No more meat?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yes, I'm going to take The Ecologist seriously on this issue.

More reliable than mother earth news isn't it?

[Mavorpen]

They have no capacity for higher thought. They have a nervous system and a herd mentality.

When they display higher thought, I might have qualms about eating them. Until then...

You replied to a post explaining their capacity for higher thought, and then you say they have no capacity for higher thought. What the actual fuck.

[Norstal]

What?

They have no capacity for higher thought. They have a nervous system and a herd mentality.

When they display higher thought, I might have qualms about eating them. Until then...

Bullshit. They understand cause and effect relationships, a hallmark of high cognitive abilities.

Now's the time to yell "SOURCE!"

[Stroznia]

I'd rather become vegetarian than eat in vitro meat. The disgust factor aside, why waste so much time and so many resources just to capture a "taste?" If the future economy couldn't support farms, it certainly couldn't support factories growing muscle mass in petri dishes.

The real solution at hand is simply not letting the population hit that 9 billion figure, so that water scarcity doesn't become an issue. Nature has its own population-control devices, and scarcity is one of them. If we don't want to suffer a painful downsizing at nature's hands - characterized by loss and death - we should exercise a painless downsizing program characterized by self-restraint. Population deflation will happen regardless, it's up to us to decide if it will be pleasant.

[Corieltavi]

Deleted.

[Poorisolation]

The fact that is your reply without any sense of irony though I confess there might be a palpable aura of evasion is very sad.

No, I understood your post. And I didn't evade anything. The photo was a reply to your post. Your post was so asinine that I just had to laugh.

Why is it asinine apart from your declarative statement you have offered no evidence is support of that or indeed anything of your position that current meat animals are in anyway deserving of protection from human predation? The human species is very definitely a predatory omnivorous opportunist feeder. Thus it has a propensity to eat meat. Meat is in some regions of the world the only readily available source of bulk calories.

Yet you have claimed that consuming meat is morally indefensible without demonstrating how this is so and having given not thought to the full ramifications of your stated contentions.

[Mavorpen]

Why is it asinine apart from your declarative statement you have offered no evidence is support of that or indeed anything of your position that current meat animals are in anyway deserving of protection from human predation? The human species is very definitely a predatory omnivorous opportunist feeder. Thus it has a propensity to eat meat. Meat is in some regions of the world the only readily available source of bulk calories.

It was asinine because it was completely baseless and had nothing to do with the post you replied to at all. You asked me an extremely stupid question in an attempt to expose hypocrisy that didn't exist in the first place. I couldn't care less about whether we are omnivores or not. That has literally nothing to do with morals at all. And no shit meat is the only source of protein available for many people in certain regions. I've already discussed this before and said I have no problems with them.

Yet you have claimed that consuming meat is morally indefensible without demonstrating how this is so and having given not thought to the full ramifications of your stated contentions.

If you've actually read anything I've typed, you would know this is quite honestly bullshit.

[Norstal]

Yet you have claimed that consuming meat is morally indefensible without demonstrating how this is so and having given not thought to the full ramifications of your stated contentions.

He didn't said that. He said that animals are smart. If you think that eating smart animals is morally indefensible, that's your own prerogative, but Mavor did not said you can't eat meat.

Are you like one of those people who jumps on other people thinking they're your enemy when they're not? Cause that's sad. Not everyone who thinks animals are smart are vegetarians. I for one, recognize the intelligence of pigs and the tastiness that is bacon.

[Zutendaal]

Hate to tell you this, but salmon is meat.

oh yeah i knew that
but "meat" in case is like animal meat, no? chicken, cow, sheep, etc
and salmon is considered as fish (fish meat, yes)

and... fish are considered animals.

people like you are rare these days

[Mavorpen]

He didn't said that. He said that animals are smart. If you think that eating smart animals is morally indefensible, that's your own prerogative, but Mavor did not said you can't eat meat.

For the record, I believe I may have said this, but the issue is that he chose not to actually quote any times where I actually said it, and respond directly. Instead, he quoted a post by me discussing the intelligence of cows.

[Stroznia]

Oh and on an ethical level, the way things are today, I kind of enjoy knowing that the animals I eat were living beings who had to die for me to eat them.
No, I'm not a sadist, but it keeps me humble. It means I'm never going to take that food for granted, that my burger doesn't actually come from a magic burgermaking machine. It means I'm not going to eat more meat than I need because I know the extra killing necessary.

Also, I'm a pragmatist. As long as we live in a society that butchers meat regularly, whether people object or not, there's no reason why I shouldn't take my fair share.

I am, (and biologically I think all humans are), a scavenger at heart, not a hunter.

If we lived in a society where meat was scarce, and we'd have to butcher our own meat if we wanted it, I'd make some changes.
I don't value meat enough to use my own hands to kill for it.

That's the scavenger way.

[Mavorpen]

Oh and on an ethical level, the way things are today, I kind of enjoy knowing that the animals I eat were living beings who had to die for me to eat them.
No, I'm not a sadist, but it keeps me humble. It means I'm never going to take that food for granted, that my burger doesn't actually come from a magic burgermaking machine. It means I'm not going to eat more meat than I need because I know the extra killing necessary.

Only the insane equate pain with success.

[The Stormcloak Rebels]

insane

That is a highly serious and completely unprovoked accusation.

[Mavorpen]

insane

That is a highly serious and completely unprovoked accusation.

It's a quote ffs.

[Stroznia]

oh yeah i knew that
but "meat" in case is like animal meat, no? chicken, cow, sheep, etc
and salmon is considered as fish (fish meat, yes)

and... fish are considered animals.

people like you are rare these days

Fish is meat and fish are animals, yes.

But what I think he's getting at is that this thread is about meat scarcity in the future due to drinking water shortages affecting land-based farms. So the question of the thread is "what will we do if we can't eat land animals anymore?"
And in that case, fish would still be a viable option.

...Unless of course overfishing becomes an issue too, which it would.

[Mavorpen]

...Unless of course overfishing becomes an issue too, which it would.

It already is.

[Stroznia]

Only the insane equate pain with success.

I don't equate pain with success.

I equate pain with consequence. If there were no pain, there'd be no limit to our actions.

Compassion for the pain of others, and a dislike of pain in general, is what stops us from going too far.

[Mavorpen]

Only the insane equate pain with success.

I don't equate pain with success.

I equate pain with consequence. If there were no pain, there'd be no limit to our actions.

Compassion for the pain of others, and a dislike of pain in general, is what stops us from going too far.

No, you're justifying your actions by saying pain will limit our actions anyway, so there is no need to actively do anything. You're saying that pain is success because it creates compassion and makes us better as humans.

[Stroznia]

...Unless of course overfishing becomes an issue too, which it would.

It already is.

Yes.

[Poorisolation]

He didn't said that. He said that animals are smart. If you think that eating smart animals is morally indefensible, that's your own prerogative, but Mavor did not said you can't eat meat.

For the record, I believe I may have said this, but the issue is that he chose not to actually quote any times where I actually said it, and respond directly. Instead, he quoted a post by me discussing the intelligence of cows.

Well I will have to give you points for honesty and possibly deduct points from myself for clarity.

The point is though that you are arguing a case, which in fairness at least has the virtue of a certain consistency without being willing to discuss possible flaws within that argument. Now a simple answer might have been a no in response to the exact question posed but you have been arguing a general case for the morality of meat consumption and it would I suggest bear examining whether this case is considered by yourself exclusive to humans or not?

As to the intelligence of bovines I have seen no evidence that they show any signs of intelligence that puts them out of the realm of human prey animals, bush meat after all includes primates. Does not necessarily make you wrong but it does suggest you need to fine tune your arguments to convince a wider audience.

Edit note: damn the typos, full post ahead -Adm Farragut at the battle of NSG.

[Mavorpen]

Well I will have to give you points for honesty and possibly deduct points from myself for clarity.

The point is though that you are arguing a case, which in fairness at least has the virtue of a certain consistency without being willing to discuss possible flaws within that argument. Now a simple answer might have been a no in response to the exact question posed but you have been arguing a general case for the morality of meat consumption and it would I suggest bear examining whether this case is considered by yourself exclusive to humans or not?

What? No, I've been willing to discuss possible flaws. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. Of course I could have simply answered no, but I felt it necessary to make it painfully obvious that the notion that I would want other predators to be held accountable for their actions is silly. I have never argued for such a thing, and I believe this was already discussed anyway with lions.

As to the intelligence of bovines I have seen no evidence that they show any signs of intelligence that puts them out of the realm of human prey animals, bush meat after all includes primates. Does not necessarily make you wrong but it does suggest you need to fine tune your arguments to convince a wider audience.

No. My moral argument isn't even focused on their intelligence. It is on their sentience, emotions, etc. I simply responded to several people who made claims that chickens, cows, and pigs aren't intelligent, to which I corrected them. Bush meat is a different story altogether, and that would be an ecological argument mostly, nor a moral one.

[Poorisolation]

No. My moral argument isn't even focused on their intelligence. It is on their sentience, emotions, etc. I simply responded to several people who made claims that chickens, cows, and pigs aren't intelligent, to which I corrected them. Bush meat is a different story altogether, and that would be an ecological argument mostly, nor a moral one.

Hum but what about the trade off that humans uniquely endow their prey of protection from other predators, protection from parasites, protection from dioceses?

Carcases of animals in the wild that have been autopsied demonstrate evidence of long term exposure to high levels of stress. This evidence is to be found in the development of their bones and their muscular and endocrine systems. It has been noted by numerous gastronomes that meat from stressed animals does not taste as good as meat from ones that have lived calmer lives.

Note I do not use terms like happy or unhappy to describe the differences between a life of high stress and low stress but given that almost all animals and in particular those human prey species that have been domesticated are subject to predation then is that human predation in your eyes morally wrong and/or would the release of domesticated prey animals such as for example sheep and cattle into the wild be justified?

[The Realm of God]

What about insect meat, locusts are low effort, high in protain and tasty.

[Mavorpen]

Hum but what about the trade off that humans uniquely endow their prey of protection from other predators, protection from parasites, protection from dioceses?

Uh? Their lives aren't elongated at all. Their lives are cut short by the simply fact they are slaughtered rather quickly. We only give them antibiotics so the meat doesn't become infected and dangerous for us. Ultimately though, the overuse of antibiotics is harming us.

Carcases of animals in the wild that have been autopsied demonstrate evidence of long term exposure to high levels of stress. This evidence is to be found in the development of their bones and their muscular and endocrine systems. It has been noted by numerous gastronomes that meat from stressed animals does not taste as good as meat from ones that have lived calmer lives.

Okay? Not seeing the relevance at all.

Note I do not use terms like happy or unhappy to describe the differences between a life of high stress and low stress but given that almost all animals and in particular those human prey species that have been domesticated are subject to predation then is that human predation in your eyes morally wrong and/or would the release of domesticated prey animals such as for example sheep and cattle into the wild be justified?

Yes.

[Gideus]

What about insect meat, locusts are low effort, high in protain and tasty.

Have you ever had fried bamboo caterpillars? They're delicious. Like french fries.

Honestly, bugs could be a viable replacement so long as we focus on those with a low amount of chitin. We don't digest large quantities of chitin very well, do we? (Yes I know it's a complex carbohydrate. Try eating crab shells, those are chitin.)

EDIT: We could even make bug factories! Get a large enough amount of them and use a very easily obtainable carbohydrate with a small amount of protein for them in a closed environment (factory) and as they grow, which is fairly quickly, they would then be taken and roasted! Or baked, or fried... Endless possibilities! Although I think a bug steak might be a little too far.