 |
|
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 1:01 pm Post subject: Vegetarianism and health |
 |
|
I don't know if I'll ever totally get vegetarianism, and even less veganism.
Linda McCartney, revolved her life around pushing for vegetarian living and then died of cancer at too young of an age.
Arnold Schwarzenegger revolved his life around pushing for fitness, then had to have a heart valve replacement.
A couple people that I've worked with at some of my past jobs--bragging about how they have such healthy eating habits (vegetarian) and practically run a marathon every day, trying to get everyone around them to do the same thing--died of heart attacks, one of them died from the heart practically exploding.
To me, what this shows is that anything can be bad when taken to extremes. Arnold wasn't exactly very nice to his body in the way he became so fit and muscular. The guy that practically runs a marathon every day before coming into work--he's not exactly being very nice to his body either. It really IS possible to be overly physical--how about people's bones taking the abuse of running over the years? Brisk walking is one thing, but running or jogging is actually hard on the body over time, and forcing the heart to constantly be racing is going to be hard on it over time as well. Everything can be taken to extremes, and I find vegetarianism to be the same kind of thing.
Meat really ISN'T very healthy, but if it's done in moderation, as in, not eaten in EVERY meal, it CAN be healthful, just like red wine when done in moderation can be healthful (primarily because of what is contained in the skin of certain grapes).
And then there's people like George Burns, ate the same kind of diet his whole life, smoked cigars until his death, and he died in his 90's.
If someone is vegetarian for moral reasons, why not pay more for the meat from animals that were raised and killed humanely? Is it that plants don't mean anything? Is it because we can relate to plants less than animals? It can't be because plants can't feel or notice when something extreme is being done to it--like pain, it has already been proven that they react to things like that.
To me, now that there ARE places where you can get free-range meat, being vegetarian for moral reasons holds as much validity as organized religions--sure, it feels good emotionally, but if logic gets used as a weapon in the debate on the other side, the "moral" argument against eating animals will lose. Unless we don't want to breathe air because we're killing things as we breathe in and out, or walk because we might kill this or that, we need to look at the reality that we kill things on a regular basis--if we kill things so we can eat them, to me, EATING THEM is MORE moral than having them be killed in horrible ways for nothing.
If we're going to talk about morality, the big thing, to me, is supporting changing the standards for the way animals are able to be raised and the way they are killed. I think it's a real shame that we haven't had the government get involved in this. Yeah, it would bring the price of meat up, but we could eat it and know that we're not supporting total anguish and horrible death for millions of animals. Why hasn't there been a push for legislation like this? I mean, if we're going to go after Vick for the dog situation and turn it into front page news for a month, it would seem only right if we went after the way that animals are raised and killed at commercial farms as well.
But here's another thing: We're all gonna die. Period. We could die from a car accident, we could die from an unknown health ailment that we've had for years but didn't know about, we could get shot because we were in the wrong place at the wrong time, it could happen at any time, so it would seem to me that we should live and, in moderation, enjoy our lives as if tomorrow we may die. This isn't to say we should purposely, constantly do things on a regular basis that seriously shorten our lives, that's silly, but if there are the things that make life better and more enjoyable, doing those things in moderation can actually lengthen our lives just through having a better mindset and attitude. A positive attitude can increase someone's life span.
Another thing: If people are SOOO worried about their health and they think vegetarianism is going to take care of that and make things simpler, they need to think again: The additives that are in most foods (particularly pre-packaged foods) are much worse for you than the meat that is so bad for you, and if you want to eat healthy, you need to learn how to cook! LEARN TO COOK! --because that's the ONLY way you're going to be able to eat healthy. Don't go to restaurants either unless you KNOW for a FACT that they don't use prepackaged things with additives (sulfating agents, preservatives, MSG, etc..). All I have to say to the people who eat vegetarian because it's healthier, but they pretty much have a diet of TV dinners and meals that you add this pre-made blend of things into this boiling water or something and you have a meal, is this: :wtf: LEARN TO COOK!
Thanks for putting up with this ramble. 
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If someone is vegetarian for moral reasons, why not pay more for the meat from animals that were raised and killed humanely? Is it that plants don't mean anything? Is it because we can relate to plants less than animals? It can't be because plants can't feel or notice when something extreme is being done to it--like pain, it has already been proven that they react to things like that.
|
Well, you can pay more for meat that is raised and killed humanely. It would be easier to get the essential nutrients. Meat does have some things that can be left out of a vegetarian diet without supplements. There are some types of effective supplements that are made from bacteria, which are useful. You have to be careful, because some of the supplements aren't easily absorbed. You can also get fortified foods. If you can, there would be no reason to eat much, if any meats.
I think the issue with plants is that they don't/can't suffer. They can't feel, think about anything and don't have conscious interests. Plants can react to things, but it's not pain or feeling. They lack the necessary nervous system for that.
| Quote: |
To me, now that there ARE places where you can get free-range meat, being vegetarian for moral reasons holds as much validity as organized religions--sure, it feels good emotionally, but if logic gets used as a weapon in the debate on the other side, the "moral" argument against eating animals will lose. Unless we don't want to breathe air because we're killing things as we breathe in and out, or walk because we might kill this or that, we need to look at the reality that we kill things on a regular basis--if we kill things so we can eat them, to me, EATING THEM is MORE moral than having them be killed in horrible ways for nothing. |
I don't see why you believe its akin to religion or that if logic is used, the moral argument will lose. You can make a reasoned moral argument for vegetarianism based both on animal welfare, environmentalism, and practicality.
1. The idea behind ethical vegetarianism is not that it's wrong to cause any harm, but that it's generally a good thing to reduce harm where it is unnecessary to cause it and where you aren't sacrificing something of equal or greater moral value to do so. It calls for minimizing unnecessary harms. A vegetarian can be consistent with the goal of wanting not to kill or cause suffering to raise/slaughter animals, yet still realize that even a vegetarian diet (or other human activities) will still cause harm/suffering to an extent. It's just a matter of choosing to reduce where you can. A vegetarian diet would not eliminate all suffering or deaths of animals, but it would significantly cut down on both. All human actions cause harm, almost, as you said. It's unavoidable.
Most people in the first world, for example, don't at all need to eat meat, much less the quantity they do, and the vast majority of the industry relies on factory farming, because it provides a large amount to meet demand and is "cheap. This creates incredible, unnecessary suffering so some people who enjoy it can get jobs or temporary taste-bud pleasure off of the intense suffering/death of other animals.
But there are other benefits. A vegetarian diet is also better for the environment. Modern animal farming is a large contributor of greenhouse gas, water pollution, and resource waste because it's very inefficient. The production of meat requires large amounts of oil. It costs dozens of galleons of oil per cow to reach maturity and far more calouries of food energy to grow them to maturity than you get back out of it. So, not only are we causing huge suffering and death to other things for meat we don't need, we're creating food inefficiently when people elsewhere are literally starving. If we switched to a non-animal infrastructure or significantly reduced it, we could feed far more people with more calouries than we are now, because a good chunk of that grain that goes to feeding animals could technically serve humans. Large swaths of the American grain belt is dedicated to providing cow, chicken, and pig feed, not human food.
Edit:
But let's make an analogy. We can have environmental goals of eliminating certain unnecessarily destructive practices yet still realize that other practices in society will cause some destruction too. It doesn't negate the goals of the first. I mean, living in a house vs a hut causes environmental damage. So does building many things. They also cause habitat destruction and the death of animals. Letting your CAT out does too.
I mean, one could say we might as well all let our cats out of the house to kill wildlife because wild-life will die anyway from something else we do, like making ipods. That's true, but we can chip away at harms where we can, thus reducing them without significant loss to us. It's a balancing act rather than a strict principle either this or that thing. No philosophy or ethical system can probably be carried to complete logical conclusions.
_________________
Last edited by technocrat on Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hiedi
Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 87
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do not eat much meat at all, but I do not really consider myself a vegetarian because I eat some fish and seafood. It is factory farming that I really do not like. I remember seeing an eighteen-wheeler on the interstate one day carrying chickens. The chickens were piled on top of each other; some even looked dead. It was disgusting! I realize that people need to eat, but the way some animals are treated just to feed humans really is a sad thing. We are seriously considering getting some baby chicks the middle of May. We will be raising the chickens for the eggs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The sad part, though, Hiedi, is that most of that meat isn't going to people who really need it in foreign countries. It's going to rich fat Americans who gobble up far more than their MONTHLY allotment. So not only do we produce a highly inefficient food source that causes suffering, much of it goes to the people who need it least.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
technocrat
Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 216
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are lots of things we do that do harm and kill stuff. If you took some ideas to the extreme, we'd be only good if we lived in huts in perfect harmony with the land, but that's not feasible, so we have to be practical.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for these responses. I was really feeling negative towards vegetarianism and I didn't really know why, and I think it's because something in me knew there was something wrong with my perception of the issue. Thanks, Technocrat, for making it more clear, that really made a lot of sense. I really enjoy verbosity on subjects like these
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hiedi wrote: | | I do not eat much meat at all, but I do not really consider myself a vegetarian because I eat some fish and seafood. It is factory farming that I really do not like. I remember seeing an eighteen-wheeler on the interstate one day carrying chickens. The chickens were piled on top of each other; some even looked dead. It was disgusting! I realize that people need to eat, but the way some animals are treated just to feed humans really is a sad thing. We are seriously considering getting some baby chicks the middle of May. We will be raising the chickens for the eggs. |
If you get chickens, make sure you GET THE KIND THAT ARE FOR FREE RANGE. If you don't, as soon as they try to walk around after they get a little bigger, their legs will break and they'll be completely helpless. It's horrible!
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kizzume
Site Admin
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 2787
Location: Tacoma, WA USA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| technocrat wrote: | | Quote: |
If someone is vegetarian for moral reasons, why not pay more for the meat from animals that were raised and killed humanely? Is it that plants don't mean anything? Is it because we can relate to plants less than animals? It can't be because plants can't feel or notice when something extreme is being done to it--like pain, it has already been proven that they react to things like that.
|
Well, you can pay more for meat that is raised and killed humanely. It would be easier to get the essential nutrients. Meat does have some things that can be left out of a vegetarian diet without supplements. There are some types of effective supplements that are made from bacteria, which are useful. You have to be careful, because some of the supplements aren't easily absorbed. You can also get fortified foods. If you can, there would be no reason to eat much, if any meats.
I think the issue with plants is that they don't/can't suffer. They can't feel, think about anything and don't have conscious interests. Plants can react to things, but it's not pain or feeling. They lack the necessary nervous system for that.
|
Okay, true enough on that. Nobody has yet trounced upon my arguments in that way yet. Thanks | Quote: |
| Quote: |
To me, now that there ARE places where you can get free-range meat, being vegetarian for moral reasons holds as much validity as organized religions--sure, it feels good emotionally, but if logic gets used as a weapon in the debate on the other side, the "moral" argument against eating animals will lose. Unless we don't want to breathe air because we're killing things as we breathe in and out, or walk because we might kill this or that, we need to look at the reality that we kill things on a regular basis--if we kill things so we can eat them, to me, EATING THEM is MORE moral than having them be killed in horrible ways for nothing. |
I don't see why you believe its akin to religion or that if logic is used, the moral argument will lose. You can make a reasoned moral argument for vegetarianism based both on animal welfare, environmentalism, and practicality.
1. The idea behind ethical vegetarianism is not that it's wrong to cause any harm, but that it's generally a good thing to reduce harm where it is unnecessary to cause it and where you aren't sacrificing something of equal or greater moral value to do so. It calls for minimizing unnecessary harms. A vegetarian can be consistent with the goal of wanting not to kill or cause suffering to raise/slaughter animals, yet still realize that even a vegetarian diet (or other human activities) will still cause harm/suffering to an extent. It's just a matter of choosing to reduce where you can. A vegetarian diet would not eliminate all suffering or deaths of animals, but it would significantly cut down on both. All human actions cause harm, almost, as you said. It's unavoidable.
|
At least someone admits to that sort of thing. I've discussed this in the past (and present) in a number of places (presently only on here and SLU where my post originated), and have not had someone agree or admit to those points. | Quote: |
Most people in the first world, for example, don't at all need to eat meat, much less the quantity they do, and the vast majority of the industry relies on factory farming, because it provides a large amount to meet demand and is "cheap. This creates incredible, unnecessary suffering so some people who enjoy it can get jobs or temporary taste-bud pleasure off of the intense suffering/death of other animals. |
Absolutely. | Quote: |
But there are other benefits. A vegetarian diet is also better for the environment. Modern animal farming is a large contributor of greenhouse gas, water pollution, and resource waste because it's very inefficient. The production of meat requires large amounts of oil. It costs dozens of galleons of oil per cow to reach maturity and far more calouries of food energy to grow them to maturity than you get back out of it. So, not only are we causing huge suffering and death to other things for meat we don't need, we're creating food inefficiently when people elsewhere are literally starving. If we switched to a non-animal infrastructure or significantly reduced it, we could feed far more people with more calouries than we are now, because a good chunk of that grain that goes to feeding animals could technically serve humans. Large swaths of the American grain belt is dedicated to providing cow, chicken, and pig feed, not human food.
|
Very very true. | Quote: |
Edit:
But let's make an analogy. We can have environmental goals of eliminating certain unnecessarily destructive practices yet still realize that other practices in society will cause some destruction too. It doesn't negate the goals of the first. I mean, living in a house vs a hut causes environmental damage. So does building many things. They also cause habitat destruction and the death of animals. Letting your CAT out does too.
I mean, one could say we might as well all let our cats out of the house to kill wildlife because wild-life will die anyway from something else we do, like making ipods. That's true, but we can chip away at harms where we can, thus reducing them without significant loss to us. It's a balancing act rather than a strict principle either this or that thing. No philosophy or ethical system can probably be carried to complete logical conclusions. |
Again, I love verbosity on these kinds of subjects. I really can't add anything to this--you said it well. Thank you for this post.
_________________
Meow.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
| |
|
