Meat-Eating Debate (Relocated Thread)
 

I eat meet, but I won't wear fur. To me, it's not a real meal without meat. I think the problem is population when it comes to animal cruelty. There should be a limit on how many kids people can have. One reason why animals are slaughtered so barbraically is because of the demand. Everything is out of balance because of the world population. Resources are dwindling. Animals are just treated like a resource. Kill them quick and make a buck.

Still, humans were mean't to eat meat in my opinion. It's a shame the animals are treated.

No offense, but there are so many contradictions and whoppers in that post that I just can't bring myself to try to point them out without sounding like a pedantic arse (well, any more so than usual).

I just think that vegans who don't like people eating meat are extremist. What whoppers? Animals are treated cruely out of demand. Chicken farms... blah blah The world is overpopulated. Animals are suffering because of it. However, meat is good. I like it. Fur is an extravagance.

Meat is an extravagance...especially if you agree we weren't meant to eat it (and prehistorically speaking, there was a time when we didn't). We don't need it by any means, it actually does considerable harm to us when we rely on it for every meal and it is environmentally unsound.

Not to get into a vegan/vegetarian/carni-war (everyone here is a grown-up and can make their own choices), but being informed beforehand about those choices can only do us all good.

I didn't say that all people should be vegans. I just said that people should be consistent in their beliefs and behaviors. And your assertion that animals are treated cruelly because of overpopulation is absurd. There's plenty of grain to go around; unfortunately, a large chunk of it gets diverted towards animal feed. And there is a long-established statistic that it takes something like 22 pounds of plant protein to produce one pound of animal protein. Quite simply, if people decreased or eliminated their reliance on animals for food, there would be more grain to feed the world, less pollution of water (from cattle run-off), less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, less western diseases (heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, etc.), and more aerable land for fruits and vegetables. At the end of the day, demand for animals is set, not by the number of people on the planet, but on the number of people who choose to consume meat. You may think that people were meant to eat meat, but the totality of scientific data would suggest strongly otherwise.

Overpopluation means more animals are being bread just to be butchered. It also means less room for animals to roam free. The animals that are here are relagated to certain areas. And NO as far as "if people decreased or eliminated their reliance on animals for food, there would be more grain to feed the world, less pollution of water (from cattle run-off), less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." Not when the human population continues to spiral out of control. The science keeps changing too, depending on which side a person is arguing on. Humans are more abundant on the planet than cattle and take up a lot more space. Animals will keep becoming extinct because of it.

We did eat it. Monkeys even eat meat. Surprise! And the sciences that you guys are talking aren't truth. Science is not old. It keeps changing over and over again, especially paleantology and sciences related to Anthrology. My area of specialization in college was Anthropology. New things are discovered all the time and keep changing the so called TRUTHS.

Oh, I didn't realize that I was dealing with someone wno knows the TRUTH, science be damned. Many apologies. :rolleyes: I think you've pretty much said all there needs to be said right there. :eek:

Well, you skirted the issue. Overpopulation is at the heart of the problem. And who said I know the truths. I don't, but I do know that science is consistently changing, going back and forth between fact and fiction.

Some monkeys do eat meat -- but sparingly. The primary source of food for all primates is vegetation. We are the only primate that consumes so much animal matter.

And the "sciences we guys are talking" are truth. You can say that theories change all the time, sure, but you can't just sweep away all facts by saying that and not coming up with a specific study or fact to refute it. That's like saying "atoms aren't real because there may be a study in the future that says they aren't." C'mon.

And yes, the production of meat takes up far more energy and space and has far more environmental repercussions (not to mention health problems) than farming would for the same amount of nutritional food. Surprise! It's true. Again, find me the accredited study that says it's not. And good luck with that.



I do not mean to come across as a vegan hun (largely because I am not vegan -- or even vegetarian -- and last I checked, I am not a hun). I don't even like being preach-y. But facts ARE facts and should be accepted as such. Overpopulation sucks, sure, and there is nothing that can realistically be done to curtail it. However there are simple and fairly easy things we can do to help out with our environment and our health and being less cruel. Not eating meat every time you sit down at a table is one of those things.

Just wanted to throw something out there regarding the whole meat or no-meat debate. As a side note, I eat meat, but in very small quantites. I'd wager that I eat as much meat in one year as the average American eats in three days, and the bulk of that is on pizza that I didn't order. Americans eat too much meat - it's hardly an essential part of our diets in the quantites in which it is consumed, and should be treated as a luxury item, in my opinion.

Anyway, I recently read the book Eating Animals (a GREAT book by the way, and I'd recommend it to vegans, carnivores and vegetarians). The author made a very good point regarding factory farming and the barbaric methods with which animals are treated in a modern world supposedly so concerned with compassion and the humane treatment of all life forms; I don't rememebr the exact words but basically he said "If you eat chicken, and you recognize the suffering and brutality that this animal endured, and you can live with that sitting on your conscience, so be it. However, if you eat chicken simply because it tastes good, then you are part of the problem."

The 'problem' of course is obesity, mad cow disease, SARS, H1N1 and the incredibly unethical methods used to satisfy America's demand for flesh. Most people would be truly horrified if they knew the truth, if they witnessed the reality behind the shiny, sanitary packaging in the grocery store. In 2000, Americans ate an average of 195 pounds (boneless) of flesh annually - 57 more pounds per person than in 1950, and we eat more meat per capita than any other nation on Earth.

Regarding the topic of fur and leather: on the surface I don't have an issue with the byproducts of the meat industry being used for other materials and goods - it only makes sense that the skin of slaughtered cattle and pigs should be turned into shoes, but ultimately I would prefer that the demand didn't exist in the first place to justify the supply all of that leather. I do wear leather shoes - which may be hypocritical on my part, but it is what it is until an equally sturdy, resilient and affordable alternative becomes available. I have made peace with the issue.

The industrial production of animals exclusively for fur products is repugnant. If you're not going to eat it, there is no justification for killing it unless your survival is called into question, and to the best of my knowledge none of my local grocery stores are selling mink and fox in their meat cases.

http://www.eatinganimals.com/

Thanks for adding a voice of reason to this discussion. But we are dealing with someone who probably believes in Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. There's no such thing as global warming. Animals were put on earth by God to be consumed. Science is part of the liberal propaganda machine, etc. I see the warning signs and I'm staying clear!

No they are not truth. New techniques are developed regulary to evaluate how we lived thousands of years ago. Hell, scientist still go back and forth on Neanderthal man, who basically only ate meat. They are still debating whether or not Neanderthal man actually cross bread with modern humans and is part of our dna. New studies say no. But it's still up in the air. It could change next month. Man only really started to populate the planet when agriculture was developed. Population was not much of an issue, neither was war, which is what happens when people compete for resources.

As far as the data used for the arguement for eating less meat, that can be applied to overpoplulation too. And we can do something about that. As far as Heart Disease, Cancer... Good. I'm glad they are here. (Checks and balances.) If there were no diseases then we would really be screwed. There are 7 BILLION people on this planet. That is way too much. The projection for 2050 is 9 BILLION. If you think animals are being treated cruelly now, wait till they are gone.

^Beautifully put, KarmaContestant.

I believe many of us simply don't want to know the facts because they are essentially an inconvenient truth and sausage on a pizza tastes so damn good. And there are those who hunt and those who ranch and have become very desensitized to the killing of animals for money or product. That is unfortunate to say the least.

Here's a guy, with whom I essentially disagree about the consumption of meat, but who makes some really good points on respect and reverence and simply facing the truth about where that nicely packaged ground comes from. This man went in to butcher a cow. And he still eats meat now, but...less of it. And is mindful of where it came from.

Don't insult me. Did you not read my posts? And you are not a voice of reason at all, and never have been.

Sources please. Or even just singular: source. Just one accredited source from "Anthrology" or wherever it is that you're getting your "facts."

I've always wondered why there's so much vitriol directed at celebs who wear fur. I don't so much mean here, but it feels like every picture of an actress in a fur coat is followed by 50 comments criticizing it. I'd argue that eating sushi daily and supporting the fishing industry is more harmful than owning a mink coat, no? Certainly I don't *love* the idea of fur, but I own leather boots and jackets--I don't feel like I'm in a position to judge.

I cannot these believe these freaking people.

Here is just one article from the New York Times, but actually there some kind of special about it on tv. Of course, I paid attention since it was a specialization of mine in college.

Neanderthals mated with some modern humans after all and left their imprint in the human genome, a team of biologists has reported in the first detailed analysis of the Neanderthal genetic sequence.
RSS Feed

Get Science News From The New York Times »

The New York Times

Max-Planck-Institute EVA
The Neanderthal DNA that Svante Pääbo analyzed came from these three bones.
The biologists, led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, have been slowly reconstructing the genome of Neanderthals, the stocky hunters that dominated Europe until 30,000 years ago, by extracting the fragments of DNA that still exist in their fossil bones. Just last year, when the biologists first announced that they had decoded the Neanderthal genome, they reported no significant evidence of interbreeding.

Scientists say they have recovered 60 percent of the genome so far and hope to complete it. By comparing that genome with those of various present day humans, the team concluded that about 1 percent to 4 percent of the genome of non-Africans today is derived from Neanderthals. But the Neanderthal DNA does not seem to have played a great role in human evolution, they said.

Experts believe that the Neanderthal genome sequence will be of extraordinary importance in understanding human evolutionary history since the two species split some 600,000 years ago.

So far, the team has identified only about 100 genes — surprisingly few — that have contributed to the evolution of modern humans since the split. The nature of the genes in humans that differ from those of Neanderthals is of particular interest because they bear on what it means to be human, or at least not Neanderthal. Some of the genes seem to be involved in cognitive function and others in bone structure.

“Seven years ago, I really thought that it would remain impossible in my lifetime to sequence the whole Neanderthal genome,” Dr. Paabo said at a news conference. But the Leipzig team’s second conclusion, that there was probably interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans before Europeans and Asians split, is being met with reserve by some archaeologists.

A degree of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals in Europe would not be greatly surprising given that the species overlapped there from 44,000 years ago when modern humans first entered Europe to 30,000 years ago when the last Neanderthals fell extinct. Archaeologists have been debating for years whether the fossil record shows evidence of individuals with mixed features.

But the new analysis, which is based solely on genetics and statistical calculations, is more difficult to match with the archaeological record. The Leipzig scientists assert that the interbreeding did not occur in Europe but in the Middle East and at a much earlier period, some 100,000 to 60,000 years ago, before the modern human populations of Europe and East Asia split. There is much less archaeological evidence for an overlap between modern humans and Neanderthals at this time and place.

Dr. Paabo has pioneered the extraction and analysis of ancient DNA from fossil bones, overcoming daunting obstacles over the last 13 years in his pursuit of the Neanderthal genome. Perhaps the most serious is that most Neanderthal bones are extensively contaminated with modern human DNA, which is highly similar to Neanderthal DNA. The DNA he has analyzed comes from three small bones from the Vindija cave in Croatia.

“This is a fabulous achievement,” said Ian Tattersall, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, referring to the draft Neanderthal genome that Dr. Paabo’s team describes in Thursday’s issue of Science.

But he and other archaeologists questioned some of the interpretations put forward by Dr. Paabo and his chief colleagues, Richard E. Green of the Leipzig institute, and David Reich of Harvard Medical School. Geneticists have been making increasingly valuable contributions to human prehistory, but their work depends heavily on complex mathematical statistics that make their arguments hard to follow. And the statistical insights, however informative, do not have the solidity of an archaeological fact.

“This is probably not the authors’ last word, and they are obviously groping to explain what they have found,” Dr. Tattersall said.

Richard Klein, a paleontologist at Stanford, said the authors’ theory of an early interbreeding episode did not seem to have taken full account of the archaeological background. “They are basically saying, ‘Here are our data, you have to accept it.’ But the little part I can judge seems to me to be problematic, so I have to worry about the rest,” he said.

In an earlier report on the Neanderthal genome, the reported DNA sequences were found by other geneticists to be extensively contaminated with human DNA. Dr. Paabo’s group has taken extra precautions but it remains to be seen how successful they have been, Dr. Klein said, especially as another group at the Leipzig institute, presumably using the same methods, has obtained results that Dr. Paabo said he could not confirm.

Dr. Paabo said that episode of human-Neanderthal breeding implied by Dr. Reich’s statistics most plausibly occurred “in the Middle East where the first modern humans appear before 100,000 years ago and there were Neanderthals until 60,000 years ago.” According to Dr. Klein, people in Africa expanded their range and reached just Israel during a warm period some 120,000 years ago. They retreated during a cold period some 80,000 years ago and were replaced by Neanderthals. It is not clear whether or not they overlapped with Neanderthals, he said.

These humans, in any case, were not fully modern and they did not expand from Africa, an episode that occurred some 30,000 years later. If there was any interbreeding, the flow of genes should have been both ways, Dr. Klein said, but Dr. Paabo’s group sees evidence for gene flow only from Neanderthals to modern humans.

The Leipzig group’s interbreeding theory would undercut the present belief that all human populations today draw from the same gene pool that existed a mere 50,000 years ago. “What we falsify here is the strong out-of-Africa hypothesis that everyone comes from the same population,” Dr. Paabo said.

In his and Dr. Reich’s view, Neanderthals interbred only with non-Africans, the people who left Africa, which would mean that non-Africans drew from a second gene pool not available to Africans.

Thanks for the book idea... I shall add it to my list of reading material. The statistics on increased meat consumption cannot be easily extricated from the increased incidence of obesity and related illnesses over the same period of time. It's difficult to pinpoint exactly how/why this all came to be, but I would wager a good guess that it is largely due to the U.S. system of corn subsidies, which makes animal feed dirt cheap- to the point where cattle are raised completely on corn, despite the fact that they are grass-eating animals. Accordingly, meat is much cheaper at the store than its true, embodied value. I think the only way to alter the landscape is to eliminate this subsidy and force the price of meat to rise to its actual value while subsidizing the production of fruits and vegetables for the end consumer, not for the food refineries. It drives me crazy that two fresh tomatoes at the grocery store can cost more than a can of tomatoes or a jar of tomato sauce. Low income people really have no choice to but to consume unhealthy meat- and corn-based products because they are invariably the most affordable options that offer the most calories per dollar. And in NYC and many other cities, the poorest neighborhoods are also the neighborhoods that are the least likely to have a convenient source for fresh produce while being the most likely to have the highest per capita fast food establishments.

There is so much wrong with this system- food, health, environment, economics, politics... that it drives me crazy when people go around spouting untruths about the situation. Again, eating meat is a personal choice. But at least be willing to consider the consequences of your choices at face value without trying to cloud it with some kind of irrelevant conservative talking points.

Oh this one is from the Christian Monitor

Study suggests humans mated with Neanderthals
A study of DNA from humans living today has found signs of Neanderthal genes, suggesting that interbreeding occurred between the two species.

Humans today could be part Neanderthal, according to a new study that found our ancestors interbred with an extinct hominid species some millennia ago.

X Woman: Not human, not Neanderthal, what is she?
Jewelry: so easy a cave man can do it
Fossil DNA tells tales of red-haired Neanderthals
Neanderthals walked the Earth between about 130,000 and 30,000 years ago. While they co-existed with modern humans for a while, eventually they went extinct and we didn't. There has been intense scientific debate over how similar the two species were, and whether they might have mated with each other.

"The issue has been highly contentious for some time," said University of New Mexico genetic anthropologist Keith Hunley.

Last week at the annual meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in Albuquerque, N.M., Hunley and colleagues presented the results of a new study that found evidence for interbreeding between modern humans and some other extinct ancient human species – either Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) or another group such as Homo heidelbergensis. The research was first reported by NatureNews.

The researchers looked at DNA samples from humans living today, and found signs of leftover Neanderthal genes introduced from this interbreeding. They looked at genetic data from almost 2,000 people around the world, and calculated how much genetic variation existed between samples. The results indicate that some extinct group of hominids mixed their genes with ours at two points in history, Hunley said.

One period of interbreeding probably occurred shortly after Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. The researchers found an excess of genetic diversity in all modern people except Africans, suggesting that the influx of Neanderthal-like DNA came after the exodus from Africa.

A second period of interbreeding is suggested by the fact that the researchers measured even more genetic diversity among people of Oceanic descent – people from Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and other Pacific islands.

"I think we show there's clear evidence in the genome of living people of this mixture," Hunley told LiveScience. "The fact that there's a clear signal implies that there was some significant amount" of interbreeding, he said.

This work is the first time scientists have used DNA from living people to look at this question, Hunley said.

In an earlier study, Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis found suggestions of Neanderthal and modern human interbreeding by comparing ancient bone fossils from the two species.

Trinkaus said the new work fits into his findings, though he hasn't reviewed the details yet since Hunley's paper has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. "The conclusion makes sense and fits with the majority of the data available," Trinkaus said.

Another anthropologist who has studied Neanderthal anatomy agreed.

"I have been arguing for this position throughout my career, ever since I began to study Neandertals and other populations," said Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan. "It has always seemed clear that some Neandertal anatomy appears in living populations."

Not everyone, though, will be easily convinced yet, Hunley said.

I agree, although ultimately I see very little difference between wearing animal fur/skin and wearing human skin...even though I wear leather shoes as well. Have you seen The Cove? The Japanese fisherman say they have to slaughter all those dolphins every year because they are eating too much fish. Seriously.

I know, right?! I'll never get over the shock and awe while watching Food, Inc., and seeing that family load up their cart with Pepsi and Mountain Dew, all the while complaining that they couldn't afford broccoli at $1.49 per pound.

"I cannot freaking these believe these people..." for what? For being so incendiary as to ask for sources, and not about Neanderthals, who, are completely irrelevant to this conversation and are likely 98% irrelevant to our lineage?

Are you so attached to your happy meal that you must keep creating diversions to what is essentially a simple equation? World overpopulation? Sure it's a problem -- not sure what you're going to do about it in say, China or Latin America, where it's epidemic. Neanderthals? Or course they ate meat and so did our primary ancestors, the Cro-Magnons (they drew it on their cave walls), but what about before that?

We have always been primarily a vegetarian species -- overwhelmingly so -- until the stone age, and even then, we simply added a little meat when we could. But we don't need to now. We have simply become used to it, because now we don't hunt...we just buy. And buy, and buy, in huge Costco portions that are making us fatter and ruining our environs. At least when we hunted, we didn't cause the animal lifelong discomfort, or in many cases, agony. We should pay attention to what we are eating and why we are eating it. This is all I am saying. If you choose to eat an extra bit of burger today out of spite, so be it. But why not cut down? It simply makes a lot more sense.

Agreed. Sort of. I recall a number of years back reading about the killing of "innocent dolphins" who happened to get caught up in Japanese tuna nets. And I was like, well, aren't the tuna innocent too? Do they deserve to be killed? :shrug: Have you seen The Cove? Definitely essential viewing. It just goes to show you that people have the capacity to be completely barbaric and shameless when money is involved.

Regardless of Man's origins, guess what? We evolved. Enough said. I don't see what some thick-skulled, knuckle-dragging Neanderthal has to do with us today. They didn't have the intellectual capacity to prevent their own extinction, so why should they be held up as an example of how modern humans should live their lives today? :shrug:

ok, here is another source. And I'm doing this to show that science is tit for tat. Someone can quote a scource and then another person can quote another source with a different take or different perspective. Science is a lot like religion. You have to have faith.

Humans are Omnivores

Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D.

There are a number of popular myths about vegetarianism that have no scientific basis in fact. One of these myths is that man is naturally a vegetarian because our bodies resemble plant eaters, not carnivores. In fact we are omnivores, capable of either eating meat or plant foods. The following addresses the unscientific theory of man being only a plant eater.

Confusion between Taxonomy and Diet

Much of the misinformation on the issue of man's being a natural vegetarian arises from confusion between taxonomic (in biology, the procedure of classifying organisms in established categories) and dietary characteristics.

Members of the mammalian Order Carnivora may or may not be exclusive meat eaters. Those which eat only meat are carnivores. Dietary adaptations are not limited by a simple dichotomy between herbivores (strict vegetarians) and carnivores (strict meat-eaters), but include frugivores (predominantly fruit), gramnivores (nuts, seeds, etc.), folivores (leaves), insectivores (carnivore-insects and small vertebrates), etc. Is is also important to remember that the relation between the form (anatomy/physiology) and function (behavior) is not always one to one. Individual anatomical structures can serve one or more functions and similar functions can be served by several forms.

Omnivorism

The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically *opportunistic* feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

The Great Apes

There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates).

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores

Archeological Record

As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

Cell Types

Relative number and distribution of cell types, as well as structural specializations, are more important than overall length of the intestine to determining a typical diet. Dogs are typical carnivores, but their intestinal characteristics have more in common with omnivores. Wolves eat quite a lot of plant material.

Fermenting Vats

Nearly all plant eaters have fermenting vats (enlarged chambers where foods sits and microbes attack it). Ruminants like cattle and deer have forward sacs derived from remodeled esophagus and stomach. Horses, rhinos, and colobine monkeys have posterior, hindgut sacs. Humans have no such specializations.

Jaws

Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.

Salivary Glands

These indicate we could be omnivores. Saliva and urine data vary, depending on diet, not taxonomic group.

Intestines

Intestinal absorption is a surface area, not linear problem. Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats. The relative number of crypts and cell types is a better indication of diet than simple length. We are intermediate between the two groups.

Conclusion

Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.

[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

This is the issue, not all of that evolutionary mumbo-jumbo.

Because people keep talking about origins and science.

Neanderthal man could be part of our DNA. Many vegans claim that what we evolved from creatures that did not eat meat. Well, I highly doubt that is true. Many animals that are considered carnivores eat plants and vice versa. Anyway, Neanderthal ate very little plants (if you believe the science). They basically lived off meat. If they are part of our DNA then man may be even more inclined to eat meat.

It doesn't really matter. Humans are neither a herbivore or carnivore.

"They didn't have the intellectual capacity to prevent their own extinction." Modern man doesn't seem to have it either. No checks and balances. Hell, 9 billion in 2050. In 2100 will it be 12 Billion. UGG!

No the issue is overpopulation leads to cruelty—animal cruelty, wars... there are no checks and balances.

So...animal cruelty is a recent development, say in the last 100 years?

Animal dependency leads to animal cruelty. And wars have been around forever and are not always caused by competition for resources. Many have been ideological (no, I am the king) or religious (yay, religion!).

Overpopulation is a sidebar, and a distraction. It has less to do with "eating animals" than "not eating animals" does.

This has got to be one of my favorite quotes of Ledgedom, especially the part I bolded. I love how we debate really deep, meaningful issues here. :nod:

I would suggest moving this thread to chit chat and changing the title because this thread is supposed to be about whether or not Stevie wears real or fake fur.

Those religions are all about populating the earth with lots of children to spread their religion. They are fighting over who will control the population. What religion tells its flock to have less children. Religions are all about population and domination. The resource they are competing for is people. A tribes did fight each but it was really over food. Sorry, but lots of wars are disquised. We went to war basically for oil, but the president tried to say it was for something else. It's resources.

No overpopulation is not a sidebar. It's the main reason why the planet is in the shape it is in today. It's the real reason, but no one likes to talk about it.

I have not had a chance to read all of the responses here, but I can't WAIT to do so. I do want to quickly respond to the idea that cruelty to animals comes from overpopulation. The cruelty to animals comes from GREED. God, I wish I were not at work so I could get in on this discussion. Please consider this post as my place holder, or bookmark.

Oh dear not the old vegetarian debate again. It is kind of like politics and religion, not the sort of thing to bring up at the dinner table. I have never known this discussion lead to anything but arguments (oh and believe me I've had this debate many times). There are the people who say "but we are meant to eat meat" and the people who say "but eating meat is cruel" and they are never ever going to agree or see things from the same perspective.

My two cents worth here though is that if you eat meat, and you are happy to eat meat, then don't be upset if other cultures eat dogs, cats, horses or whales. I drives me insane the amount of meat eating people who complain about commercial whaling.

Oh and the old "we are meant to eat meat" argument. Sure this may well be true and I wouldn't profess to be an expect in this area. If we look back at our ancestors though, we can quite easily work out that we probably aren't meant to drive in cars, fly in planes, practise monogamy, or a whole list of other things. Good thing that cannibalism and human sacrifice never caught on !

Both sides have pros and cons and neither side is "right". Why can't people just accept that it is a personal choice and allow others to live their lives as they please?

I addressed the first statement in my earlier post. Thanks to greedy corporations, factory farmed animals are given a life of pain and suffering. Factory farmed animals (aka, the meat on your table) are looked at as a commodity to be exploited. Their lives are hell; the slaughter is the final "relief". We use animals for food, clothing, transport, protection, entertainment and companionship. In return, humane treatment is the least we can provide.

It's actually more than just a "shame" that the animals are treated this way. They're pumped up with growth hormones, appetite stimulants, pesticides and antibiotics. These chemicals build up and collect and the animals milk and tissues.

Truthfully, there's really no way to respond to this in a way you would hear and understand. :shrug:

Yes. When I was younger (in my twenties), I was much more outspoken in regard to my beliefs. As I've gotten older and more mellow, I realize that it's not my job to "save" the animals. I do wish that people would be more mindful about the reality of factory farmed animals. I am not a vegetarian vigilante. My mother eats meat, as does my 17 year old step son. It's not up to me to dictate what someone else eats. Why then, do some meat eaters feel the need to ruthlessly prove why it's so important for us to eat meat?

I've heard all of the arguments related to whether or not we are meant to eat meat. I've heard all about canines and cave men, etc. Who cares? Animals were killed swiftly and without torture.

I'm losing steam- it's late (for me-old lady). It's an age old debate that does not need to be fought. Non meat eaters tend to debate it because of the belief that modern day farming and meat eating is detrimental not only to one's health but to the over all environment. People who love meat debate it because...:shrug:

Sorry for typos- I'm tired. :)

That's exactly my response to just about every debate in life: religion, marriage, sexuality, politics, children, etc.

Word.


fukcing 10 characters

You're right--these arguments will never be productive. I don't think these sorts of debates will ever change anyone's mind--no diehard meat eater is going to read an internet debate and say "you're right, I will go vegan!" Just as no atheist will ever say, "Thanks for explaining it--the Mormon faith sounds perfect for me!"

And yet....
Most of us have a certain amount of investment in these topics. We define ourselves in part by how we align on these sorts of issues. Heck, I float somewhere in the middle--I've given up seafood for environment reasons, but not meat, and don't particularly begrudge either party. And even I can't stop myself from butting in on these unproductive conversations.

I was intrigued by your opinion on cats, dogs, and whales. I agree with you on cats and dogs--the idea makes me a little squeamish (no way could I eat a cat), but I agree that it's unfair for meat-eaters to draw a moral line there. As Americans and Europeans, most of us spent our formative years with Fluffy and Rex, and impose those memories on very different cultures. Basically, unless an animal is endangered or threatened (or highly intelligent--sentience has meaning IMO), I think it's unfair for meat-eaters to get too judge-y.

But whales? Are they really in the same category? I realize most whaling is carried out by indigenous communities and it may not be fair of us to imposeon their cultural traditions, but I definitely have a problem with hunting threatened species of whales. I'm less sure about non-endangered species--for me, the question with any kind of fishing comes down to the method they use and how destructive it is to other marine life. But I honestly don't know much about commercial whaling, and am very open to being educated...