Excerpt from "Against Meat"

[iago]

Are you saying that it's cruel to farm animals, but not to hunt them in the wild? Would you hunt if it was necessary for survival?

Hunting is far better than farming, provided it's necessary for survival. At least the animals get to be free for their whole lives.

I prefer neither, though. Hunting could never be necessary for survival, because the animals eat far more plants than the amount of nutrition you get from eating an animal. If animals are surviving, then there's gotta be edible plants around.

[Camel]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

[iago]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Are we talking desert island? Winter in a forest? Another planet? And, are these animals intelligent? Hostile? Friendly? And, do I have the ability to kill them cleanly, or do I have to hurt them and let them writhe in pain before they die?

The point I'm getting to, in a roundabout way, is that there's never enough context in those kinds of scenarios to make an informed decision.

[rabbit]

And if they are carnivores?

[Newby]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Not really. Let's say hypothetically, they managed to produce some vitamin in their digestion of plants that didn't come from the plants -- it was simply the plant reacting with something the animal had.

If that vitamin was necessary for survival, and you can only get the vitamin from eating other animals, would you do it? Would it be wrong?

Same exact world. Same everything. Just an addition of "humans need vitamin XXXXX to survive" and "animals carry vitamin XXXXX, and no human has perfected creating vitamin XXXXX in a lab." 

[iago]

That's a valid point, but it was more of a philosophical question. At the risk of sounding like the "if someone put a gun to your head" scenario... hypothetically, if it were necessary for survival, would you still consider hunting and eating a wild animal wrong, and would you do it?

I can't really answer that, because the situation is impossible.

Not really. Let's say hypothetically, they managed to produce some vitamin in their digestion of plants that didn't come from the plants -- it was simply the plant reacting with something the animal had.

If that vitamin was necessary for survival, and you can only get the vitamin from eating other animals, would you do it? Would it be wrong?

Same exact world. Same everything. Just an addition of "humans need vitamin XXXXX to survive" and "animals carry vitamin XXXXX, and no human has perfected creating vitamin XXXXX in a lab." 

I can't really answer that, because I don't know. I'd have to lean towards yes, it's still wrong, and that we need to find a better way.

Fortunately, it isn't the case in the real world (our bodies are much better at digesting plant matter than animal matter), so it's a nonissue.

[Tuberload]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

[iago]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

[Tuberload]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

I can understand your perspective, and because of that I don't think less of you. Make a stand!

[iago]

I love a nice steak, and some BBQ country pork ribs. I feel no shame. 

That's fine, people can make their own choices. And my choice is to consider that wrong.

I can understand your perspective, and because of that I don't think less of you. Make a stand!

For what it's worth, I hear exactly that line on a very regular basis.

The other response is, I never hated the taste of meat or anything, and I miss the flavour sometimes -- but in my mind, the cost is WAY higher than the benefit, so I can't justify it.

[Camel]

I just had a ham, egg, and cheese on a bagel. Yum!

Are we talking desert island? Winter in a forest? Another planet? And, are these animals intelligent? Hostile? Friendly? And, do I have the ability to kill them cleanly, or do I have to hurt them and let them writhe in pain before they die?

The point I'm getting to, in a roundabout way, is that there's never enough context in those kinds of scenarios to make an informed decision.

If all variables were ideal (you can minimize suffering, friendly animals, etc), then at what level of intelligence, if any, would it be justifiable to kill an animal for the primary purpose of consumption?

[deadly7]

I would almost argue that at no level is it okay to kill an animal for consumption, unless there is absolutely no alternative. Yes meat is healthy and provides benefits not found in one other food, but you can [and should] be eating combinations of the other foods meat replaces anyway. The American diet is awful.

----

So iago, I was walking around my campus and someone was handing out a pamphlet about animal awareness, which my boss at work saw and we got into a discussion about it. What do you think of the tactic of showing sad or dirty animals or dead ones as a means for convincing people to stop eating meat, etc? I'm personally not a fan of it simply because it's underhanded and designed to draw out an emotoinal pitying reaction instead of making a personal rationalize their own beliefs and consciously rethink everything.. but as a vegan and somewhat staunch animal rights person, I'm curious on your take.

[iago]

I would almost argue that at no level is it okay to kill an animal for consumption, unless there is absolutely no alternative. Yes meat is healthy and provides benefits not found in one other food, but you can [and should] be eating combinations of the other foods meat replaces anyway. The American diet is awful.

Agreed. I was thinking more about the question, and what it comes down to is this: I do my best to minimize unnecessary death and suffering, as far as is practical and possible.

So iago, I was walking around my campus and someone was handing out a pamphlet about animal awareness, which my boss at work saw and we got into a discussion about it. What do you think of the tactic of showing sad or dirty animals or dead ones as a means for convincing people to stop eating meat, etc? I'm personally not a fan of it simply because it's underhanded and designed to draw out an emotoinal pitying reaction instead of making a personal rationalize their own beliefs and consciously rethink everything.. but as a vegan and somewhat staunch animal rights person, I'm curious on your take.

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

I mean, eating meat seems totally insane to me.

<edit> Sorry, somebody at work walked up behind me, so I just hit 'submit'

To continue, for that reason, I think the effectiveness is questionable. On one hand, making people face reality is the only way to really make a difference. On the other, it's like telling an alcoholic not to drink -- people aren't going to face reality until they're ready, and they'll come up with some kind of a defense mechanism (be it humour, denial, etc.) to deal with it. For that reason, I think it's ineffective.

I think the best thing I can do as a vegan is to eat what I eat, and be educated. People ask me a lot of questions, or make fun of me in a good natured way, and I always have a decent response that they can generally understand. I think that helps more than anything -- even if they don't become vegan tomorrow, it helps them questions their decisions.

[Sidoh]

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

You left the most important one out, iago: care less about animals than the benefits of eating meat.

[iago]

I don't know. The whole concept of eating meat is insane to me, now that I look at it from the outside. The only way people can possibly do it is:
a) Denial; that is, don't think about what you're eating, abstract it away, etc;, or
b) Be a serial-killer style personality.

You left the most important one out, iago: care less about animals than the benefits of eating meat.

That one falls under (a). There are very few physical benefits to eating meat, and lots of drawbacks (increased risk of all kinds of cancers, heart disease, much higher risk of eating contaminated food, etc).

<edit> For benefits, I don't buy "it tastes good" as any kind of argument -- that's like saying "rape is ok because it feels good!". While that may be the case, it's only good for one party -- the other is suffering, and losing something important. Killing stuff for simple desires doesn't really count as a "benefit", in my books. I'm looking more at nutritional value (which is nearly nil for most meat).