth, claws or pure speed.
Our brain development and opposable thumbs give us the ability to unnaturally capture meat (hunting with weapons etc.), but that doesn’t mean that we are naturally suited to eat it.

Human body length (head to tail bone) is typically 2.5 to 3 feet. Thus, at >25-30 feet in length, the human small intestine is clearly suited for digesting plant material.

The human esophagus does not handle poorly chewed food very well. Over 90% of the people who choke to death each year choke on meat.

Only herbivores have an appendix. No matter how much fat and cholesterol you feed carnivores like dogs and cats, they NEVER develop coronary artery disease.

In places where people eat a high fiber, whole food diet, appendicitis and diverticulosis are unknown.

Studies in western countries have shown that on average, vegetarians have smarter children, suffer significantly lower rates of chronic disease, obesity and dementia, and live longer than their meat-eating counterparts.

So while we have the ability to be omnivores, it is certainly not a necessity. In this day in age there are no real good reasons for humans to eat meat, however there are plenty of reasons why we shouldn’t.

[StillSurviving]

When a vegetarian comes up with something that tastes as good as a red robin burger, then we can talk.

[Rhinoqulous]

Our brain development and opposable thumbs give us the ability to unnaturally capture meat (hunting with weapons etc.), but that doesn’t mean that we are naturally suited to eat it.
So, the evolution of opposable thumbs and increased intelligence is unnatural? I fail to see how evolving thumbs and bigger brains makes human ability to hunt "unnatural", unless you want to claim that hunting is a "supernatural" given gift, which I doubt you want to do. :)

Tool use is as natural as anything else. Many of the greater apes use tools of some sort, as do some of the higher order monkeys. As for naturally suited to eat it, well, I don't know. Eating meat seems to have worked OK for humanity for 100,000 years or so, and we do have the teeth for eating meat, so I'll stick with my (ethically treated, organic) steaks.

Rhinoq

[BadFish]

Who designed you to be a carnivore?

Well if nature did then it did a really crappy job. Compared to other carnivores we have pathetic teeth, slow speed, no claws, and an inadequate digestive system.
Nature did.

And still we have figured out a way to feed ourselves for all these years....

go figure.

[BadFish]

Tool use is as natural as anything else. Many of the greater apes use tools of some sort, as do some of the higher order monkeys. As for naturally suited to eat it, well, I don't know. Eating meat seems to have worked OK for humanity for 100,000 years or so, and we do have the teeth for eating meat, so I'll stick with my (ethically treated, organic) steaks.

Rhinoq
And dont forget two forward facing eyes.

[baric]

So while we have the ability to be omnivores, it is certainly not a necessity. In this day in age there are no real good reasons for humans to eat meat, however there are plenty of reasons why we shouldn’t.
This is not true. The human body requires 22 different amino acids for normal functioning. 13 of these can be synthesized internally by the body. The other 9 must be part of one's diet.

Proteins are the primary natural source for these amino acids. If you read up on vegan diets, you will find a lot of discussion about how to get these in the diet without eating meat.

Besides, why do people think that animals deserve "rights" but plants do not?

[ocmpoma]

baric -
Please explain how "7. (follows from 4b & 3b) Humans are not allowed to perform acts on animals that are not necessary for the survival of the species." does not contradict "5. (follows from 2) Humans are allowed to kill animals for food" when killing animals for food is not necessary for the survival of the species?

[baric]

baric -
Please explain how "7. (follows from 4b & 3b) Humans are not allowed to perform acts on animals that are not necessary for the survival of the species." does not contradict "5. (follows from 2) Humans are allowed to kill animals for food" when killing animals for food is not necessary for the survival of the species?
2. (assumption) Since genetic predispositions are involuntary, it is unjust to malign an individual animal for those predispositions (i.e. don't blame the lion for eating meat)

Humans need to eat meat. #2 takes precedence since consuming meat is a blameless act for humans. There is nothing natural, historically, about humans having an all-plant diet.

[ocmpoma]

"Humans need to eat meat."
Regardless of humans' natural diet (omnivorous, of course), we do not need meat to survive.

[Tenspace]

Hunting for meat is evident in plenty adaptations. Forward-facing binocular vision, for example. Not as effective for avoiding predation as side-facing eyes, but definintely helpful for subtle movement and depth perception. I agree that those are also good for avoiding predators, but most hunting animals have eyeplans similar to ours.

Tenspace

[God, my arse]

When a vegetarian comes up with something that tastes as good as a red robin burger, then we can talk.
Red Robin ??? the bird????

[baric]

"Humans need to eat meat."
Regardless of humans' natural diet (omnivorous, of course), we do not need meat to survive.
Please. Meat is a natural part of our diet. Our ancestors on the African savannah were not vegetarians.

To remove meat from our diet is to deny part of our genetic heritage.

[God, my arse]

It depends on how far back you go, in recent humans, homo erectus, habilis etc they ate meat for an increased brain mass but before that when we shared common ancestors with apes, chimpanzees etc. we apparantly were herbivores.

[z3n]

So, the evolution of opposable thumbs and increased intelligence is unnatural?
You seem to have wildly misinterpreted what I said so let me see if I can clarify my statement. What I was getting at is that while our natural intellectual development may give us the ability to catch meat, we seem largely unsuited to eat it.

I fail to see how evolving thumbs and bigger brains makes human ability to hunt "unnatural", unless you want to claim that hunting is a "supernatural" given gift, which I doubt you want to do.
Just because something is unnatural doesn’t make it supernatural. Things can be artificial. I guess that I should have used the term that we artificially catch and eat meat. If it weren’t for our intellect, the most meat humans would be eating would probably be insects and grubs. And cooking is another artificial component that allows us to eat most meat.

For instance does your mouth water when you see a live cow and you just can’t wait to kill it by sinking your teeth into it’s throat and ripping out chunks of it’s raw flesh with your mouth?

Tool use is as natural as anything else. Many of the greater apes use tools of some sort, as do some of the higher order monkeys.
Okay fine I’ll give you that. But what meat are these monkeys and apes eating: grubs, insects?

As for naturally suited to eat it, well, I don't know. Eating meat seems to have worked OK for humanity for 100,000 years or so
And I suppose the same thing could be said for religion to huh? Just because we can and/or have done something, doesn’t make it good for us.

, and we do have the teeth for eating meat, so I'll stick with my (ethically treated, organic) steaks.
Again we have the ability to eat meat but that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily a good idea. We can eat and digest cardboard, but I wouldn’t suggest it as part of a healthy diet. Our teeth are largely inadequate for eating meat. Look at how we compare to other omnivores such as bears. Our “canine” teeth are really not that sharp or pointed and barely protrude below our other teeth.

The human body requires 22 different amino acids for normal functioning. 13 of these can be synthesized internally by the body. The other 9 must be part of one's diet.

Proteins are the primary natural source for these amino acids. If you read up on vegan diets, you will find a lot of discussion about how to get these in the diet without eating meat.
And if you read up on it you would find that all of those amino acids can be gotten from a vegetarian (or even vegan) diet if it includes a wide verity of foods.

Besides, why do people think that animals deserve "rights" but plants do not?
I’m not sure but it probably has to do with the whole consciousness thing and the ability to feel pain.

Hunting for meat is evident in plenty adaptations. Forward-facing binocular vision, for example. Not as effective for avoiding predation as side-facing eyes, but definintely helpful for subtle movement and depth perception.
I’m wondering what animals have forward facing vision like ours. Apes come readily to mind, and while they may be omnivores, they don’t strike me as real predatory animals using their vision to stalk and hunt down prey.

[z3n]

Please. Meat is a natural part of our diet.
If meat is a natural part of our diet then how do you explain the fact that we have no claws, pores on our skin, flat back molar teeth, well-developed salivary glands, alkaline saliva, weak stomach acid, and an intestinal tract several times our body length?

All of these natural attributes are part of a typical herbivore and opposite of animals that eat meat.

[VOICE-of-REASON]

If meat is a natural part of our diet then how do you explain the fact that we have no claws…
Wow! That was selective observation at its best.

Why have you left out all those attributes which would also indicate that we are carnivores? Clearly, with both portions of the data, the only factual conclusion we can draw is that humans are “mixed feeders”, i.e.; not strictly carnivorous, yet not strictly herbivorous either, i.e.; omnivorous.

How do you explain the presence of canines in human beings, ridged molars, and the presence of incisors in both jaws? How do you explain the human stomach’s production of hydrochloric acid, and our inability to perform rumination—a vital function of herbivores? How do you explain the fact that the pancreas manufactures enzymes that processes both meat and vegetables? Why do we not chew cud--like most herbivores? Why do we not have multiple stomachs? It is true that we do have a long intestinal tract, but it isn’t as long as that of herbivores, nor is it as short as that of carnivores, i.e.: further proof that we are a mixture of both. And yes, how would you explain the fact that chimpanzees and mountain gorillas actually hunt and eat meat (http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24543?fulltext=true)?

As for being closer to either side, humans are in fact closer to carnivores in matters of anatomy. (http://www.paleodiet.com/comparison.html)

[z3n]

the only factual conclusion we can draw is that humans are “mixed feeders”, i.e.; not strictly carnivorous, yet not strictly herbivorous either, i.e.; omnivorous.
How do you explain that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do.

How do you explain the presence of canines in human beings, ridged molars, and the presence of incisors in both jaws?
Our “canine” teeth are pathetic for eating meat. Ever notice how long on average we have to chew meat before we can sallow it compared to other food? Even when compared to omnivores, our sharpest teeth are really not that sharp or pointed and barely protrude below our other teeth.

How do you explain the human stomach’s production of hydrochloric acid,
How do you explain that our stomach acid is 20 times weaker that the average animal meat eater? Or that meat eaters have acidic saliva while humans have alkaline saliva that contains ptyalin that aids in the pre-digesting of grains?

and our inability to perform rumination—a vital function of herbivores?
Ah, careful with that selective observation because not all herbivores perform rumination like horses and rabbits.

Why do we not chew cud--like most herbivores? Why do we not have multiple stomachs?
Some, but not all. Herbivores very greatly.

It is true that we do have a long intestinal tract, but it isn’t as long as that of herbivores, nor is it as short as that of carnivores
Really? It’s several times our body length, how long would it have to be for you to be convinced?

And yes, how would you explain the fact that chimpanzees and mountain gorillas actually hunt and eat meat?
Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see mountain gorillas mentioned in that article.

I found this to be an interesting excerpt:
Did the early hominids eat meat before the development of stone tools 2.5 million years ago? Given the behavior of the chimpanzee, it seems likely that they did, but the relative significance of meat in their diet remains open to conjecture. Although a scavenging life-style is frequently suggested for the early hominids, modern chimpanzees in the wild have little interest in dead animals as food. When scavenging does take place, the female chimpanzees at Gombe do show more interest than do the males; the females are also more adept at using tools. The same may have been true of the earliest hominids.

As for being closer to either side, humans are in fact closer to carnivores in matters of anatomy.
Yeah I can bring up comparisons (http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html) too (http://www.goveg.com/feat/NaturalHumanDiet/physiology.asp).

[z3n]

I’m starting to feel like maybe a theist does in this forum when they state something like “God is love and if you don’t turn away from your sins right away then you’re going to burn in Hell”.

Look everyone, I enjoy discussing things as much a most people on here, but I’m sure that this will probably only succeed in people getting pissed off at me and attempting to bombard me into the ground.

For the longest time I’ve always wondered why talks about vegetarianism seem to meet with such adamant objections. It seems that most people are willing to accept the idea of humans being herbivores as much as fundamentalists are willing to think that their religion is wrong. It seems like the normal human desire is to strongly hold onto the belief that humans need to be meat eaters despite the health issues and/or evidence that may point otherwise. And I’ve always kind of wondered why that might be the case. What’s the big deal anyways?

Well I think I have an idea. I think that it has to do with ego, and the desire to feel that we are at the top of the food chain. When people eat meat, it probably gives them an indirect sense of superiority and the feeling of having control of their environment. To admit that we don’t need to eat meat is to admit that we are not part of the food chain that we put ourselves at the top of. Hunting and eating meat is the way that humans show the animals that we are the head mo-fo’s what’s in charge. Only humans (and maybe some other primates such as chimps) seem arrogant enough to kill something and eat it when we don’t really need to.

So here is the conclusion that I’ve reached. If you think that humans are omnivores then you’re in the majority and I’m sure that you can find plenty of support to back you up. Whether humans are technically omnivores or not, I have come to the conclusion that we are better suited and better off being vegetarian, or at least eating as little meat as possible. I’ve found that the majority of people don’t want to accept that and any attempts to convince them otherwise is usually an attempt in futility.

[Choobus]

I have to say that z3n is a fool. However, I think that most modern carnivore humans would feel uneasy if they saw how their meat was produced, and might even consider becomong a veggmonger after two minues in a slaughterhouse......

[z3n]

I have to say that z3n is a fool.
And what would be the reason that you have felt the need to insult me?

Of course like I said these type of comments are what I was expecting but I didn’t really think anybody would blatantly insult me for no good reason.

[baric]

Well I think I have an idea. I think that it has to do with ego, and the desire to feel that we are at the top of the food chain. When people eat meat, it probably gives them an indirect sense of superiority and the feeling of having control of their environment. To admit that we don’t need to eat meat is to admit that we are not part of the food chain that we put ourselves at the top of. Hunting and eating meat is the way that humans show the animals that we are the head mo-fo’s what’s in charge. Only humans (and maybe some other primates such as chimps) seem arrogant enough to kill something and eat it when we don’t really need to.
Now this is silly. You would make a good case if meat became part of the human diet in recent history. But it has not.

Chimps, our closest genetic relatives, are also omnivorous. That's a pretty good indication that a common ancestor of chimps & humans started eating meat to supplement its diet.

That would be long, long before the concepts of ego, the food chain, and being the "head mo-fo" were ever a consideration.

[Eva]

i don't know if this has been mentioned here before, but i strongly recall an article on national geographic from the 70's that had a clan of chimps that habitually ate meat (and also ate other chimps babies from the same group). this clan mother was the most succesful breeder, her children were the biggest and strongest and virtually all of her offspring made it to adulthood. in other words, eating meat made them healthier, stronger individuals. the author of the article was, who else, Jane Goodall.
it is also understood that the first early australopitecines (if i remember correctly) had a sudden increase in brain mass after they started introducing meats into their diets. the brain is a very fuel intensive organ, and meat eating, anthropologists say, was one of the major reasons this early hominids developed their brains in a way that allowed them to grow the areas in the brain that process higher thinking, like speech, tool making, emotions and distinct personalities. or, as i like to say, to become people.

or something like that.....
so, z3n, i don't think meat eating has anything to do, evolutionarily speaking, with hominid ego trips or sense of control over their enviroments.....

[StillSurviving]

When a vegetarian comes up with something that tastes as good as a red robin burger, then we can talk.
Red Robin ??? the bird????
To clarify, Red Robin is a chain restaraunt, and their burgers (beef and chicken) are my favorite food. I have never had a vegetarian anything that even came close to tasting as good. Most vegetarian food I have had tastes bad (my dad is a vegetarian, so I get exposed to that crap somewhat regularly.)

[VOICE-of-REASON]

z3n, I really have no intention of arguing this any more than is necessary. The facts already speak sufficiently well by themselves. As I’ve already said, I am not denying that humans have herbivorous characteristics—[all species are similar in some respect], but by the same token, I simply cannot obliterate the fact that we have carnivorous characteristics, too.

All the ‘diminished’ carnivorous characteristics that you present only show that we are not extremely, i.e.: fully, carnivorous. But you completely ignore that we have ‘diminished’ herbivorous characteristics, too—you even go as far as inflate these. Human beings however are a mixture of both—this is a rather self-evident fact. And that there may be health issues associated with eating meat (which you inflate) does not lead to the conclusion that we ought to stop eating meat altogether—there is hardly anything un-risky in this universe—all this means is that we should watch our diet.

Now, of course you are free to draw your psychological implications—which I find rather silly, by the way—but that will neither ‘soften’ nor erase the facts. Of course, I could draw my own psychological conclusions too, such as: the wish of some human beings to be on par with lower animals is a confession of a lack of self-esteem…but I’m not going to do that. :P And as far as I’m concerned, humans don’t need to eat meat in order to ‘feel’ superior to other animals: The New York Skyline---and the individuals who made its existence possible---do that sufficiently well enough for me.

[ocmpoma]

ocmpoma wrote:
"Humans need to eat meat."
Regardless of humans' natural diet (omnivorous, of course), we do not need meat to survive.

Baric wrote:
"Please. Meat is a natural part of our diet."

If you look again at what I wrote, you will see that not only do not argue against the natural use of meat, I actually support the concept - as humans are naturally omnivores.
My point with your argument is that your points 7 and 5 contradict each other. I'll say it again: Humans do not need meat to survive. We can get by just fine without it. (In fact, raising animals for meat is very inefficient compared to vegetarianism.) Look back at your argument - the contradiction is clear. You need to alter either point 7 or 5 for your case to hold up.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'm going to have to side with VOR on this one, z3n. Physiologically, we are meat eaters, or at least able to eat and digest meat. As for psychologically feeling "superior" when I eat a cheeseburger, that's absurd. The moral superiority stance is usually slung about by vegans (and veggie’s to a lesser extent) and not us steak eaters.

So putting aside the physiological questions for now, why do you think we ought to stop eating meat? Ignore our teeth, our digestive tract, evolutionary evidence of increased brain size, and answer why, right now in May 2005, I ought to stop eating meat.

Rhinoq

[Tenspace]

Hunting for meat is evident in plenty adaptations. Forward-facing binocular vision, for example. Not as effective for avoiding predation as side-facing eyes, but definintely helpful for subtle movement and depth perception.
I’m wondering what animals have forward facing vision like ours. Apes come readily to mind, and while they may be omnivores, they don’t strike me as real predatory animals using their vision to stalk and hunt down prey.
Let's see... Canines, Felines, Ursines, Raptors (avian), Theropods (meat-eating dinos).

You can easily see the difference between a rabbit or squirrel's eyes, and the dog or cat that's chasing them.

The Great Apes, such as the mountain gorillas and orangutans have evolved to a vegetarian diet; if you don't count the grubs and insects. They don't hunt game, unless they are forced to by environmental factors.

Chimpanzees are quite different. They are adept group hunters, and have been known to play with the monkeys they catch before ripping them to shreds and eating them.

Chimpanzees are also our closest animal relative.

Humans have hunted and eaten meat since we were humans. What do you think helped drive the social cooperative skills that we have?

Z3n, I think we have a better chance of changing your mind on this than we do changing a theist's mind on religion. Take some time, study up, and report your findings.

Tenspace

[Viole]

You want a reason why we eat meat? StillSurviving has got it--it tastes good. Vegans have already proven we don't need to eat meat, and we might even be better off without it. Yet most people still want to eat it. In countries where it isn't plentiful, people regard it as a treat. In America, most of us have it for every meal.

Psychologically, we're meat eaters.

[Viole]

I’m wondering what animals have forward facing vision like ours. Apes come readily to mind, and while they may be omnivores, they don’t strike me as real predatory animals using their vision to stalk and hunt down prey.
Well, depth perception(which, as I suspect you know, forward facing eyes are for) is highly useful for a large mammal which spends a lot of time in trees. Smaller animals, like squirrels, can fall farther without serious injury, and also have to worry more about birds and other treetop predators.

I'd also add that depth perception is great for tool use. It makes it a bit easier to manipulate objects in three dimensions.

Note, this is just me thinking about stuff in the great Pythagorean Tradition. No science involved.

[God, my arse]

I have nothing against vegetarians at all. In fact, if I were stronger willed I would probably be one myself. I would like to mention this though: I have some vegan friends (I do not mean this in the same way as wonka and his black friend) and when they fart it is wise to leave the room and not return for a good 10 minutes.

Just saying
:lol:

[Amazonis]

I am an environmentalist, and my main concern about eating meat is what environmental impacts its production caused. While i do care about an individual animals suffering a great deal, i belive that the overall environment must come first. Instead of being a vegetarian, i try to eat foods that have as little negetive environmental impacts as possible.

Since i am Australian it makes being an 'environmently responsible eater' a lot easier (compared to someone from America or Europe). This is because Australia has a greater variety of environments in which to produce food, so most food can be produced locally. This is good because local food will usually be produced in a more environmentaly friendly way than food from a tropical third world country (with no environmental laws).

In other places its diferent though. If you are an American, chances are when you eat your nice vegetarian bananas you are biting into a food that has contributed to the destruction of the Amazon rainforest! However, even if you werent a vegetarian, and you felt like a hamburger, you would also most likely be eating Amazonian food.

I have probably gone a little bit off topic, but my overall point is that the planet comes before a single animal, and that environmentaly responsible eating will do more good than vegetarianism.

[Another brick in the wall]

90% of all life on earth in rainforests? I thought most of it was in the oceans.

[Inventor Of Gods]

It's not natural for people to eat meat eh. =)
It looks like people have completely overlooked the fact that there are cultures that sustain themselves almost entirely off of meat.
http://www.crystalinks.com/inuit.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/09/21/inuit_diet010921

[God, my arse]

It's not natural for people to eat meat eh. =)
It looks like people have completely overlooked the fact that there are cultures that sustain themselves almost entirely off of meat.
http://www.crystalinks.com/inuit.html
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/?/news/2001/09/21/inuit_diet010921
It never used to be natural for humans to eat large amounts of meat. I think it is the Pancreas or some thing else that used to be used for the breakdown of cellulose indicating humans were largely herbivores, but now it is different.

[Eva]

cellulose can't be digested/broken down by the stomach. only termites have the capacity to do so. or certain bacteria that lives in the stomachs os certain herbivores.
however, cellulose can be broken down by ruminants because they have more than one stomach. you have seen caows chewing their cud? the cud is previously ingested vegetation that ir late regurgitated and rechewed. this rechewing (after the grasses have been subjected to saliva, enzimes and bacteria) then allows the cellulose to partially be digested when it passes through the other stomachs. cows have 4. i don't remeber right now if all the other ruminants have 4 stomachs too).
i understand that rabbits need to ingest this bacteria, as well as horses. that is also why you will see newborn rabbits and foals eating the feces of their mothers. they do it to get the bacteria that they will later need to digest vegetable matter.

so your pancreas story is iffy, at best.

[Amazonis]

90% of all life on earth in rainforests? I thought most of it was in the oceans.
No, the oceans may be large but do not contain buch biodiversity (unless you count coral reafs, which are very rich in biodiversity). Nobody knows exactly how much life rainforests contain, because their is simply way to much of it to count. Scientists think its between 50 and 95 percent, but in my personal opinion, is is in the higher end of the spectrum.

[Blod]

the only factual conclusion we can draw is that humans are “mixed feeders”, i.e.; not strictly carnivorous, yet not strictly herbivorous either, i.e.; omnivorous.
How do you explain that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do.
Are we? The biological equipment for this kind of work includes our BRAINS (meaning: developed as they are in contrast to other animals):

tiger: claws => no brains
human: brains => no claws (=> tools/weapons)

Now, one could say that: "Well, the brains won't help you much against a tiger". Generally people forget that humans developed as such, by adapting to THIS environment, that's why it is also sure that in THIS environment they will find/create the required tools/weapons so as to hunt or confront the tiger. If there were no way to create tools or weapons humans would not develop brains but would adapt otherwise to the environment. That's my thought on it.

P.S. Greets to all, this being my first post. I must say I enjoye(d) many topics around here as for the clear logic (that is constantly used). :)

[Tenspace]

Excellent point, Blod. Welcome!!! :)

Many people forget the importance of the brain during evolution. It replaced tooth and claw with forethought, planning, and social cooperation, and eye-hand coordination. Look at the Achulean tools of Homo Ergaster's era, and you'll see that man had teeth and claws, cunningly crafted from stone.

Tenspace

[Another brick in the wall]

Human teeth are one evolution's loose ends. Humans have without a doubt, the worse teeth in the animal kingdom. I'm not sure this walking on two legs is such a great idea either.

[Amazonis]

the only factual conclusion we can draw is that humans are “mixed feeders”, i.e.; not strictly carnivorous, yet not strictly herbivorous either, i.e.; omnivorous.
How do you explain that humans are totally incapable of killing, tearing asunder, and consuming raw their prey with their natural, biological equipment, as ALL natural omnivores do.
Are we? The biological equipment for this kind of work includes our BRAINS (meaning: developed as they are in contrast to other animals):

tiger: claws => no brains
human: brains => no claws (=> tools/weapons)

Now, one could say that: "Well, the brains won't help you much against a tiger". Generally people forget that humans developed as such, by adapting to THIS environment, that's why it is also sure that in THIS environment they will find/create the required tools/weapons so as to hunt or confront the tiger. If there were no way to create tools or weapons humans would not develop brains but would adapt otherwise to the environment. That's my thought on it.

P.S. Greets to all, this being my first post. I must say I enjoye(d) many topics around here as for the clear logic (that is constantly used). :)
Tigers are actually very smart animals. The communicate as well as (or even beter) than humans while hunting. They also don't unsustainably consume and polute their resources like humans do. In many ways they are smarter (not dumber) than us.

[Another brick in the wall]

Many animals (like rabbits) will reproduce until they outstrip their resources, if there are no predators to check their numbers. I doubt that tigers decide not to reproduce too much. There are many things that keep their numbers down.

[Amazonis]

The only time that animals (excluding humans) overproduce is when the ecosystem in in trouble. If an ecosystem is in trouble these days, its almost certainly the result of humans.

[Another brick in the wall]

Nonsense, natural disasters like volcanic eruptions can wreak havoc on the environment.

[Amazonis]

I didn't say always, i said that at this moment in time it will be 'almost certainly' the result of human activity. The only volcanic eruptions that would have a substantial effect on a large environment would be a super eruption, and they are very rare. A normal volcano would have negative impacts on the immediate environment but the effects would be minor compared to the massive global problems that humans are currently causing.

[Another brick in the wall]

I agree that humans cause a lot of environmental problems, I'm just saying that natural disasters can do more damage. A small point, granted, but an important one. Some people think the environment is this fragile thing that needs lots of hugs :rolleyes:

[Tenspace]

Human teeth are one evolution's loose ends. Humans have without a doubt, the worse teeth in the animal kingdom.
Thanks to fire, which made it easier to chew (and digest) meat. Also, consider that our teeth are (normally) capable of getting us thirty-forty good years without problem. This fits with evolutionary theory as well. Once you have reproduced, and helped the clan raise the young, you fall apart.

Tenspace

[Another brick in the wall]

Marvelous. :(

[whoneedscience]

Turns out we're specifically programmed to fall apart, and if gene therapy pans out, it would be relatively easy to get rid of the genes that make us age. It would be worth a new thread, if there isn't one already, to discuss what kind of issues it could raise to have immortal humans.

[Another brick in the wall]

I heard some insurance expert say if people didn't die of diseases or age, the would live to an average age of 600 before an accident of some sort killed them. Of course, a cautious person could live much longer, possibly forever. However, the odds of dying in an accident are pretty much 100% after 600 years.

[Amazonis]

I heard some insurance expert say if people didn't die of diseases or age, the would live to an average age of 600 before an accident of some sort killed them. Of course, a cautious person could live much longer, possibly forever. However, the odds of dying in an accident are pretty much 100% after 600 years.
Actually, the odds of dying from an accident would be exactly the same after 600 years. For example, if you were to role 10 threes in a row on a dice, and you were rolling it for the 11th time, you would have just as much chance of rolling a 3 as all the other times. Just because you already have many 3's doesn't mean its any less likely to roll another than it was before, and it is the same with your theory on how long someone would live without aging related death.

[Another brick in the wall]

I know what Gambler's fallacy is. What I meant was if the odds of dying in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 87, the longer a person lives, the more chances they have of dying in an accident. It's like the lottery. If you bought 100 million tickets, you have a much greater chance of winning than if you bought one or two. So if a person lives to be 600 years old, they have many more chances of dying in a car accident, even the odds of it are still 1 in 87. The odds of a person living past 600 years is comparable to the odds that a coin will land heads up 100 times in a row. Does this make sense?

[LogicMan]

You want a reason why we eat meat? StillSurviving has got it--it tastes good. Vegans have already proven we don't need to eat meat, and we might even be better off without it. Yet most people still want to eat it. In countries where it isn't plentiful, people regard it as a treat. In America, most of us have it for every meal.

Psychologically, we're meat eaters.
Is a vegan a strick vegetarian?

It has been a while since looking into this stuff however If I remember correctly a strictly vegetarian diet is incredibly inefficient. Normally a lacto ovo version works because the milk and eggs supply the protein (amino acid combination) that we need. The only alternative is to try to get the protein by mixing legumes with certain veggies in order to try to get an acceptable, though not optimal, mix of amino acids.

[Amazonis]

I know what Gambler's fallacy is. What I meant was if the odds of dying in a car accident in a given year are 1 in 87, the longer a person lives, the more chances they have of dying in an accident. It's like the lottery. If you bought 100 million tickets, you have a much greater chance of winning than if you bought one or two. So if a person lives to be 600 years old, they have many more chances of dying in a car accident, even the odds of it are still 1 in 87. The odds of a person living past 600 years is comparable to the odds that a coin will land heads up 100 times in a row. Does this make sense?
Yes, i understand what you meant now. You can look at this from two perspectives. One is looking at it from the perspective of the beggining of the life, and thats what you were thinking of. From this perspective you wouldn't know how the chances would fall, therefore you chances of survival past 600 years would be slim, as you said. I was looking at it from the perspective of a 600 year old person, who would think of each day as a new one. We were both correct.

[Amazonis]

You want a reason why we eat meat? StillSurviving has got it--it tastes good. Vegans have already proven we don't need to eat meat, and we might even be better off without it. Yet most people still want to eat it. In countries where it isn't plentiful, people regard it as a treat. In America, most of us have it for every meal.

Psychologically, we're meat eaters.
Is a vegan a strick vegetarian?

It has been a while since looking into this stuff however If I remember correctly a strictly vegetarian diet is incredibly inefficient. Normally a lacto ovo version works because the milk and eggs supply the protein (amino acid combination) that we need. The only alternative is to try to get the protein by mixing legumes with certain veggies in order to try to get an acceptable, though not optimal, mix of amino acids.
A vegan diet is a vegetarian diet that doesn't allow any products that came from animals (such as milk and eggs). Diets like this are unhealthy because they don't allow you the essential fatty acids that you nead for basic function. Without these, your brain can't even function properly.

[NihilistThug]

Humans are omnivores, we have historically (and are most healthy when consuming) both plant and animal tissues.
Furthermore, that has absolutely nothing to do with animal 'rights'.
Basically, animals can't engage in market transactions or even articulate their alleged 'rights'. Lacking any ability to engage in division of labour, or even declair their 'right' to refrain from doing so, they become nothing but products of nature. They're machines, objects, things, property - and nothing else. The day a whale attempts to sell me a car, I'll start giving a fuck how many are alive or dead.

[whoneedscience]

The day a whale attempts to sell me a car, I'll start giving a fuck how many are alive or dead.
What about when they're all gone and the entire marine ecosystem destabalizes and you have to pay $20 for a can of tuna?

Just as we have certain moral obligations to our fellow humans as part of a social contract, so are we dependent on the other animals we live with. It just doesn't make sense to cause unneccesary trouble with either.

[Amazonis]

Humans are omnivores, we have historically (and are most healthy when consuming) both plant and animal tissues.
Furthermore, that has absolutely nothing to do with animal 'rights'.
Basically, animals can't engage in market transactions or even articulate their alleged 'rights'. Lacking any ability to engage in division of labour, or even declair their 'right' to refrain from doing so, they become nothing but products of nature. They're machines, objects, things, property - and nothing else. The day a whale attempts to sell me a car, I'll start giving a fuck how many are alive or dead.
Animals are not machines. Whales are as smart as a three year old child. Chimps are as smart an as a four year old. Neither of these animals are a sustainable source of food for humans anyway. I do eat meat, but i still give a shit about wether it was abused or not. I also recognize that they are living creatures and not machines.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I think it's a simple fact of life that in order for humans to survive, living things must die. Eating a plant is still killing a living organism, and I don't see why it should matter if the particular organism you're eating has nerve cells or not.

[NihilistThug]

What about when they're all gone and the entire marine ecosystem destabalizes and you have to pay $20 for a can of tuna?
You don't understand how life works, and you don't understand economics.

Just as we have certain moral obligations to our fellow humans
Fuck no I don't. I don't owe anything to anyone, and no one owes me a God damn thing.
as part of a social contract
Social contract theory is complete bullshit. Read: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_3.pdf
so are we dependent on the other animals we live with.
You don't understand life, once again, and you don't understand technology. If it wasn't for the governments eating capital and stifling innovation we'd already be beyond this whole protein-based life bullshit.
It just doesn't make sense to cause unneccesary trouble with either.
And 'we' do not do anything. Animals are property, and if YOU want to protect the fucking whales then go by a section of sea and farm them like cattle. Otherwise, go to Hell.

Next eco-terrorist who chains himself to a tree I am cutting through on my own initiative.

[Amazonis]

Nihilist, you are the one who does not understand the environment or the economy. Swearing at everyone who you dissagrea with you demonstates lack of inteligence. Intimidating people by claiming you will 'cut throught the next "eco terrorist" who ties themselves to a tree just proves your a phsyco. (Futhermore, tying yourself to a tree is is not a form of terrorism).

[whoneedscience]

Nihilist, I wouldn't jump to conclusions about what I don't know about technology, economics or life. I know at least enough to tell you that capitalism is the best thing that's ever happened to human innovation (recommend Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, also Keynes, Marx). The bottom line is , while capitalism clearly has its flaws, it is based on the most reliable of human flaws: greed. People want to make money, so they find every way they can to decrease costs and increase revenue. Introduce a competitive market, and that means lower prices and better products for the consumer. You'd have to give me something of an argument to convince me that a government's simple interrest isn't safeguarding the system that fills its coffers, or that that the consumer would even want to throw away millions of years of instictual taste for "protein-based life".

I don't owe anything to anyone, and no one owes me a God damn thing.
And if you want to take that position, that's fine, as long as you go live out in the woods and survive completely on your own. Advanced society works because of division of labor. That means if you want something you can't make yourself you go to someone who can. It also means you don't try to kill him, steal from him, etc. because not only do you not want him to do the same to you, but because, whether you care to admit it or not, you need the services he can give you. It might be somewhat different when we consider large societies or ecosystems, as you could probably get away with doing something stupid, but it still does not make any sense to go out of your way to hurt people or things you depend on.

As far as technology is concerned, we are still well short of controlling every aspect of our environment. We are still at the mercy of a functioning marine ecosystem for the oxygen we breathe, so going and upsetting the ballance would just be stupid. That doesn't mean we should all go hug a tree or make after-hours visits to Sea World, but we do have to take responsibility for our own well-being.

[NihilistThug]

Swearing at everyone who you dissagrea with you demonstates lack of inteligence.
Bullshit. Just because you college intellectuals are too pussy to actually do anything doesn't mean I am.
Intimidating people by claiming you will 'cut throught the next "eco terrorist" who ties themselves to a tree just proves your a phsyco.
Psychiatry is bullshit, you can't spell, and people who tie themselves to a logger's tree are in violation of his property rights and deserve to die.
Advanced society works because of division of labor. That means if you want something you can't make yourself you go to someone who can. It also means you don't try to kill him, steal from him, etc. because not only do you not want him to do the same to you, but because, whether you care to admit it or not, you need the services he can give you.
Which is all done in my own interest, not because I 'owe' him anything. And if he is starving he has no 'right' to any of my property, and if he tries to take it I'll shoot him in the face. I know all about division of labour and it is based upon selfishness - all this altruistic garbage can go to Hell.

And no, the ecosystem is not 'fragile', and if you knew what causes the real problems in the 'enviroment' (pollution, 'over'-fishing) you'd know that turning it into private property and blowing the stupid governments up would solve these problems instantly. Everything else - fucking pandas and rhinos - that's just aesthetics and if ten-thousand useless species die an hour I could give a fuck, but I don't.

[Amazonis]

Swearing at everyone who you dissagrea with you demonstates lack of inteligence.
Bullshit. Just because you college intellectuals are too pussy to actually do anything doesn't mean I am.
Intimidating people by claiming you will 'cut throught the next "eco terrorist" who ties themselves to a tree just proves your a phsyco.
Psychiatry is bullshit, you can't spell, and people who tie themselves to a logger's tree are in violation of his property rights and deserve to die.
Im not a college intellectual, and im not offended by swearing. But when i swear i also say something usefull to back it up, but you usually don't. As for saying someone deserves to die for chaining themselves to a tree, now that is bullshit. Its a major overeaction, and the tree is not a loggers property. It is not anyones property.

[NihilistThug]

The tree IS the logger's property. He's the FUCKING LOGGER. He is making use of the resource, he is transforming it from it's natural state into a useful product. It is HIS. If you try to violate his property you are in the same situation as if you broke into my house - it's 187 degrees, mutha-fucka.

[Amazonis]

The tree IS the logger's property. He's the FUCKING LOGGER. He is making use of the resource, he is transforming it from it's natural state into a useful product. It is HIS. If you try to violate his property you are in the same situation as if you broke into my house - it's 187 degrees, mutha-fucka.
No, it is not his property - a tree is not the property of anyone. Just because he wants to cut it down does not make it his tree. And if environmentalists were tying themselves to the tree, chances are the logging was being done in either -

- An area of exeptional biological significance
- An are were logging cannot be sustainably conducted
- A method that cannot be sustainable conducted
- A method that causes more environmental impacts than nead be
- A method/area that's environmental properies are higher than the economic gain.

However, most environmentalists would not be chaining themselves to a tree if the area/method in which it was being logged was not one of thoze listed above.

Loggers generally don't give a shit if people chain themselves to a tree. They get some time of work, but still get paid. At the end of the day, its the corporation in charge of the logging that suffers, and i DO NOT give a fuck about rich, gready pigs like them.

[NihilistThug]

No, it is not his property - a tree is not the property of anyone. Just because he wants to cut it down does not make it his tree.
THAT IS HOW YOU ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP, IDIOT. Everything, from rocks to goats to water is just sitting around. The way you make it your property is by transforming it with your labour. The logger (more properly the logging company) is doing this, which is why they own the trees they are logging.

And fuck your 'enviromentally sensitive' areas and your 'endangered species'. You're trying to use aesthetics as an argument to violate someone's private property. Fuck that shit, I don't care if you don't like something, you fuck with my property (or anyone elses) you deserve to get shot - that includes eco-terrorists, government thugs and any other fuck who can't keep his hands to himself.

[Rhinoqulous]

Swearing at everyone who you dissagrea with you demonstates lack of inteligence.
Bullshit. Just because you college intellectuals are too pussy to actually do anything doesn't mean I am.
Intimidating people by claiming you will 'cut throught the next "eco terrorist" who ties themselves to a tree just proves your a phsyco.
Psychiatry is bullshit, you can't spell, and people who tie themselves to a logger's tree are in violation of his property rights and deserve to die.

Which is all done in my own interest, not because I 'owe' him anything. And if he is starving he has no 'right' to any of my property, and if he tries to take it I'll shoot him in the face. I know all about division of labour and it is based upon selfishness - all this altruistic garbage can go to Hell.

And no, the ecosystem is not 'fragile', and if you knew what causes the real problems in the 'enviroment' (pollution, 'over'-fishing) you'd know that turning it into private property and blowing the stupid governments up would solve these problems instantly. Everything else - fucking pandas and rhinos - that's just aesthetics and if ten-thousand useless species die an hour I could give a fuck, but I don't.
NihilistThug needs our love, everyone. The scared, lonely little boy inside is crying out for comfort and acceptance. He at once fears us "college intellectuals" and longs for our acceptance. And... wait. Fuck pandas and rhinos? I'm a rhino! I'm the Rhinoqulous! Fuck you, muther-fucker!

Hugs and Kisses,
Rhinoq

[Amazonis]

No, it is not his property - a tree is not the property of anyone. Just because he wants to cut it down does not make it his tree.
THAT IS HOW YOU ACQUIRE OWNERSHIP, IDIOT. Everything, from rocks to goats to water is just sitting around. The way you make it your property is by transforming it with your labour. The logger (more properly the logging company) is doing this, which is why they own the trees they are logging.

And fuck your 'enviromentally sensitive' areas and your 'endangered species'. You're trying to use aesthetics as an argument to violate someone's private property. Fuck that shit, I don't care if you don't like something, you fuck with my property (or anyone elses) you deserve to get shot - that includes eco-terrorists, government thugs and any other fuck who can't keep his hands to himself.
No, you aquire ownership of something by buying it, not by touching it. Just because you use something, doesn't make it yours. And anyway, the entire world doesn't revolve around you and your obsession with property and ownership.

[Viole]

Ah, Amazonis, you're making a logical argument. They don't work with theists or, unfortunately, certain capitalists. You see, it is perfectly logical that once we destroy the habitability of this world, we'll simple start growing trees, bottling their oxygen, and selling it on the market. We'll do the same with water. Anyone who can't afford it is a lazy bastard who deserves to die an agonizing and painful death of combined oxygen deprivation, dehydration and starvation.

I seriously doubt humanity is going anywhere, no matter how badly we screw up--unless of course disease and nuclear disaster combine to wipe our straggling remains out due to the fact our only survivors will be in places too poor to waste nukes on and the rapid mutations of virii and bacteria in the general radioactive haze.

Oh, and no use appealing to rights-based philosophies that defend nature, as the only thing Nihilist finds remotely attractive is his own face.

And yes, that is a personal attack, unnecessary but perhaps not uncalled for.