Vegetarianism

[Gardenhead]

I've been a vegetarian for several years now, because I suddenly realized that I didn't want to kill other sentient beings purely for my own gratification. I've since read up on animal rights and vegetarianism - with Peter Singer being a particular idol of mine - and that's solidified my position greatly. Essentially, it is a scientific fact that non-human animals are capable of feeling an immense amount of pain. This is indisputable. It is also indisputable that we cause non-human animals an immense amount of pain in factory farming conditions (though not just there), and at the moment of intended death (or after the moment, if it fails).

Jeremy Bentham said that 'the question is not can they talk, nor can they reason, but can they suffer?' regarding the identification of morally important beings. This is especially poignant considering what we now know about the origin of species, and especially homo sapiens; we are not inherently 'special'. We are animals too. It is true that we are more advanced organisms than any other that we know of, but we are not on a pedestal - and other sentient beings share our potential for pain. It therefore seems right to me that we should not inflict any unnecessary pain or death on our fellow sentient beings; and meat eating is certainly unnecessary to us as omnivores, especially in this modern age. It seems morally repugnant to me that anyone would consider their own base gratification (the argument differs when it is a case of survival, but overwhelmingly it is not) more important than the life and well being of another sentient creature.

I'd like to know your stance on vegetarianism, and more importantly how you justify it, so we can have a discussion.

[mrbloom]

I'd go even further than you in espousing the problems of eating meat. Greenhouse gas emissions, terrible conditions for workers, fast food, and obesity. If we didn't eat meat, the world would probably be a safer, more sustainable place - and that's without the moral qualms you've raised.

I think regulation on a scale this large is the role of the government, not individuals (though I also acknowledge that this is a cop out). Just as I'd say it's the governments, not consumers, role to price carbon and lower greenhouse gases, I'd say it's the governments role to decrease the amount of meat consumed worldwide. You can't expect consumers not to behave according to the market. I think with government taxes on meat, better government oversite of meat production plants, and eventually maybe a stop to meat eating alltogether, the world would be better off. Of course, governments are too in the hold of the meat lobbies for that to ever happen.

But who am I to talk? I eat meat regularly. I don't have a moral defense, except, sort of the one raised above, but I'll readily admit it's inadequate. God, that makes me feel pathetic.

[Captain Cosine]

My view is presented perfect with this one song lyrics: "This is necessary...life feeds on life." We need to eat other beings to survive. Lions eat other animals, what's wrong with that? It's nature. The fact that we are sentient and have our own morals gives us the opportunity to fulfill our natural desires to eat other living creatures, while, at the very least, not making it a slow agonizing death for the victim. Unfortunately people still use inhumane methods, and the industrial slaughterhouses are despicable.

Of course, we don't need to eat meat to survive, but I like the way it tastes, so I'll continue to eat it. There's a lot of things we don't need to do in life, but we still do them because we want to. Clouding our desires with fears (morals) will suppress desires, and that in itself can lead to more problems.

And, in my honest opinion, morals are simply fears. So to protect ourselves, we avoid anything that puts us into that situation. We then take it a step further and push them on others (though not everyone does, and I'm not saying you have or do) so that we can eliminate all temptation to do something. That doesn't sound very coherent, my brother is watching TV and it's distracting the hell out of me, but I hope you somewhat understood that.

[Gardenhead]

My view is presented perfect with this one song lyrics: "This is necessary...life feeds on life." We need to eat other beings to survive. Lions eat other animals, what's wrong with that? It's nature. The fact that we are sentient and have our own morals gives us the opportunity to fulfill our natural desires to eat other living creatures, while, at the very least, not making it a slow agonizing death for the victim. Unfortunately people still use inhumane methods, and the industrial slaughterhouses are despicable.

Of course, we don't need to eat meat to survive, but I like the way it tastes, so I'll continue to eat it. There's a lot of things we don't need to do in life, but we still do them because we want to. Clouding our desires with fears (morals) will suppress desires, and that in itself can lead to more problems.

And, in my honest opinion, morals are simply fears. So to protect ourselves, we avoid anything that puts us into that situation. We then take it a step further and push them on others (though not everyone does, and I'm not saying you have or do) so that we can eliminate all temptation to do something. That doesn't sound very coherent, my brother is watching TV and it's distracting the hell out of me, but I hope you somewhat understood that.

I think you contradict your opening remark pretty quickly, and in fact you admit as much. 'It's necessary' and 'I like the way it tastes' are completely different things. Lions are sentient too, but they are not conscious enough to possess morals; they are also, unlike us, carnivores. I think seeing our intelligence as simply one more tool for the suppression, destruction, and devouring of others is a very simplistic reduction of the human condition. The most glaring emotion you leave out (but later by implication accept) is empathy; that which tells us that the suffering of others, not just our own, is bad.

By your utter relativism, nothing is immoral - murder, rape, torture; and of humans, not 'just' other animals. However, you don't really seem to believe in your own argument. You make a moral judgement ('industrial slaughterhouses are despicable') one moment, and then say 'morals are simply fears' the next. By your own admittance, 'despicable' is a meaningless word that simply masks suppression of desire, or fear. Either you see something inherently bad in industrial slaughter houses, or you don't believe anything at all to be wrong. That doesn't sound very coherent to me. I also don't see that not eating meat has anything to do with 'fear', but it has everything to do with empathy - the feeling that I suspect led you to denounce those slaughter houses, and to use the word 'inhumane'.

I don't think your 'suppression of desires' comment holds much water. You're very vague on the 'problems' you think could occur if we collectively stopped eating meat. What you seem to be doing there is taking an argument that could be valid in the case of suppressing more primal urges - sex, for example - and bolting it onto something far more mundane. Could you elaborate somewhat on what you think the 'problems' inherent in abandoning meat are? I'm not being completely irreverent when I tell you that I - and my friends - are not somehow dysfunctional simply because we cut meat out of our diets.



I'd go even further than you in espousing the problems of eating meat. Greenhouse gas emissions, terrible conditions for workers, fast food, and obesity. If we didn't eat meat, the world would probably be a safer, more sustainable place - and that's without the moral qualms you've raised.


I'd certainly agree with the wider problems you've addressed, and also that it is a governing, as well as (not instead of) a personal moral issue. I do think that you've made a bit of a moral copout, but you're not alone - meat eating is a societal norm, and it's very easy to just fall into line. I'm not going to self-righteously berate you for eating meat, and I do sympathize with your position, but obviously it does irk me somewhat that so many people 'get' the argument against meat eating, but do not follow through with their moral decisions. I think that eventually (as with slaving and other practices that have since been 'revealed' as immoral) the tide will turn, but we have to begin to act as individuals and stop shifting the blame if we're to accelerate the process at all.

[Captain Cosine]

I do believe right and wrong are non-existent, and the ones I have are out of fear. Morals are fears, even if they stem from empathy. Empathy is putting yourself into another's shoes, you would be afraid of whatever it is happening to you, therefore you don't do it to others. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to be afraid, but turning your fear into a "right" or "wrong" is silly. Everyone thinks differently, there is no right, there is no wrong; just choices (in terms of morality that is). My saying things are inhumane and despicable... well, you got me. To me, they still feel despicable and disgusting, but I do try not to label things as right and wrong. For me, it's really only wrong if you can't justify your choice; and really you could come up with an argument to justify (almost) any choice.

I'm not sure what I was getting at either with suppressing desires, as I said, I was really distracted, so just ignore that. Nothing bad comes from cutting meat out of your diet, but I don't see why we should to be honest. Just because we have consciousness means we can't deliberately kill another being without being labeled something negative?

It's always hard to argue my ideas when we get into morality, because i still have my feelings of "right" and "wrong" but I still realize both are non-existent, so I have the tendency to contradict myself.

[Hare]

...........

[Gardenhead]

I have already laid out my position. I say that I find the moral judgement repugnant, not that I hate meat eaters or wish them any harm. That I hold my position with conviction does not prevent discussion; I have expressed why I think avoiding meat is a moral thing, and so I obviously think that the opposite is true. I have politely asked people to express their own views on the matter, and yes - inevitably - that means a defense of their moral position; or in the Captain's case, a defense of no moral position.

I put it to you that you are the one inhibiting debate by refusing to participate in it, and instead simply complaining about my use of language, which would only be legitimate if I expressed anything other than a forthright description of my moral viewpoint and an invitation to discussion. I have not said 'I am right, you are wrong, do not argue', I have laid out my position and asked for a response, which I have received. I express no antagonism towards individuals, only an opposition to an ethical decision. Debate is about disagreement, and the disagreements we have been discussing have been nothing less than cordial, even if robust.

[danecobain]

i'm a vegetarian, and i completely agree - if i can live without eating meat/fish, i see no need to do so. I haven't really noticed much of a difference in my diet, there's so much vegetarian food out there and half of it is cheaper than the meat equivalent :)

[Nature's heartbeat]

Hi everyone! I've been a vegetarian for about two months now...so I'm still trying to figure out my stance on things like where I draw the line...

If I'll try to explain the process I went through, it would perhaps be something along these lines;

As a child I was a picky eater and really loved some meaty dishes - they were my favorites and as such, I wanted to have them often (yes, grew up in a family of meat eaters) and wasn't really into veggies...(so suppose that from that stance, meat was needed for my survival)...When I moved out from my parents back in the day, I didn't cook meat for myself...in fact, I really hated cutting meat (can't explain it...suppose it's because it felt like it was something dead - on some subconscious level (cause I didn't really reflect on these things more deeply), and only cooked it rarely at some times, like for instance when I had guests over...My palate was more open minded then and I liked trying to cook up new things, veggie dishes mostly, and I realized that veggie food can be really yummy...and I basically just ate meat when invited to other people's places...and continued doing it basically just when invited to other people's places and they had cooked meat, in order not to be difficult/cause problems for the host (thinking especially of people from cultures where most dishes contain meat)...

With time, and involvement in a fair trade association, I started realizing the role the consumer can have in affecting society, for better or worse and then I would think more about these more eco friendly alternatives when buying food and try to choose them more often...

Obviously, I've always felt that killing was wrong (and still do) and like I wasn't (and am not) going to participate in it. But I didn't reflect on, or really think that me not eating meat would 1) change anything (guess I felt like what power or say do I have anyway, like what difference would my little choice make in this big world?), or 2) that it actually involved me contributing to the killing of animals.

Then Gardenhead - in some discussion about vegetarianism - something like; how can you motivate what you do? I thought that I can't really motivate it cause I don't reason that way about for instance not drinking alcohol (that I need to do it because "most people do" but I don't because of religious reasons that involve not consuming that which can take reason away and because I feel it's better for society, that it is more caring not to tempt people with risks of being alcoholic/those who are alcoholics, that it costs society less, involve less crime, is good that there are people who don't drink for those who only drink because of peer pressure etc. and so when it comes to for instance that I've felt like my little choice matters...), and it's not exactly like the people I know aren't "difficult" when it comes to food...there are those who are lactose intolerant, vegetarians, halal meat eaters, those with allergy towards citrus fruits, nuts, you name it...so I was cooking veggie meals usually anyway when I invited a mixed group of people over...

A little time went by...I went over for a meeting at a friends' house, and she had cooked up a meat stew with rice...I ate it...and then afterwards, I felt guilt. It actually felt like I had gone against my beliefs...and, I didn't like it...Then I sat with three friends talking one day...one of them a vegetarian by the way who said to me that it's actually worse to eat fish than meat etc. (and I said well I don't really eat fish that much either)...and I told them that I want to become a vegetarian, that I only eat meat because I don't want to be difficult at other people's places...and one of them told me, well, then maybe what you need to do is announce to your friends that you are going to be a vegetarian and then they'll just have to deal with it...and I thought to myself - yeah, that's what I ought to do...

I think then Gardenhead asked me again at another time about how I can motivate what I'm doing (i.e eat meat), and I just thought - I can't motivate it, I can't motivate it, I CAN'T MOTIVATE IT - I don't need to eat meat...it just kept ringing in my mind...and so, I turned vegetarian because - all arguments aside - it felt like the right thing to do and I do believe that my choice matters, that I do have some power/responsibility to see to that this world becomes a better place, that I can try to do my share in reducing the amount of suffering in the world, so I basically stopped eating meat and fish just like that...and I guess that morals are a lot about that - what feels right or wrong to a person...

I’ve already realized that people are interested in the why I’m a vegetarian...and when I say that I don’t need to eat meat, they can go – well, I don’t either...

When it comes to where I draw the line, I now think stuff like it's better not to eat meat and fish – kinder to the animals, as well as more sustainable for the environment, but think that it would be ok when it's really needed for survival or health reasons and things like – hmm, what should I do with shoes now? Should I get rid of leather shoes, leather handbags, any makeup I may have that doesn't say it hasn't been tested on animals, get rid of any silk I may have, never think of having a cat or some animal that may eat meat...etc.?

Anyhow, thanks a lot o Gardenheaded one for discussing vegetarianism with me, starting this thread and contributing to me becoming a vegetarian...Imagine that, what a difference one person's choices, thoughts and questions can make...;)

[Captain Cosine]

We are omnivores, nature deems we should eat both. I say should because our consciousness is the only reason we neglect to do so, if I was a less conscious animal I would still eat meat. I don't feel not killing an animal makes the world better, as long as you are killing that animal with a reason, like to eat it, to survive.

And you said you felt killing was wrong, I'm going to assume you meant killing sentient beings, because you're killing plants.

This seems to really just be about morality, and since I've already stated I don't feel morals exist, as in they're made up and opinionated, therefore meaning right and wrong have no absolute definition, I don't think I've anything left to say. My belief system is far too complicated to explain here, otherwise I would and maybe you all would understand better, but I'll rest my case. I don't care if you're a vegetarian, I think it's a nice gesture, but still ultimately pointless. I hold nothing against you guys though ;) One of my closest friends is a vegetarian.

[Gardenhead]

We are omnivores, nature deems we should eat both.

That's the naturalistic fallacy, I'm afraid. 'Our digestive systems can cope with both meat and vegetables' doesn't mean 'we should eat meat and vegetables', just like 'sex exists for the sake of reproduction' doesn't mean 'don't use condoms' or 'don't be gay', or indeed 'rape to disseminate your seed'. It's the is-ought gap, and it doesn't fly in argument.

I say should because our consciousness is the only reason we neglect to do so, if I was a less conscious animal I would still eat meat. I don't feel not killing an animal makes the world better, as long as you are killing that animal with a reason, like to eat it, to survive.

I think it's already been made clear that we're talking about cases in which it isn't needed for survival. Besides this, you're continuing to contradict yourself by wanting to supply 'reasons'. You say morals don't exist, hence you'd be completely fine with the random slaughter of animals regardless of whether their carcasses were consumed. If you think it's fine 'as long as there's a reason', then you're marking a moral judgement which - as you keep telling us - is an impossibility. I maintain that you're simply willfully ignoring the moral intuition that is so blatantly seeping out.

I also think that 'it's only our consciousness' is a pretty gigantic thing to brush under the carpet. Our consciousness is precisely what gives us morality; one minute you use nature to defend meat eating, the next you rubbish nature in ignoring the fundamental difference inherent in the species homo sapiens.

And you said you felt killing was wrong, I'm going to assume you meant killing sentient beings, because you're killing plants.

That's a bit of a cheap shot. The argument is centred on sentience. Even regardless of this however, meat eaters kill far more plants than vegetarians do, owing to the immense amounts fed to animals for meat.

This seems to really just be about morality, and since I've already stated I don't feel morals exist, as in they're made up and opinionated, therefore meaning right and wrong have no absolute definition, I don't think I've anything left to say. My belief system is far too complicated to explain here, otherwise I would and maybe you all would understand better, but I'll rest my case.I don't care if you're a vegetarian, I think it's a nice gesture, but still ultimately pointless. I hold nothing against you guys though ;) One of my closest friends is a vegetarian.

You're off again with calling something a 'nice' gesture, when 'nice' is apparently a meaningless term; at least when applied to a moral decision. If you think it's a 'nice gesture', you're contradicting your own beliefs. I don't think I can really let you get away with being a champagne relativist. Either you think morality exists, or you don't; if you think the latter, then you're both undermining yourself and patronizing your opponents by continually making statements like that.

Beyond this matter, does not the very fact that we can have meaningful moral discussion mean that there are shared standards upon which our discussion can take place?

You also say that 'everyone thinks differently', but this is patently untrue regarding a whole legion of universally held beliefs, not least those enshrined in the universal rights of man. There are differences in detail, but there are many moral truths that are self-evidently present in the human condition. It's not a coincidence that murder, torture, or genocide are morally repugnant, and just because morality cannot be said to properly exist outside of humanity, humanity does exist; and with us, so our morals. Their darwinian root does not undermine them. If you say only that they are meaningless because they are a human construct (though not simply a 'construct', as so much of them are inherent), then your belief system is also meaningless, and you cannot properly make the statement 'morals are meaningless'. You're hoist by your own petard.

Again, your old 'fear' hypothesis does not hold up regarding animals. Fearing something lest it be inflicted on us by others could at least be argued for regarding other humans; there is no chance that a chicken would cram us in a cage and let us die a torturous, servile death. Fear would be an illogical (and is, I suspect, a non-existant) motivator in meat eating.

Finally, I'd just like to add that telling us 'my belief system is too complicated to explain, but if I did you'd understand' is a completely unfair position to take. You cannot claim victory with the argument unseen.

[Captain Cosine]

I apologize for this not being very organized.

That's the naturalistic fallacy, I'm afraid. 'Our digestive systems can cope with both meat and vegetables' doesn't mean 'we should eat meat and vegetables', just like 'sex exists for the sake of reproduction' doesn't mean 'don't use condoms' or 'don't be gay', or indeed 'rape to disseminate your seed'. It's the is-ought gap, and it doesn't fly in argument.

My reasoning for the should though is that if we were less conscious we would. We wouldn't rape without this level of consciousness so why you are comparing them I'm not sure.

Finally, I'd just like to add that telling us 'my belief system is too complicated to explain, but if I did you'd understand' is a completely unfair position to take. You cannot claim victory with the argument unseen.

I'm not claiming victory with my last statement, and I'm not saying you would turn to my way of thinking if I fully explained, what I meant is you would understand why I think the way I do is all; I had no intention of pretending I won.

You're off again with calling something a 'nice' gesture, when 'nice' is apparently a meaningless term; at least when applied to a moral decision. If you think it's a 'nice gesture', you're contradicting your own beliefs. I don't think I can really let you get away with being a champagne relativist. Either you think morality exists, or you don't; if you think the latter, then you're both undermining yourself and patronizing your opponents by continually making statements like that.

This is also why I don't get into moral debates, the second I say morals are non-existent you immediately prevent me from using half my language because they are related to morality. I believe right and wrong don't exist, because even if they is a majority that agree one a certain idea of "right" there are others who disagree. We can't know anything, so us claiming right and wrong to have absolute definition is silly.

Again, your old 'fear' hypothesis does not hold up regarding animals. Fearing something lest it be inflicted on us by others could at least be argued for regarding other humans; there is no chance that a chicken would cram us in a cage and let us die a torturous, servile death. Fear would be an illogical (and is, I suspect, a non-existant) motivator in meat eating.

The part about fear, I'm no sure what you're getting at. I'm saying that are morals are based on fear because simply, if we fear being killed, in an attempt to obliterate any possibility of that happening, we 1) don't kill others, and it will branch off into other areas to the point where you won't want to kill anything and 2) you (not everyone) will claim killing is a wrong and repugnant thing, in hopes everyone will stop killing, so you won't be killed by them.

And yes, my belief in itself is contradictory, because it is the belief in nothing. What would you have me do? How can I explain my view any other way? It's my own opinion, and I accept it is and that you all don't agree. I'm not claiming it to be true, just presenting my reasons why I feel that way, and letting you decide.

And I told you, I still have some morals that I find hard to eliminate, but it doesn't mean I don't recognize they are just opinions and fears.

That's a bit of a cheap shot. The argument is centred on sentience. Even regardless of this however, meat eaters kill far more plants than vegetarians do, owing to the immense amounts fed to animals for meat.

How was what I said a cheap shot? I was just making sure that's what he meant is all...

It's not a coincidence that murder, torture, or genocide are morally repugnant,

Not everyone thinks genocide is wrong. Not everyone thinks torture is wrong. etc.

If you think it's fine 'as long as there's a reason', then you're marking a moral judgement which

Yes, I said if you have a reason I don't care, I also said you can think of a reason for anything. I'll no doubt argue to make sure you know wtf you're talking about, but as long as you've a reason what can I do? I'll accept "because it's fun" or "because I was bored" those aren't moral reasons, they are just reasons.

[Nature's heartbeat]

Hi there Captain Cosine, Garden and any others who might be reading...

Sorry about being unclear...I'm not sure of how the two of you define "sentient", and if you both agree on what's sentient and not, so I won't address that part but since the discussion was revolving around eating animals or not, I was thinking more specifically that I've always thought that the killing of animals or causing them pain (or humans for that matter) and in general, the taking of a non-human life unless necessary for survival or health, is wrong...

I wasn't attacking anyone's position but merely sharing my own views and how they came about.

Oh, and by the way, to those of you who don't know, I'm a she...;)

[Captain Cosine]

No worries NH, that's what I assumed you meant. And sorry, I've a habit for assuming most people on the interwebs are male lol.

[Hare]

...............

[Gardenhead]

Not everyone thinks genocide is wrong. Not everyone thinks torture is wrong. etc.


Nor did I say that they did. What I said was that these moral repulsions were ingrained in the human condition; it's quite possible that an individual - a psychopath or extreme racist - might think that genocide isn't wrong. But overwhelmingly, humanity does think that. The numbers are vast. A few people who are of the opinion that it is A-OK do not immediately, by their very existence, nullify the inbuilt moral repulsion to the act. This inbuilt repulsion is undeniable.

Now, it can legitimately be argued that my labeling of the repulsion as a 'moral' repulsion is false. However, it could also be argued that my labeling of an aeroplane as an 'aeroplane' is false, or that my labeling of my feelings for my girlfriend as 'love' is false. The point is, to take this view is to pointlessly stifle progress - epistemological and emotional - and to be bullishly reductionist. The aeroplane is more than the sum of its parts, just as my love is more than the sum of its parts, just as the mind is more than the brain that produces it, just as morality is more than simply fear/compassion/selfishness/desire/philanthropy. Morality is complex.

Nevertheless, it exists. We all of us make moral judgements. I would absolutely agree that there are no moral absolutes in the sense of material absolutes. They do not exist in the same way that, for example, the universe exists, or the chair that I am sitting on exists. However, they do exist as the expression of what is innate in us; a dizzying, bizarre and beautiful projection of empathy that is probably part darwinian survival mechanism and part the misfiring of a darwinian survival mechanism. It exists as a commonality between humans, just as free will exists as a commonality between humans. Now, it could easily be said that free will does not exist (determinism is a terrifying but perfectly probable situation), just as it could easily be said that morality does not exist. However, we don't really have a choice in the matter; if we stop believing in free will, we cannot function properly or flourish. If we stop believing in morality, we cannot function properly or flourish.

Outside of what is innate in us - God, for example - I think this would be a dangerous and indeed bad argument. But for these two fundamental - and fundamentally linked - aspects of the human condition, I think it is necessary to take them as read so that we can flourish, progress, and (I say it full well knowing the irony of the position) become better people.

It would seem then, that us two rank amateur philosophers have reached a stalemate. We both have admitted that our situations are contradictory. However, I would contend that my position is far the richer, and yours the colder; I embrace the commonality of humans, whereas I would argue that you debase us to the level of beasts.

Of course, I anticipate that someone will take that statement out of context and use it against me regarding vegetarianism. To clarify, I mean that our consciousness, free will and morality allow us to break free of darwinian bonds and make our own moral truths that can make the world a kinder place; including for the beasts who can do nothing more than suffer and inflict suffering. I think that complete and utter relativism is a very poorly, sad and despondent position to take; and that whilst there are two positions, neither of which can be said to be completely logically coherent, one should always opt for the more beautiful, and the more progressive.


As a foot note CC, I realize we're both grownups, but I just want to make sure for any reactionary minds reading; I don't express any antagonism towards you, and I'm sure you don't me. We're just exchanging our no doubt ill-formed ideas, that may in themselves be oppositional, but heck. We're bigger than that. I'm always glad to have a debate on the internet that doesn't really get anywhere, but also doesn't result in a whining and slurring match!

[Captain Cosine]

Can't really argue with anything you said there. I admit my views come off as cold, and lacking any compassion, but my reasoning for that is I have yet to make logical sense of any other belief system other than that nothing matters, we cannot be certain about anything, and humans are nothing more than animals. My beliefs are constantly in motion, changing with more I read and learn. I would like to believe that killing is wrong, but a logical argument can be produced to defend either side (right or wrong), therefore I cannot believe in such a thing.

Not to go too far off topic, but on a side note, I've been wondering about my views lately and, after seeing Maslow's hierarchy of needs (although I'm not sure I agree with his order and such), I feel myself leaning toward the idea that love/compassion ARE basic human needs for survival. I cannot explain why, but I just think about the fact that, if everyone in the world hated me and refused to speak to me, I would ignore my own basic survival needs, I wouldn't care about life itself anymore. So it would seem that love (or lack thereof) can overrule our basic drives in life for our bodies to survive.

Also, purely hypothetical: If one day science discovers plants suffer too, what would you eat?

[Gardenhead]

Also, purely hypothetical: If one day science discovers plants suffer too, what would you eat?

I would eat the minimum amount of whatever suffered the least amount of pain. Thankfully however, I am as certain as I can be about anything that plants absolutely cannot suffer.


I can respect the individual decision not to take a life in order to eat. Obviously it's entirely possible to have a balanced and healthy diet as a vegetarian and a person should follow their conscience. Can I ask if you also reject the by products of the meat industry? For instance leather shoes might not be served up on your dinner plate but an animal must die in order for you to wear them, even if some of us eat it and you do not. Another example would be dog food, what do you feed your dog?

Yes, I reject any product of slaughter that is not necessary.

I should clarify what I mean by 'necessary', however. I do, in extreme circumstances, grudgingly support animal testing as long as there is absolutely no alternative, and as long as there is a very high probability of an extremely beneficial outcome, i.e. the fabled 'cure for cancer'. I am utilitarian in that respect; I value millions of human lives over hundreds of animals'. I bow to that fearful spectre, the 'greater good'. Frivolous testing however (cosmetics for example, and non-vital scientific testing) I condemn, as well as luxury goods like meat and leather.

The pet issue is another can of worms entirely, and saying 'I disapprove of keeping pets' is a bit taboo, just as 'I disapprove of meat-eating' was once more widely a taboo, or even a subject for humour. I am, however, much more unsure of the pet issue than I am of the meat or leather issue. There are a lot of points to consider, not least the arguably cruel way in which we breed pets for certain traits, the promotion of slaughter to produce pet food, the immense suffering and waste of life in pets that are discarded or not looked after properly... It is a very, very complicated situation. I can say with certainty that I disapprove of exotic pets and birds, taken out of their natural habitat; with cats especially, I am far more sketchy.

However I would say that - owing to the necessary slaughter of animals to feed carnivorous pets - keeping pets does not sit well with me morally. As with the vegetarian issue however, once it is possible to produce meat in laboratory conditions - that is, without slaughter - then my position would change.

[Nature's heartbeat]

Hi Hare, well if you were directing your questions at me, then those are indeed good questions to ask. I'm not sure of my position and am actually thinking now about what to do with the leather items (like a few pairs of shoes, handbags and belts) that I have in my possession...some of it I've received as gifts from relatives, and some of it are second hand...I basically think I've only got one pair of leather shoes that I bought (new) myself last year that were expensive and which I bought because they were good for my feet and I needed them to walk long distances (and yes, the soles of my feet are flat (or whatever you say in English) so I can get pain easily if walking long distances in shoes that aren't good for my feet...I haven't decided what to do yet, but it would be contrary to my conscience to walk around in animal skin when I don't eat meat...On the other hand, I don't like wastefulness either, so I'm not sure...need to think about this more...A clearer thing is that I doubt that I'll buy leather things from now on, and will check labels on shampoos and makeup more from now on (so that it's not tested on animals)...(when it comes to if science needs to test things to find cures of diseases, on animals, then I guess that's ok with me, but I hope that they will use methods that cause the least amount of pain possible) and fur, no...have never been interested in it...

As for the dog scenario, I don't have a dog myself (or any other pet for that matter and think that keeping pets is in a way like keeping them imprisoned and away from where they naturally should be, so I feel hesitant towards keeping pets) and - forgive my ignorance - don't know what there is in dog food, but I can imagine that if I did have a dog for some reason - perhaps if I would've agreed to be a dog sitter or something for a friend who was away and who has a dog and no other friend was around to take care of it, and if I knew that meat eating really is necessary for a dogs survival (have really not studied this so forgive my ignorance), then how could I refuse it to eat, to live? That would be cruel...but yeah, it's weighing one type of cruelty against another, and some moral choices against others and I guess it all depends on the situation...

[Gardenhead]

Dogs are carnivores, they do need meat. I would always feed a dog if it were there rather than starve it - I don't think I need to explain that one, and I don't think anyone is suggesting starving pets - but getting the dog in the first place is a different matter.

[mariehammer]

I'm actually vegan. While I harbor no ill will towards those who choose to be omnivores, I'm not really convinced that we are. But, thats besides the point to me because I'm also just not convinced its healthy and I, personally, don't want my money going towards factory farming and all it entails (including illegal immigration). Now, if my neighbor is convinced meat is healthy, then fine. It their bodies and besides, the fact that our food is filled with hormones and processed is a bigger problem, I think. My biggest "beef", pardon the pun, is that people don't know more about what they're eating and their REAL options;what they could be eating as vegans/vegetarians. If you don't give a damn about animal welfare, I'm NOT going to make you care because I care, but you should know about all the hormones they're are pumped full with and all the antibiotics they take and, if that doesn't bother you, then it doesn't but at least you know EXACTLY what you are eating and I can respect that.

[mariehammer]

Dogs are carnivores, they do need meat. I would always feed a dog if it were there rather than starve it - I don't think I need to explain that one, and I don't think anyone is suggesting starving pets - but getting the dog in the first place is a different matter.

Technically, they are omnivores, but I still agree with you, I was just putting that out there. Because of all the random crap they put in meat though, a lot of dogs do fair better on a vegan diet, but thats really the only reason. If they didn't put such low quality meat in the dog foods and pumped them with less crap, dogs would be healthier on a omni diet and fair well on a carnivorous one.


But, cats, though, cats are genuine hardcore carnivores

[Gardenhead]

I'm actually vegan. While I harbor no ill will towards those who choose to be omnivores, I'm not really convinced that we are.

There is no questioning that homo sapiens are omnivores, but it's true that the dog matter is one for contention.

It's clear that they're designed to be specifically carnivorous (look at their teeth and their digestive systems, not to mention their killing frames), but they are very adaptable, and under human ownership vegetarian diets are possible (though they have to be specially prepared with additives and the like, obviously); but I'm pretty sure that giving a dog a vegan diet is very dangerous indeed. As far as I am aware, there is some debate about which term should technically be applied to a dog, but there is very little debate about the fact that they should have meat - or at least, animal products - in their diet.

[Hare]

...........

[Gardenhead]

maybe they were vegetarian and couldn't bear to put it out of it's misery?


I was with you until the rather unnecessary innuendo. 'Vegetarian' does not mean 'cowardly' or 'squeamish'. If I do not eat meat because it involves animal suffering, I would think it my moral duty to put a suffering animal out of its misery. Not every vegetarian would have the stomach for it, but then neither would every meat-eater. I think one's diet is largely irrelevant in that matter, and that that was an unfair remark and caricature. In fact, I think the consumption of roadkill is perfectly fine, as long as the death was accidental, because it is the act of killing and all it entails that I object to, not the consumption of meat in and of itself.

You're right that there are layers to the debate though; I'm not an all or nothing vegetarian - I'm pragmatic about it. I think that if people do eat meat then they have a duty to know the details of how it was produced, and I support any method of farming that lowers suffering or the amount of animals killed, at least until there comes a point in the future (which I hope there will do, though it could be a very long time) when slaughter will disappear entirely.

As it stands, I do bear would I would call contempt towards those who remain willfully ignorant of how meat is produced, whilst promoting its worst methods of production. As for those like you who are obviously sincere in their beliefs and thoroughgoing in their investigations and habits I of course still disagree with, but do hold a certain respect for - and I mean that genuinely, not in a patronizing way at all. My quarrel is with the factory farmers and the ill-educated first, and the responsible meat eaters second. Better quality of life for creatures reared for meat is the first stepping stone, in my view, towards an ideally slaughter-free existence.

[Nature's heartbeat]

It's becoming increasingly clear that vegetarianism and meat eating aren't just about what you eat/don't eat but life style choices that whether we're aware of it or not, affects life and life quality on the planet. Do we think it's important to reduce the suffering and unnecessary killing of animals or not? That's something for each of us to ponder. This being said, I agree that there are different ways to reducing unnecessary suffering and waste...I applaud Hare for being a dedicated conservationist not letting meat like roadkill go to waste etc. but I don't know what I personally would've done in the situation that Hare described...In theory I think I might be of the too squeamish to kill an animal to put it out of its misery (just like I doubt I could condone euthanasia and put a person out of his/her misery/pain if he/she wanted it but couldn't do it himself/herself...but yeah, maybe that's a bad example since there's a difference between humans and animals) - kind, but who knows unless I actually was in that situation...



You're right that there are layers to the debate though; I'm not an all or nothing vegetarian - I'm pragmatic about it. I think that if people do eat meat then they have a duty to know the details of how it was produced, and I support any method of farming that lowers suffering or the amount of animals killed, at least until there comes a point in the future (which I hope there will do, though it could be a very long time) when slaughter will disappear entirely.



I agree with this...

I'm still thinking about where to draw the line and one thing I was thinking about was hair dyes...Anyone out there know if there are those not being tested on animals or more so, are there reliable lists on cosmetic and household products that haven't been tested on animals, and if so, where?

Btw, just read this about scientists over here trying to find alternatives to animal testing (for cosmetic products etc. when it comes to testing if they can cause allergies) using a method based on human skin cells grown in test tubes which if successful could save the lives of many mice and guinea pigs...keeping fingers crossed that it could...It's all in Swedish but you could probably find a good enough translation of it on google or something...http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s?id=12344&news_item=5093

[Gardenhead]

Cosmetics testing is banned in the UK, Belgium, and the Netherlands, and I believe it's being phased out in the EU. We can debate about testing for medicine and pure research, but I couldn't respect anyone who honestly thinks it's worth compromising the life of animals for cosmetics. As far as I (and the law in many countries) is concerned, that's just fundamentally sick.

Let's not bring euthanasia up in this thread though; that's another discussion entirely, and one that I also care passionately about. I think comparing roadkill to someone who wants to take their own life but cannot for whatever reason was rather unwise for a variety of reasons, but like I said; that'll be for another thread.

[Nature's heartbeat]

"I couldn't respect anyone who honestly thinks it's worth compromising the life of animals for cosmetics." Yeah, I understand and agree...I don't use a lot of makeup but sadly have to admit to having used makeup without reading labels to find out if they have been tested or not...:( Though, I'll be more alert in the future...

I agree that it was a bad example and unwise to bring it up here...thanks for pointing that out...I'm here to learn and thankful for getting the opportunity to do so by all the different thoughts voiced here.

Oh, just found a Swedish site with information about animal testing here (http://www.djurforsok.info/fakta/testassminkpadjur.4.41038e13113fc555eb88000190.htm l), and if I just do a quick translation (which probably will be somewhat poor), it says this among other things;

"Since March 11th 2009 there's a ban on selling makeup that has been tested on animals in the EU in its entirety. Can one be sure now that the makeup hasn't been tested on animals?

What's new?

Animal testing when it comes to makeup has been banned within the EU since 2004 but it has been allowed to test the ingredients of the makeup when alternative methods are lacking. Now the testing of individual ingredients is also banned. There are a few exceptions where you can't replace animal testing with an alternative method.

Isn't all animal testing banned within the cosmetics industry?

No, some animal testing to test among other things allergies, cancer or foetal injuries will still be allowed until 2013. ..."

[Captain Cosine]

If every human on the planet was a vegetarian, what would happen to the amount of plant life on Earth?

Not implying we would endanger life or anything, just curiosity.

[Gardenhead]

If every human on the planet was a vegetarian, what would happen to the amount of plant life on Earth?

Not implying we would endanger life or anything, just curiosity.

There'd be far more forest and far fewer fields, apart from anything else. That'd be a benefit for diversity of species and for global warming, I reckon... But to go on would be pure speculation. You'd have to ask a scientist on that one :p

[Captain Cosine]

Aw nuts lol.

And I was thinking back to your earlier post when we reached the stalemate...

It does make sense that anyone who does think genocide is right and killing in in general (not for survival) is right has some sort of psychological issue, and I would like to think it's true, but the fact that I just don't know the exact reasons why a racist is the way he is and why those who orchestrate mass murders believe what they are doing is right prevents me from taking a side on the argument. If I can't say something with confidence and evidence, I can't take that side.

Although I might be able to find out about the racist part, one of my friends is a huge racist lol.

Also, I agree with testing cosmetics on animals is stupid, especially with the risk involved. I know I know it sounds like I have morals lol. But um, it just doesn't seem justified in anyway. You want to risk another life because you're insecure about the way you look and want to make yourself "prettier" than you are? I know not all women who use make-up are insecure, but I still stand by the idea that most girls would look just as pretty, if not, prettier without make-up. Once again, the media wins, making teens insecure since Hell spawned the heartless occupation that is Marketing.

[Nature's heartbeat]

Also, I agree with testing cosmetics on animals is stupid, especially with the risk involved. I know I know it sounds like I have morals lol. But um, it just doesn't seem justified in anyway. You want to risk another life because you're insecure about the way you look and want to make yourself "prettier" than you are? I know not all women who use make-up are insecure, but I still stand by the idea that most girls would look just as pretty, if not, prettier without make-up. Once again, the media wins, making teens insecure since Hell spawned the heartless occupation that is Marketing.

lol (sorry CC for smiling in a serious debate)...reading that makes it clear that you care about my choices about risking animal lives...so what about your own then? ;)

I will think about your suggestion about giving up cosmetics, but animal testing can be done on shampoos etc. too...do you suggest I don't wash my hair at all because those with not tested on animals labels possibly could be tested on animals somehow?

I must dispel a couple of myths. First of all, I'm not a teenager and second of all, I can honestly say that I lived my whole teenage life and actually most of my life thus far without wearing makeup or using hair dyes...I'm not insecure about my looks...that's just something I have wanted to use - truely for myself - to try out something different once in a while during the past one or two years or so...So, if I would decide to give it up, it wouldn't be a big deal...

[Gardenhead]

Also, I agree with testing cosmetics on animals is stupid, especially with the risk involved. I know I know it sounds like I have morals lol. But um, it just doesn't seem justified in anyway. You want to risk another life because you're insecure about the way you look and want to make yourself "prettier" than you are? I know not all women who use make-up are insecure, but I still stand by the idea that most girls would look just as pretty, if not, prettier without make-up. Once again, the media wins, making teens insecure since Hell spawned the heartless occupation that is Marketing.

Hmmhmm! Your caveat doesn't allow you to keep having it both ways. I am extremely glad that someone wholly without morals considers cosmetic testing on animals immoral.

(I will continue to tease you. I gain a sadistic pleasure from it.)

In fact, I feel like torturing us both. Humour me if you will: please tell me the reason why you do not think that cosmetics testing on animals is 'justified'.

Nature, re. your point about shampoo: all you can do is your best. It's a case for the courts; if someone with a nut allergy is killed by a chocolate bar that says 'suitable for those with nut allergies' on it, the company is liable, not the dead man. It's the same with animal testing. Beyond checking up on companies ourselves (which is possible in some cases, thanks to the internet), all we can do is trust what we read.

[Captain Cosine]

@ NH, My paragraph about teenagers and insecurities was not directed at you, just saying.

Okay well... I suppose I should state my beliefs in a different light. I have my own morals and values, yes. But I do not claim or believe that my views are correct in anyway. I'm fully prepared to defend my ideas, but I will not outright say my ideas are right.

I don't see how cosmetic testing on animals is justified because we are risking a life for what? To make ourselves look better? To MAYBE cleanse ourselves a little better? How is that worth it? I don't try to bring morality into my debates, just reasons. If the ends result doesn't give back what the means took, then why do it?

[Gardenhead]

@ NH, My paragraph about teenagers and insecurities was not directed at you, just saying.

Okay well... I suppose I should state my beliefs in a different light. I have my own morals and values, yes. But I do not claim or believe that my views are correct in anyway. I'm fully prepared to defend my ideas, but I will not outright say my ideas are right.

Well, of course. That should be the default position of any half-intelligent person; we hold our own views (and thus obviously believe those views to be defensible), but are open minded and willing to engage in discussion, recognizing that our views are not wholly concrete. I take issue with the 'I do not believe they are correct in any way' part though. If you didn't believe that they were correct in any way, then 'defending' them would have no meaning, and they wouldn't be beliefs.

I don't see how cosmetic testing on animals is justified because we are risking a life for what? To make ourselves look better? To MAYBE cleanse ourselves a little better? How is that worth it? I don't try to bring morality into my debates, just reasons. If the ends result doesn't give back what the means took, then why do it?

You deciding that an animal's life is more important than a possible increase in aesthetic satisfaction is a moral decision. You have decided that the possible increase is not as important as a loss of life, and you have no criteria outside of morality to make that judgement. You either have to accept that you are making a moral decision, or announce yourself completely disinterested in the matter (or, as a third option, say 'boo' or 'hooray').

[Captain Cosine]

Boo! JK

Well, I guess I had a poor choice of words with the correct in anyway piece. What I meant is that I don't see an absolute value in my belief, just an opinionated one.

And, I'm not entirely certain it's a moral decision. Money has a definite value, life does not, so since I have no base to take from to apply a value to life, I value every life the same amount I value my own, because I do not know what or there is a value for life. Maybe it is moral, but regardless, I don't think my views are 100% correct. If you would have made a topic the opposite of this, saying meat eating is perfectly fine and condemned vegetarians, I would have defended the vegetarians. It's just the way I am I suppose, I think everyone's opinion matters, as long as they can justify it.

Edit: To be entirely honest, I haven't found a belief system that completely suits me yet, and it was my own mistake for really getting into a debate where I would refuse to choose a side; or choose one I'm not sure I agree with. I'm young, I haven't really found myself yet, so I cannot say for certain that I believe in anything just yet. So, I apologize for all my contradictory statements and such. Perhaps someday soon I can actually take a side on something.

[Nature's heartbeat]

Edit: To be entirely honest, I haven't found a belief system that completely suits me yet, and it was my own mistake for really getting into a debate where I would refuse to choose a side; or choose one I'm not sure I agree with. I'm young, I haven't really found myself yet, so I cannot say for certain that I believe in anything just yet. So, I apologize for all my contradictory statements and such. Perhaps someday soon I can actually take a side on something.

Hi CC, there sure is a jungle out there/here of opinions and it is commendable that you want to form your own and not just immediately accept what anyone says at face value. A certain amount of skepticism is quite healthy I believe...but I too think that a certain amount of trust is needed in order to live...(thinking about trusting the labels or not thingie more specifically, but in general as well). So it sounds to me like getting more informed and reading up on both sides and perhaps then making a pro and con list for being vegetarian or not might be of help to choose sides (in case that is something that you want)?

Oh, and in the name of sharing, I found this site that seems helpful when it comes to finding cruelty free companies and choosing no animal testing products; http://www.gocrueltyfree.org. :-)

[Captain Cosine]

Well, I still have little interest in becoming a vegetarian. But saying morals have no value while upholding and using my morals in my rebuttal was a very poor choice.

Perhaps you'll allow me to start over.

There's several reasons I wouldn't be a vegetarian. Number one is that I like meat. It tastes good, and it's good for me. All the additives and crap that's added to the meat is a completely different story, and I don't really have any say in the kind of meat I eat, it's whatever my mom buys. So for me it's either live with the meat my parents bought, or starve. Number two is that I have no problem killing an animal if I'm going to eat it/for survival and it's not wasted. Of course I would love for it to be a humane way, one that doesn't involve unnecessary suffering; a quick and painless death is the way to go. And lastly is what I said earlier about naturally being omnivores, I was born to eat both meat and plants, so I will, and have no problem doing so.

[Nature's heartbeat]

I commend you for thinking that it's important that animals - if killed for food - should be killed in the most humane way possible...and think I understand your predicament of eating the food your parents buy/make - maybe you see it as partly being a case of being obedient to your parents and showing them respect - but I think there are more sides to this...and feel that it's not just the moment of death that matters but that animals should be treated decently while they live as well...and that they're worth more than a "thing" that is just here for our personal enjoyment (to please our palates...)

I also think that there is a middle ground between being a fully fledged meat eater and a vegetarian in case a person doesn't want to give up meat eating - to cut down on meat consumption - maybe have some meat free days each week...it's cheaper, and better for the environment, and there is good vegetarian food out there too - so I don't believe that it's a question of starving if one doesn't eat meat...You just need to read up on what to eat instead and find some good veggie recipes...and, I believe that if a person really wanted to, he/she could would probably find a way and be able to influence his/her parents...by for instance suggesting that he/she cooks lunch/dinner for the family and then cook up a vegetarian meal...I doubt any parent would have anything against their kid caring about the planet and helping out at home/cooking up a veggie meal for the family...on the contrary, I think parents would probably support it and eat the food regardless of if it is something they're used to or not...so if it is about respecting one's parents, showing respect and care can be done in different ways...

Was reading this article recently; http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/18/vegetarianism-save-planet-environment and it reinforced my position that as long as there are alternatives, it's better if I don't eat meat...But of course anyone is free to make their own choices...

[danecobain]

I personally find that the hardest thing about being vegetarian is the attitudes of other people lol, i barely noticed a difference in my diet when i became veggie. It's annoying though, people look at you differently as soon as they find out you're vegetarian, and most people's initial reaction is to start making jokes about you eating grass and cuddling spiders or whatever. I don't see why other people feel the need to pass judgement on the food I eat, it's not like I go up to them and say 'oooh, a Big Mac, you're going to get fat and die of a heart attack'

People also always seem to accuse vegetarians of trying to force their diet on other people as well, which is bullshit. There are people that I've known for years that don't know that i'm a vegetarian, I only mention it when ordering food or something (and it's necessary) because I don't like the way that people inevitably react >.<

[Captain Cosine]

I agree we should treat animals kindly, or just better, while they're alive, but I still see most of them as just food for me. They don't do much for me except fill my stomach. Maybe their role in the environment helps me (whatever it may be, and I've no specific examples), but I'm still going to eat them. Life feeds on life, and I find meat to be the tastier life.

And it's not so much respect and obedience for my parents (though of course that's always a part of it) it's more that really I just don't care enough. I'm too lazy and don't care enough to change my diet. It's just of little importance to me. I want animals to be treated better, but in my eyes they'll always remain my food. I don't go crazy over moral values. I think we shouldn't kill unless for survival, and we shouldn't manipulate/control others. That's basically the gist of my moral values right there.

Sometimes thinking about or seeing gruesome things on television or somewhere like someone or an animal dying gets to me. I get sad about that stuff, I don't see a reason to be so violent towards other creatures, even things like bugs. They're almost completely useless to me, but if I find a spider in my room, 90% I leave it alone. It didn't do anything to me so I won't do anything to it. However, I'm not going to lead you to believe I think of myself as morally superior to others, because I of course have my cold blooded side too, as we all do, although many choose to ignore it. Sometimes the things I just mentioned get me excited, sometimes I think about how I want to do something horrible to another person. And that's not even out of anger, sometimes I want to, and thinking about it makes me happy.

All in all, what I'm saying is, I don't like what happens to the animals, but I don't care all that much.

[BenJohnson]

A link just to stir the pot a little (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128849908&ft=1&f=1001)

[Captain Cosine]

Although I'm tempted to agree with the article because it helps my argument, I'm not convinced by one article from one scientist. How did eating meat help our brain grow...? And even if the article is true, eating only veggies today won't bring about any negative sides, unless you're diet isn't adequate and you take supplements, but I'd attribute that to being too lazy to find all the food with the right nutrients you need.

In terms of being "environmentally friendly" I think that's a terrible reason and a somewhat arrogant one too. I'll be supporting some ideas of George Carlin here. Number one, it's not about "saving" the environment, we are trying to "save" the planet because we are afraid that the planet won't be able to support us one day. The fundamental drive toward "protecting" the earth is that we will one day be inconvenienced and will start to die off; we are afraid. Two, the planet has been around for billions of years and has faced things I'm sure were a hell of a lot worse than anything we could imagine doing to the planet. The planet will fix itself, that's what it does. We'll die off, and all of what we left behind will wither away, and new life we spring up, because that's what the planet does. Don't claim you want to "save" the planet, because it doesn't need saving, YOU need the saving.

[Nature's heartbeat]

CC, it's true that it is us humans who need the saving cause we are responsible for overusing the earth's resources (btw, I read recently about Earth Overshoot Day which was August 21st this year ("Once we pass this day, humanity will have demanded all the ecological services – from filtering CO2 to producing the raw materials for food – that nature can provide this year. From that point until the end of the year, we meet our ecological demand by liquidating resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." and that if we continue to use the earth's resources the way we do now, we will need two planet earths to meet all our needs the year 2030...and well, we only have one)) and are the cause of much unnecessary suffering in the world...I suppose each one knows themselves better and what kind of "saving" they might need. I'll try to start saving myself a bit by not keeping myself ignorant about things anymore and read up more about things happening around in the world in general...

Ben, thanks for sharing that link...it made me read up on the meat production in Sweden, and when I read up on that a bit I thought to myself -- are things really as good as the meat producers/farmers seem to claim, and thought that I'd better read up on the opposite side too and I found some animal rights organization reports and things from other sources that showed a different side of it.

Among other things, I listened to a Swedish radio program called "Matens pris" (The Price of Food) (http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=3737&grupp=10544) which aired on Swedish radio some months ago and I'll try to translate/summarize some of the things from it.

In the program two reporters (Malin Olofsson and Daniel öhman) investigate the reality behind the cheap prices and the international food industry. They went to Brazil, where apparently the soy used for animal feed to our pigs, cows and chicken, is produced through the use of toxic and lethal pesticides like Paraquat and Methamidophos, so that the animals grow faster and we can get cheaper meat and milk.

Brazil is the country in the world that uses the most pesticides. The latest official statistics say that 6000 persons were poisoned in a year and 209 died, but the real numbers may be 50 times as many...It is known that suspected that these chemicals cause imbalances in ecosystems, are harmful to animals and nature and poison the water, and suspected that they can cause cancer and deformities.

The reporters meet Christiano Ketzer, a man who's only 22 years old but who already walks like an old man. One of them say that it looks like he has to force his feet up from the ground. Mr Ketzer says that it hurts all the time, especially when he's walking. He inhaled the neurotoxin Methamidophos used to combat vermin/pests. Methamidophos - which is forbidden in Sweden and the EU - but the import of which increased by 600% in Brazil last year, is according to WHO described as one of the most dangerous. Now it's one and a half years after it happened and Mr Ketzer is without job and money. His family is in financial crisis after having to pay all the hospital bills themselves and the former employer refusing to pay anything. And when Mr Ketzer has tried applying for a job, people have laughed at him to his face, and pointed out that he can barely walk so does he really think that he can get a job there?

It is said in the program that Paraquat hasn't been allowed in Sweden since 30 years back, is banned in the whole EU and is the pesticide that causes most deaths in the world. There are no antidotes, and the lungs are destroyed. ANVISA [Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (National Health Surveillance Agency Brazil)] is trying to get the substances banned but the Secretary of Agriculture, Reinhold Stephanes, says that although there are alternatives he doesn't believe in them since it would be too costly and then the production would stop.

It is also said that the guvernor Blairo Maggi was awarded the Golden Chainsaw award by Greenpeace some years ago (to the person who was most responsible for the deforestation in the Amazonas), that since the year 1980, 100 000 kilometres square of rain forest has been deforested in Brazil for the purpose of growing soy, and that totally the deforestation in the world is responsible for one fifth of the global emission of greenhouse gases so in that sense the preservation of the rainforest becomes an important issue in dealing with the climate threat.

Apparently Brazil is also the world's largest exporter of beef. In Brasilia people agree on that the cattle must be raised on a smaller area (than 1 animal/ha) so that more grounds can be freed for soy and sugar canes. Christel Cederberg a scientist at SIK (SIK – the Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology) says that if we want the animals to be able to express their natural behaviours - being able to graze freely on large areas - then we need to eat considerably less meat.

Here's a small article in English about the above program/investigative report; http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3475328

I must say that I've become more shook up the more I've read. Here's another thing I've come across during my search for more information on how animals are treated; these horrific videos, made by Djurrättsalliansen (an animal rights organization in Sweden) about how pigs were treated on several farms of the hundred that they visited in 2008-2009 (police reports were filed...and the farms visited that the footage is from are listed at the end of part 2). Here's some information in English; http://www.ettlivsomgris.se/english. And here are the horrific videos (Swedish speech but the footage speaks for itself);
Ett liv som gris Del 1 (Life as a pig Part 1); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df9GviWJSaw&feature=watch_response
and Part 2; http://www.youtube.com/watch?...v=UPjPcaL3VIA&feature=related.

(P.S on Ben's link. I saw another link (http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-led-to-smaller-stomachs-bigger-brains/)