A more ethical society

[Eldad Eshel]

I would like to talk about the killing of animals and consumption of meat. This is generally unethical by itself, and the way the animals are treated today is EXTREMELY unethical, using very cruel methods. Man can survive without meat, and this way all the animals will be spared. Every kind of meat food can be copied in a vegeterian version, and it being even similarly as tasty. There are professionals in this field that can do this, it is not necessarily a common and obtainable thing. I think killing of animals should be against the law. And then tasty vegeterian food will be created massively and be obtainable. Making our society much more ethical and humane.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Eldad Eshel

[swansont]

Why is it unethical? Is a lion unethical for killing a gazelle?

[Phi for All]

Every kind of meat food can be copied in a vegeterian version, and it being even similarly as tasty.

Tasty is an opinion, and worthless as a supporting argument.

 

I think killing of animals should be against the law. And then tasty vegeterian food will be created massively and be obtainable. Making our society much more ethical and humane.

You cruel, sick, animal hater! If we can't kill the animals for food, we'd have to just let them die of natural causes. Nobody could afford to feed and provide healthcare for that many animals as pets with no compensation. How hateful of you! You're a monster! Cows and pigs on the highway, dying and causing other deaths as well. You really didn't think this through.

 

Plus, you can't get vitamin B12 from a non-animal source. Even vegans use a supplement.

 

So it's probably best not to try to force your horrible, cruel beliefs on those of us who respect and work towards ethical treatment of livestock. It's also pretty unrealistic to think everyone would just stop eating meat. Why don't you come down off your high horse and help where it's needed? More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition. You have to see the sense in that.

[John Cuthber]

Two points.

You can get B12 from bacteria

I live in an area where it's too cold and wet to grow anything but grass.

I can't eat grass, but sheep can; and I can eat lamb.

[Eldad Eshel]

Why is it unethical? Is a lion unethical for killing a gazelle?

Man isn't a lion or any other wildlife animal. Man is much more evolved, and can also exist without killing animals.

Man in general strives to be ethical, and not killing animals would be a step forward.

 

Tasty is an opinion, and worthless as a supporting argument.

 

You cruel, sick, animal hater! If we can't kill the animals for food, we'd have to just let them die of natural causes. Nobody could afford to feed and provide healthcare for that many animals as pets with no compensation. How hateful of you! You're a monster! Cows and pigs on the highway, dying and causing other deaths as well. You really didn't think this through.

 

Plus, you can't get vitamin B12 from a non-animal source. Even vegans use a supplement.

 

So it's probably best not to try to force your horrible, cruel beliefs on those of us who respect and work towards ethical treatment of livestock. It's also pretty unrealistic to think everyone would just stop eating meat. Why don't you come down off your high horse and help where it's needed? More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition. You have to see the sense in that.

Cows and chickens can still be used for their milk and eggs, sheep for their wool, while being treated ethically. There would need to be some kind of global plan on how to treat the other animals, if to set them back in nature and how. I'm sure the professionals can handle this, it is still much prefered than slaughter.

 

"More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition"

Maybe. But killing them still involves some kind of vicious murder and slaughter which is unethical and cruel, there is no ethical murder. Killing and eating young animals I think is even more unethical, and should be stopped immediately.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Eldad Eshel

[Phi for All]

Man isn't a lion or any other wildlife animal. Man is much more evolved, and can also exist without killing animals.

Man in general strives to be ethical, and not killing animals would be a step forward.

 

Cows and chickens can still be used for their milk and eggs, sheep for their wool, while being treated ethically. There would need to be some kind of global plan on how to treat the other animals, if to set them back in nature and how. I'm sure the professionals can handle this, it is still much prefered than slaughter.

 

"More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition"

Maybe. But killing them still involves some kind of vicious murder and slaughter which is unethical and cruel, there is no ethical murder. Killing and eating young animals I think is even more unethical, and should be stopped immediately.

 

You didn't address what we do with the animals we have now. You can't just let them go, and if they don't represent any benefit you can't expect anyone to just care for them for free until they die of natural causes. What happens to these animals if we don't eat them?

 

We had a deal. We take as best care of them as possible, so they don't have to survive in the cruel wild, and we get to eat them when they're ready. You're removing all care for the animals, unless you're going to wave a magic wand and invent someplace wonderful for them to go.

 

You're talking about slaughter on a level that boggles my omnivorous mind.

You can get B12 from bacteria

 

Right, since that's what the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. But deficiency in B12 is such a dangerous condition that can take years to fully develop. It's also clear that different people have different absorption rates. Trying to argue that everyone can live without meat has no basis in reality. We can be pretty sure Eldad's proposal is going to kill some people, and give others dementia and other mental disorders.

[swansont]

Man isn't a lion or any other wildlife animal. Man is much more evolved, and can also exist without killing animals.

Man in general strives to be ethical, and not killing animals would be a step forward.

 

Restating that it's unethical is not an argument suporting why.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Right, since that's what the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. But deficiency in B12 is such a dangerous condition that can take years to fully develop. It's also clear that different people have different absorption rates. Trying to argue that everyone can live without meat has no basis in reality. We can be pretty sure Eldad's proposal is going to kill some people, and give others dementia and other mental disorders.

"Right, since that's what the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. "

Nonsense

It's a single chemical- nothing like a bacterium.

(And it's fairly cheap).

It's true that some people have a serious problem with absorbing it from the diet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pernicious_anemia

They won't be any better or worse off because, at the moment either they get supplements (prepared by fermentation) or they die- depending on whether they live in a rich country or a poor one.

 

 

"Trying to argue that everyone can live without meat has no basis in reality. "

Since some people do live without meat, please explain why- in principle- that can't be extended to everyone else?

 

Don'y get me wrong, I'm not planning to give up eating meat- but let's actually stick to real world reasons for keeping it, rather than nonsense like " the vitamin is basically, a bacteria that delivers cobalt. "

[Endy0816]

I think he just means in terms of the fact that they make cobalt available for us.

 

About pricing, which chemical were you referring to?

[Phi for All]

I did spend too little time on that answer, so thanks for the corrections.

 

The bacteria synthesizes the vitamin. The vitamin contains cobalt as part of its function.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12

Vitamin B₁₂ consists of a class of chemically related compounds (vitamers), all of which show biological activity. It contains the biochemically rare element cobalt(atomic chart symbol Co) positioned in the center of a planar tetra-pyrrole ring called a corrin ring.

 

 

 

As for the question of why some people have different absorption rates, it seems the supplements are at fault.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminB12-HealthProfessional/

Existing evidence does not suggest any differences among forms with respect to absorption or bioavailability. However the body’s ability to absorb vitamin B12 from dietary supplements is largely limited by the capacity of intrinsic factor. For example, only about 10 mcg of a 500 mcg oral supplement is actually absorbed in healthy people [8].

 

 

As for your argument that people won't be any worse off, can you show that those who are going to die anyway might be saved by vegetarianism? If not, why are we letting all the livestock die off?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Pernicious anemia is something that runs in my family. That particular type of anemia is a little different from most - it's an autoimmune disease that destroys the cells responsible for taking up B12. It wouldn't matter if you were were a vegan or a straight meat eater, if you're a sufferer, you're generally not going to be getting enough B12 regardless. Many have to get regular injections. The consequences for not doing so are not enjoyable, even ignoring the eventual death thing.

 

I should also note that plain old B12 anemia is not the same. Pernicious anemia is a very specific condition. The former you can fix by changing your diet or by taking supplements.

OP: While I agree that we could do better in the way we treat livestock, I find your argument about the ethics of killing of animals for food to be unconvincing. Why do you define the killing of an animal as large as a cow as unethical, but not say, a cockroach? A mouse? How about a tree? You eventually have to draw a line somewhere, and I'm not sure why your line is any better than mine, speaking as someone who just finished eating a bacon sandwich.

[Sirona]

My main moral qualm with eating meat is that it's not sustainable. In Australia, approximately sixty percent of our continent is used for grazing; this mightn't sound serious, but this grazing land is acquired by clearing our bush land. Consequently resulting in habitat loss and Australian wildlife being threatened. Another fact to note is a lot of our grain we produce is used to feed farm animals for meat production. Depending on temperatures and rainfall, you need approximately 3.5 hectares per cow and in areas where there is little rain you'd need a lot more.

[Phi for All]

My main moral qualm with eating meat is that it's not sustainable. In Australia, approximately sixty percent of our continent is used for grazing; this mightn't sound serious, but this grazing land is acquired by clearing our bush land. Consequently resulting in habitat loss and Australian wildlife being threatened. Another fact to note is a lot of our grain we produce is used to feed farm animals for meat production. Depending on temperatures and rainfall, you need approximately 3.5 hectares per cow and in areas where there is little rain you'd need a lot more.

 

 

There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals?

 

We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

[Eldad Eshel]

 

There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals?

 

We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

Let's say a law was given to the entire planet that killing animals is prohibited. I'm sure everything will be worked out, over time and despite the hardships that may arise. It might take time, but at the end I am sure everything would turn out for the best.

[dimreepr]

Man isn't a lion or any other wildlife animal. Man is much more evolved, and can also exist without killing animals.

Man in general strives to be ethical, and not killing animals would be a step forward.

 

Cows and chickens can still be used for their milk and eggs, sheep for their wool, while being treated ethically. There would need to be some kind of global plan on how to treat the other animals, if to set them back in nature and how. I'm sure the professionals can handle this, it is still much prefered than slaughter.

 

"More ethical treatment is a better next step than prohibition"

Maybe. But killing them still involves some kind of vicious murder and slaughter which is unethical and cruel, there is no ethical murder. Killing and eating young animals I think is even more unethical, and should be stopped immediately.

 

 

Is it ethical to try and bias your argument with unnecessarily emotive language?

[swansont]

Let's say a law was given to the entire planet that killing animals is prohibited. I'm sure everything will be worked out, over time and despite the hardships that may arise. It might take time, but at the end I am sure everything would turn out for the best.

 

 

Until your house was overrun by cockroaches or bedbugs. Or mosquito-borne diseases were out of control. Or...

[Arete]

Let's say a law was given to the entire planet that killing animals is prohibited. I'm sure everything will be worked out, over time and despite the hardships that may arise. It might take time, but at the end I am sure everything would turn out for the best.

 

What about animals used for medical research? With no model systems, a lot of biomedical research is not possible.

 

Where do you draw the line for animals? Do insects count? What about parasites? Are we allowed to treat blood fluke and guinea worm infections?

 

What about mice? On average, 55 mice are poisoned for every 100kg of grain produced. Do we need to stop protecting our vegetarian food from pests? what about insecticides?

[Phi for All]

Let's say a law was given to the entire planet that killing animals is prohibited. I'm sure everything will be worked out, over time and despite the hardships that may arise. It might take time, but at the end I am sure everything would turn out for the best.

 

Ah, the wishful thinking plan of success! Let's definitely make a fundamental change in our diets and not worry about it because probably it will all work out maybe. Someday, eventually. Sort of.

 

In reality, such a change, if made abruptly, would result in millions of pointless animal deaths. Why do you keep avoiding the question of what to do with existing animals if we can't eat them when they die naturally? Who takes care of these animals for free until they do?

[Eldad Eshel]

I would draw the line at insects. And mice should not be killed unless there is no choice. Like in other cases of ABSOLUTELY HAVING to kill animals.

 

 

Ah, the wishful thinking plan of success! Let's definitely make a fundamental change in our diets and not worry about it because probably it will all work out maybe. Someday, eventually. Sort of.

 

In reality, such a change, if made abruptly, would result in millions of pointless animal deaths. Why do you keep avoiding the question of what to do with existing animals if we can't eat them when they die naturally? Who takes care of these animals for free until they do?

Eating the animals that die naturally ? That is not a bad idea, for sure better than the current methods of cruel murder.

[dimreepr]

I would draw the line at insects. And mice should not be killed unless there is no choice. Like in other cases of ABSOLUTELY HAVING to kill animals.

 

Eating the animals that die naturally ? That is not a bad idea, for sure better than the current methods of cruel murder.

 

 

So you’d rather they suffer disease or injury or a slow perhaps painful death from old age? Besides what’s so unnatural about being killed by another animal?

 

Perhaps you missed post #15 “Is it ethical to try and bias your argument with unnecessarily emotive language?”

[Phi for All]

Eating the animals that die naturally ? That is not a bad idea, for sure better than the current methods of cruel murder.

 

And yet again you ignore the part about who feeds and cares for the existing animals we're no longer able to sell or eat until they die naturally. You seem willing to allow millions of animals to suffer the whims of your wishful thinking, as well as burden millions of humans with the care of animals they don't benefit from. How about they all stay at your place?

[Sirona]

There's good evidence that, if we could get the whole planet to stop eating meat, it would greatly reduce emissions that aid climate change. But what do you do with all those animals?

 

We're already eating less meat per person in major populations centers in first world countries. Modern lifestyles and better healthcare access are raising awareness. But what do you do about Masai tribes in Africa, where cattle are considered the metric of success? Or any other culture that relies on livestock to survive?

We're not in disagreement; I'm not a vegetarian nor am I suggesting that people not eat meat. I am just raising the concern of sustainability. The solution would be to increase food production on existing agricultural land rather than increasing the land area. This will obviously have negative impacts too but will reduce the worldwide food gap.

 

As you said, eating less in general (not just meat) will also help close the food gap and also promote better health. There is evidence that calorie restriction promotes better health and longevity as well as eliminating or improving weight related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, PCOS/hormonal imbalance, high cholesterol, etc.

 

I think genetically modified food plays an important part in increasing food production sustainably too and improving the taste and nutrition of plant and soya based meat substitutes. In Australia, most people are adverse to GMO foods, so educating people ACCURATELY on sustainability is important too.

[Endy0816]

Might not even stop. We use them for leather too. Bones somewhat, not sure of exact figures though.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Endy0816

[Eldad Eshel]

 

And yet again you ignore the part about who feeds and cares for the existing animals we're no longer able to sell or eat until they die naturally. You seem willing to allow millions of animals to suffer the whims of your wishful thinking, as well as burden millions of humans with the care of animals they don't benefit from. How about they all stay at your place?

Yes this is obviously a problem, but I don't think it is that critical a problem that my wishes could not take place. They will gradually be set back to nature, or kept for other resources than their meat. Yes there are ALOT of animals cause humans love to eat ALOT. If forced reproduction of the animals will stop they will also dwindle down in their numbers. So again this is a thing that takes time.

[swansont]

I would draw the line at insects.

 

 

Why? What ethical argument is there for that division?

 

What about humane destruction to end or avoid suffering? Or is it ethical to force a being to live through to the bitter end, regardless.