Animal Ethics - Is it wrong to eat animals?

[ThomasHobbes]

Humans have evolved to eat mostly meat, nuts and fruit.
In our pastoralist phase many evolved to consume dairy produce
But we are not evolved to eat any agricultural products such as; wheat and other forms of corn; soy and other legumes; or sugars. So both veganism and vegetarianism are not suitable diets.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the post-WW2 boom in heart disease is not caused by meat and dairy produce, but by the over consumption of wheat and sugar based products, which have also led to an epidemic of diabetes.

I say thrown your pasta, bread, potatoes and sugary food and bin them. Eat meat, cheese nuts and salads and watch your weight drop, your thinking increase and your pain lessen.

[CIN]

Humans have evolved to eat mostly meat, nuts and fruit.
In our pastoralist phase many evolved to consume dairy produce
But we are not evolved to eat any agricultural products such as; wheat and other forms of corn; soy and other legumes; or sugars. So both veganism and vegetarianism are not suitable diets.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the post-WW2 boom in heart disease is not caused by meat and dairy produce, but by the over consumption of wheat and sugar based products, which have also led to an epidemic of diabetes.

I say thrown your pasta, bread, potatoes and sugary food and bin them. Eat meat, cheese nuts and salads and watch your weight drop, your thinking increase and your pain lessen.

https://health.spectator.co.uk/vegetari ... rs-longer/

We vegetarians live longer than you meat-eaters. Please put your own house in order before you start to criticise our diet.

[Alias]

There is this, too
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-he ... free-diet-

But that's not a question of ethics or a self-consistent philosophical stance.
That's just a question of food preference vs longevity.

[ThomasHobbes]

Humans have evolved to eat mostly meat, nuts and fruit.
In our pastoralist phase many evolved to consume dairy produce
But we are not evolved to eat any agricultural products such as; wheat and other forms of corn; soy and other legumes; or sugars. So both veganism and vegetarianism are not suitable diets.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the post-WW2 boom in heart disease is not caused by meat and dairy produce, but by the over consumption of wheat and sugar based products, which have also led to an epidemic of diabetes.

I say thrown your pasta, bread, potatoes and sugary food and bin them. Eat meat, cheese nuts and salads and watch your weight drop, your thinking increase and your pain lessen.

https://health.spectator.co.uk/vegetari ... rs-longer/

We vegetarians live longer than you meat-eaters. Please put your own house in order before you start to criticise our diet.

If life were about prolonging the inevitable, I might consider this a valid argument. I do not.

[ThomasHobbes]

There is this, too
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-he ... free-diet-

But that's not a question of ethics or a self-consistent philosophical stance.
That's just a question of food preference vs longevity.

Neither of these citations are worth reading.
The first contains the most basic factual inaccuracy.
"This might explain why excessive meat consumption has been associated with higher rates of heart disease and death — although admittedly this is speculation, as research in this area has not yet been carried out."
The Second (ahem!) "Harvard", mis-represents the mediterranean diet which has plenty of fat in it.

[ThomasHobbes]

The diet argument for heart disease, originally based on the Seven Countries Study, is fast becoming a massively contested area.
Despite 50 years of warning against too much fat, heart disease and diabetes continue to be amongst the biggest causes of death in the Western world.
Those seven countries were cherry picked and had the study spread itself more widely the results would not have been concluded as they were. Studies funded by Mazola tend to favour less meat in the diet.
An evolutionary and genetically based approach, I feel is more likely to have better results in future.
And the HFLC advice is getting some people back to health.

[Alias]

And again, whatever the case for human health, it's not about an ethically consistent attitude to other species, which was the topic.

[CIN]

https://health.spectator.co.uk/vegetari ... rs-longer/

We vegetarians live longer than you meat-eaters. Please put your own house in order before you start to criticise our diet.

If life were about prolonging the inevitable, I might consider this a valid argument. I do not.

It's not a question of what life is about. My argument is sound because it shows that vegetarianism is a healthier diet than meat-eating, and therefore, contrary to your earlier claim, is a suitable diet for humans.

[LuckyR]

If life were about prolonging the inevitable, I might consider this a valid argument. I do not.

It's not a question of what life is about. My argument is sound because it shows that vegetarianism is a healthier diet than meat-eating, and therefore, contrary to your earlier claim, is a suitable diet for humans.

It is completely suitable. Though that is a pretty low bar. An omnivore diet is also suitable for humans, even a Modern western diet (with all of it's flaws and shortcomings) is reasonable, though far from optimal

[ThomasHobbes]

If life were about prolonging the inevitable, I might consider this a valid argument. I do not.

It's not a question of what life is about. My argument is sound because it shows that vegetarianism is a healthier diet than meat-eating, and therefore, contrary to your earlier claim, is a suitable diet for humans.

It is not healthier. And your stats do not even show that. There are many other factors that find that result, even if the evidence is credible - which I doubt.
And it's not healthier for the planet either.

[CIN]

It is not healthier. And your stats do not even show that.

Technically, of course, you are correct. There are many logically possible reasons why vegetarians might live longer than meat-eaters. They might, for instance, be on average richer and therefore able to afford better medical care. But it's a reasonable prima facie interpretation of the evidence. You would need to provide evidence to back up your alternative view, and so far you haven't provided any.

There are many other factors that find that result, even if the evidence is credible - which I doubt.

Well, as I say, you need to provide the evidence for these other factors. And you will excuse me if I do not regard your personal doubts as significant: the fact that you doubt is merely a fact about you, not about anything material to this discussion.

And it's not healthier for the planet either.

Evidence?

Incidentally, even if you were correct in all your claims, that would still not show that vegetarianism was not more ethical than meat eating. A small decrease in human health might be considered a reasonable price to pay for not murdering millions of animals a year.

[chatterbears]

Sorry for the hiatus. For anyone who interested in actual scientific journals/studies, I have created a Google Doc. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

When people say "Humans have evolved to eat mostly meat, nuts and fruit.", this is false. Early human food cultures were plant-based. Major religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism have recommended a vegetarian way of life since their conception. You can find out more about early human cultures in this Journal: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/1 ... 6S/4576707

For others saying that a Vegan diet causes more harm than an Omnivorous one, Gaverick Matheny refuted this notion back in 2003, when he responded to Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal. I will post both articles.

2002 Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal : https://www.lbs.co.il/data/attachment-f ... ahvnvt.pdf
2003 Gaverick Matheny Rebuttal :

Code: Select all

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1026354906892

Gaverick Matheny Rebuttal FULL :

Code: Select all

https://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

In regards to insects, many Entomologists have stated they are not convinced that insects feel pain. Only some complex insects, such as Bees, have traits of higher intelligence and consciousness, which can lead us to believe they do feel pain. But this is entirely irrelevant to the idea of factory farming, where we are directly killing conscious being, while torturing them and forcing them to live in unlivable conditions.

[LuckyR]

Arguments advocating a "no kill" scenario, are of course reasonable, but cannot claim moral high ground (compared to a carnivorous or omnivorous one) since a kill or be killed paradigm is essentially the natural order of things here on planet earth. Factory farming torture, however is not the natural order of things so eliminating the suffering from that does have moral traction.

[Eduk]

Humans are omnivorous.

[ThomasHobbes]

And it's not healthier for the planet either.

Evidence?
A small decrease in human health might be considered a reasonable price to pay for not murdering millions of animals a year.

On the matter of healthier for the planet. Pastoralism, as a form of agriculture more effectively mimics that NATURAL cycles of nature.
If we were all vegetarians there would be NO animals at all, just more land destroyed under the plough.

You cannot 'murder' and animal. You can only murder a human.
I'd rather live in a world WITH animals, that you kill to eat, than live in a world with no animals at all.

Such childish appeals to emotion are not worthy. In any event a life lived on a farm with a painless death marks less suffering for an animal than offered by the natural world.