Eating self-aware creatures? Why isn't that near-cannibalism?

Frequently some thread will come up about humans eating non-humans. Those who aren't vegetarians usually mount some argument of the form "they're just animals", meaning that they have few or no rights that we superior beings are bound to respect. The most recent thread was about horses, iirc.

Self-awareness used to be the criterion for judging whether non-humans are sufficiently "like us" to merit treatment as near-humans. I say "used to be" because we humans are really shameless at moving the goal posts so we can continue to treat others as we would hate to be treated ourselves. Whether it's turning Iraqis fighting for their homes into "raghead terrorists" or ignoring the many important ways non-humans are like us, we --or at least some of us-- maintain our narrow self-interest in the face of all evidence.

Many people, including the late Robert Heinlein, with a strong affinity for cats take it for granted from a multitude of behaviors that cats are self-aware. (For me, the most obvious evidence is the change in the way cats react to their image in a mirror.)

Not long ago, some researchers cleverly demonstrated self-awareness in lab rats.

Temple Grandin reported the case of a (now deceased) parrot in a lab that could not merely talk, but had taught himself to *spell* at least one word ("enn uh tuh"), a facility he demonstrated for the first time in a fit of exasperation one day, shocking his psychologist trainer-companion.

Now it turns out a horse has self-demonstrated it. Molly, a pony and Katrina survivor who had to have part of one front leg amputated after being savaged by a pit bull, showed self-awareness in how she took care of herself prior to and after the amputation. And now that a prosthesis has been made for her, she regularly demonstrates self-awareness by coming to her caregiver and holding out her leg to have the prosthesis put on - or sometimes, taken off. An animal without awareness of herself as a unique person would not be able to make the connections Molly makes. Which is why self-awareness is considered the sine-qua-non of worthiness to be treated as a near-human.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/molly.asp

This is really not an issue..

If some societies want to bean eating certain meats because of an endangered species law thats all well and good but in terms of what is and is ok to eat... if its meat, and its not human, it should be ok...

(Paraphrasing)

After having sent the aliens on a chase for a flaming couch, the guy says to the kids, "They eat meat." The youngest kid says, "That's cool." The guy looks at him and says, "You're meat."

No matter what higher life forms we think we are, we are still food for other creatures. No better. No worse.

in nature if something sees value in eating me they are not going to stop to evaluate my self awareness?

Thanks for the tip ;)

I'm saying that if you're saying it's OK to eat meat why would you qualify the statement with as long as it's not human?

I gave up eating meat years ago. I wouldn't eat my dogs or my cats so how can I justify taking the life of another animal? I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. You are, of course, free to choose what you want.

As for your question, humans are supposedly the higher life form. Why is it that we can make justifications for the things that we do because animals do them, too, but won't extend the courtesy to animals as well?

Its a human rights issue..

Who knows? If the population keeps exploding as it is, one day you may actually find it on the shelves. Right next to the Human Helper.

Do you prefer Three Cheese Human Helper, Stroganoff Human Helper, or my personal favorite Lasanga Human Helper.

See, the Lasagna Human Helper cuts down on the gaminess of human meat, and masks all the chemical impurities in our human herd that makes the meat sometimes taste sour.

I prefer Free-Range Organically Raised Human, but it's so hard to come by.

(is it REALLY necessary to post a :sarcasm: icon?)

:rofl:

For those of you who read other things by Swift than Gulliver's Travels...

To be honest I could have pegged a Modest Proposal to swift but I would have missed Gulliver's Travels

a couple of weeks ago even made this evaluation.

Must have thought the guy was a seal, or some other creature of sustainable fat content. When it realized it wasn't he spit and ran. I'm sure he got over it quick though. ;)

If one evaluates another's awareness before eating them, empathy kicks in and one doesn't eat. People who evaluate the animals around us become vegetarians.

there is a food chain. we just happen to be on top of it due to our ability to make tools to compensate for our comparitive lack of physical skills.

And under them are the scavangers. That's why we have to bury our dead, or cremate them if we don't want the dogs and vultures and rats to eat them.

Or else the photosyntesizers are at the top...

Either way, we are somewheres in the middle.

So far as creating mysterious layers of garbage that will persist at geologic time scales, and mass extinctions, well, we are tops at that. In a couple of million years our trash and the great swaths of anaerobic ocean sediments we caused are going to be a pretty reliable way of dating rocks.

since they have no prey. they are down among the vegetarians.

It's all a circulation of nutrients within the biosphere.

At time these nutrients are confined within the physical boundaries of a specific organism, other times they are not.

And what about all the nutrients within you that are under the direction of non-human genetic systems, all those organisms quietly existing within your guts and your skin and other parts... Where are they in your hierarchy? Are they eating you, or are you eating them?

Between scavengers and predators. It seems that there really is no 'true' of either subset. A hyena will kill some of its food, while the lion will, on occasion, eat the remains of a priorly killed animal. This is thought to be true of early human also. No doubt that our ancestors were scavengers, however, there is evidence that these same Australopithecus hunted game too.

we are considered an APEX species, why in a mass extinction event we may go the way of the dodo

Apex Species are at the most risk in mass extinction events

Type "apex species" into google, and you'll see what I mean. Most of the stuff it drags up is not science, and for that reason alone I wouldn't stand anywhere near it.

It's one of those easy popularizations that will blow up in your face.

Carnivores are placed highest on the food chain. Actually it is more of a food web with primary producers (photsynthesizers) and detritivores and decomposers on the very bottom. Primary consumers are slightly higher (they eat plants) followed by secondary consumers (eat animals that eat plants) and on up. Actually some animals (omnivores) occupy more than 1 level.

More like a circle. Everything comes around at one time or another. People are food for other organisms. There are things eating us as we speak. And all our tools won't change that fact.

but then, from that perspective, any resource you consume is is both denying that resource to another entity and creating a resource for yet another one. Therefore the classifcation into sentinent and non-sentinent is just as arbitrary. Why place more value on one than the other? If you then go with the logic that few animals indeed few living beings, will consume their own species on a regular basis unless there are drastic circumstances as a source of energy (yes, some will do it for darwinistic purposes, eating the young of another male to increase third own genetic spread, for instance, or among insects during mating, but I can't think of a species that makes a habit of cannibalism among adults) you can infer there is a good reason that cannibalism isn't regular practice. You can't say the same thing about near-special consumption, right?

Humans are the top of the food chain. Hannibal probably considers himself the pinacle of the food chain. In his brilliant but twisted mind. As long as he continues to eat other human without being eaten. He wins. Prison is nothing to him. To defeat hannibal in hannibals own mind. You would have to eat him. That is where he would cease to be the intellectual superior and just become lowly food. Nothing more than meat. But until then Hannibal remains the Master in a dog eat dog world.

we should either ban the eating of meat or permit the eating of people.

Oh...you mean EAT.... :rofl:

"Baby, the other other white meat"

Seems like it's the killing part that a self aware being is going to most object to.

But very few consume human flesh, and most killers would be repulsed at the thought.

some other human, or animal, for that matter, killing me than what they do with me after they kill me.

I agree, it's the killing that's the problem, not the eating.

After I'm dead, my body's just meat, and I feel that if I'm killed by another person, that person DAMN WELL better have been hungry, and DAMN WELL better eat me.

If cannibalism is really that much more of an instinctual taboo than murder, then maybe we should prevent homicide and war by requiring all people, under penalty of death, to eat what (I mean whom) they kill. All of it - like the Indians did, no waste.

:shrug:

:)

Yuck.

who would want to eat them even if they're not. :puke:

Animals don't give a second thought to killing. No mercy, no reflection, no remorse. Go bitch at them.

"Animals don't give a second thought to killing"

And yet we do give a second thought-- I think that's a good thing.

Personally, I think some people aren't happy unless they're telling someone to "go bitch at them". But that's just me..

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for human behavior at what animals do. and btw, i'm sure you know, no other animal kills every other species on the massive scale that we do.

That is highly amusing. We are just another species of animal. That we want to hold ourselves to a higher standard is all good and fine, but to think that that makes us separate from the other animals is ludicrous.

the social behavior of cattle. They demonstrate a lot of behavior that many of us feel belongs exclusively to humans, that of demonstrating affinity or dislike for individuals, of forming social groups, even of displaying grudges.

My cat certainly has a full range of emotional expression, something that convinces me she's completely self aware. It just took some time to differentiate her cat noises to interpret whether she was expressing contentment or general disgust or specific requests.

Whether or not people eat meat is entirely personal. Some people just don't do all that well on a plant based diet and some people, myself included, feel lousy when they eat meat. People who do eat it need to own the fact that an aware species has been killed to nourish them and honor it by at least cooking it as artfully as possible, wasting nothing.

After all, my self aware cat is from a predatory species, one that relies on killing other aware species to nourish it. She would become quite ill on a plant based diet and none of us can live on air.

It's just how the world works and we're all cannibals to one degree or another, relying on other life to sustain us.

She'd purr like crazy.

Not that it changes how I feel about my cool little kitty, but jeesh! what an unpleasant image, made more unpleasant by the truth of it.

Maybe if I gave him a 300 lb. bag of Iams every day, he'd leave me alone.

Naah. Studies show cats keep hunting even when they are fed daily.

They're adorable and cuddly - and they're deadly efficient killers. Any more than 20 pounds and they just wouldn't be safe be around. Just imagine what a 40 pound housecat could do if startled off your lap or objected strenuously to be given medicine. I've been sent to hospital for stitches by a 6 pound kitten would didn't want to be pilled (true, she was unusually violent about these things, but still).

And I hardly ever eat ponies named Molly. Margie, sure, but not Molly.

Even if you consider the sheer folly, from a health standpoint, the moral repugnance of the barbarity of inanities like sucking down the mother's milk of another species or the confinement to crates to produce flesh with certain unnatural qualities should eventually impact the rational faculties of any thinking individual who can see through the continual 24 x 7 propaganda and programming into submission to the neo-fascist, super capitalistic paradise that has been created around them.

Like Shelley wrote:


As stewards of the planet, how can any society justify the long shadow of livestock and its inevitable impact upon climate, ecology and diversity?

as for 'near-human', nope. not even close. cute, yes. edible. also yes.

On behalf of meat eaters, let me say it clearly: We get it! We get your "but they're beings with feelings" argument. We have rejected it, because our bodies need protein, or bodies digest meat, and we choose to eat meat.

Your logic is logical to you for reasons that satisfy your needs.

Noshing on a stranger was in the same category as noshing on a pig or a yam.

We invent categories and then act as though they exist in the world instead of in our heads.

Actually, good points as both were valid:

> There were cultures in which the concept "cannibalism" only applied to family
> Noshing on a stranger was in the same category as noshing on a pig or a yam.

> We invent categories and then act as though they exist in the world instead
> of in our heads.

That's the story of "humanity" in a nutshell ... every battle, every war,
every religion and every nation ...

We choose not to eat others of our species. Cannabalism is eating others of one's own species. It isn't eating other self aware beings. If you want to rage at the language because it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, that's your concern. Doesn't make it real. Your delusion is not shared by most, but you're free to lose yourself in it to the extent such fantasy satisfies your need for self delusion.

We create categories that DO exist in the world. You're inventing categories that only exist in your head.

You're clearly one of those people with little education except what he's read from other equally ignorant people. You imagine that by wailing incessantly about your view of animals you will prove to the world the rightness of your half baked ideas.

Sell crazy somewhere else, lady.

I do think though, that people these days are able to avoid the reality of death a little more than is helpful. I'm not at all sure that those who would never hunt, skin and dress their own food should be allowed the easy out of Albertson's packaged meat.

Raising and killing animals for food is part of our history as humans. We are animals, and as animals, we must eat. We eat whatever is available and gives us nourishment. I'm fine with people who choose to limit their diets because they don't want to eat animal products, but believe their logic is very faulty.

:shrug:

pieces of shit who don't *want* to care about anybody or anything except themselves.

Never thought I'd use this in response to a post, but here goes...

Bingo! :hi:


"...pieces of shit who don't *want* to care about anybody or anything except themselves."
There's a lot of smoke in that, but a lot of fire too...

Everyone is made of meat:



"Fair is far, Larry...We're out of food, we drew straws--you lost."

(From Gary Larson's The Far Side.)

Goalposts get moved. That's it.

Is it the result of some brain chemical imbalance caused by not eating meat? Does the inner omnivore rebel and cause them to lash out at others in frustration; a kind of Jungian soul-hunger? More likely it's the other way around: it does seem like an awful lot of self-righteous finger waggers are naturally drawn to vegetarianism. In my view, it's hard to take people seriously who have strict dietary rules for non-medical reasons. That said, I don't think I'd eat any sort of primate or cetacean, or an elephant. Unless I was really hungry, of course.

Sometimes people who lack any distinguishing characteristics or personality traits add to themselves so they could be more interesting. Those same people will then, whenever given the chance, make sure everyone knows that they are now special by shaming others who are not as cool or enlightened as they are.

but I have been questioned a lot by those same people, as well as complete strangers.

I fail to see your point.

omnivores of "cannibalism." I'll give you a few minutes.








Okay. Get it now?

Get it?

That's how it works. People post, other people respond. Stick around—you'll figure it out.

It's incredibly rude. I'm sorry people have done that to you.

At least not about my breath. Heh.

I thought it must be really difficult to have to take an animal that you had raised from "infancy" to the slaughterhouse to be turned into food. I know that people who were raised on a farm looked at animals differently and I put these questions out of my head for most of my life. However, as I learned more about the negative impact of meat consumption on my health, the health of the planet and, most importantly, the health of the animals, I was able to make the mental decision to give up meat for good. I realize many people haven't had the experiences that I have had and, even if they had, wouldn't make the decisions that I have made. However, if any of you are interested in learning more about the impact of livestock on the health of our planet, I recommend the following article. I think it presents a compelling argument for reducing our reliance on meat:
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf

so we can continue to treat others as we would hate to be treated ourselves"

Ain't that the truth.

Creatures eat other creatures, and the ones being eaten die. It's a hard, cold fact of life.

Vegetarians anthropomorphize and idealize animals, but other meat-eating animals couldn't care less about the sentience or lack thereof of the creatures they eat.

Some of the great apes are known to engage in cannibalism. This doesn't make them "bad" any more than eating meat makes humans bad.


I suppose the idea of sentience/self-awareness is interesting and debatable as a topic of discussion, but the outcome of the discussion would have no bearing on whether or not I'd choose to have a steak afterwards.

Give me a choice of meat from a humane source and an inhumane one, and I'll pick the humane one, even if it costs a bit less.

But that's as far as it goes, and as far as it ever will go for 90% of the population.


I love how proselytizing vegetarians (as opposed to the ones that respect others' rights to make their own dietary choices without sermonizing) assume that meat-eaters have never actually sat down and thought about the feelings of the animals they consume. An awful lot of us have. Personally, I try to be very mindful of the fact that a living thing died so I can eat. It's why I go to great lengths to never let meat go to waste.


Animals are treated as non-human because they are non-human. Sentience is not the definition of humanity.

We eat them because they provide protein more efficiently than any other source and are a valuable source of nutrients (when eaten in reasonable amounts).

We eat them because we can.

Go lecture a rat not to eat a grub worm - someday a more advanced alien race may stop by and gobble us up because we'll be like grub worms to them. It'll suck for us, it it won't mean they're "bad". Just hungry. In the grand scheme of things, we're all just meat anyway. Lion food, human food, worm food, but one way or another, we're all here for an instant and our bodies are just so much meat. Proselytizing vegetarians seem to be in denial of this.

And for that, I'm gonna go cook me a hamburger for lunch.

If some big bastard came into your house, beat you up, and evicted you, and it held up in court because that's what non-human predators do, your impotent rage and fury would probably be visible from space.

And your fury and rage would indeed be impotent, because if you used a gun and shot him from ambush so as to get back your property, that would NOT hold up in court because non-humans don't do anything comparable.

How "funny" that we, the Pinnacles Of Evolution, Lords Of All We Survey, Made In The Image Of God, et lengthy and various cetera, nevertheless continue to resist learning even the simplest lessons.

But I don't. It's a kill-or-be-killed world and the rules are what they are. Homicide is the crime of killing a person. There is no crime for killing animals.

And who says we are pinnacles of anything? We are insignificant creatures on a little planet spinning around a star that is going to burn everything around here to a cinder at some point.

Yes, my little world matters to me, and we have laws to try to help protect everyone's little worlds, so that the whole system can function, but that doesn't change the fact that humans (and all the other life) on the earth are of no more cosmic significance than fungus to the vast workings of the cosmos. We only matter to us. But we also feel and we empathize, even with animals, that's why most of us are against animal cruelty, but yes, many of us have come to the conclusion that our need for economical and efficient sources of protein and certain enzymes outweighs that feeling we might get from looking at a cow's long-lashed adorable eyes.


If you want ton of eat meat, and have to load up on a bunch of tofu, beans and supplements just to get adequate nutrition, more power to you, but don't go around acting all superior, because it doesn't wash. As a matter of fact, I actually feel more guilt over the flies I occasionally swat than I do about the animals I eat. Is it because the meat comes in a package and I'm ignorant of what happens in a slaughterhouse? No, it's because I killed the fly for no other reason but because it was annoying me. At least the animal's life force went to sustaining me and other people (and even animals), and every part of its body was used toward that purpose.

I don't want to belabor this any morre, because any more and I will cross the line from trying to make you understand, to trying to proselytize to you to drop vegetarianism - and I don't want to do that - I respect your choice - but I don't respect your false piety.

In the interest of the man, here is Cesar Chávez, in his own words, on the issues of animal rights, vegetarianism, and their connections to other struggles:



:wtf: :argh: :beer:

Pointing out Chavez's views on the matter is as irrelevant as if I dragged out the old saw about Hitler being a vegetarian.

and work of the great man that Chavez was.

Chavez was eloquent in his actions and his speech.

But, in respect to the freewheeling nature of these "discussions," you are forgiven. Sorry I could not respond sooner.

I am glad that you admire the work of such a man.

Still, you sound very obtuse to call quoting Chavez to be irrelevant in a discussion about principles that he held dear.

Only a poorly informed and ignorant individual would consider Hitler (I assume you are referring to that great "hero" of capitalist fascism aka Adolph, the preferred whipping boy of the neo-fascist right in the good ol' land of chevrolet), to be even remotely associated with vegetarianism. When one considers a known liar and propagandist calling him or herself "Christian" or some such label, one must take it with a grain of salt. If you have heard the "old saw" (as you called it), then you are drinking from a very polluted well , my friend. Perhaps you know that.

What motivates one in the struggle for social justice? And, are the other forms of life on the planet to be always outside of the sphere of the concept of rights & justice?

"Only a poorly informed and ignorant individual would consider Hitler (I assume you are referring to that great "hero" of capitalist fascism aka Adolph, the preferred whipping boy of the neo-fascist right in the good ol' land of chevrolet), to be even remotely associated with vegetarianism."

So he wasn't a vegetarian? He publicly disavowed the consumption of meat, and there is a great deal of evidence that he pretty much avoided its consumption for the last 14 or 15 years of his life. As I said, this is TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion. And bringing it up doesn't mean I'm drinking from a "poison well". The historical record is rife with references to his basic belief in vegetarianism and love for animals. One needn't go to Fox News or other RW sources to read about it. As for his Christianity - if he had been as committed to Chrisitianity in practice as he was to vegetarianism - as he pretended to be - he might not have unleashed his reign of terror upon Europe. And I say that as a person who thinks very little of Christianity...

So Hitler didn't eat meat. Big deal. Pol Pot did. Does that make Pol Pot a saint? Does it make meat-eating a statement against the atrocities of the Khmer Rouge? Of course not. Associating a historical figure, good or bad, with a lifestyle choice and claiming that it somehow validates/invalidates that lifestyle choice seems nonsensical to me. Hitler may very well have been RIGHT about vegetarianism, or road construction, or any number of other things, and Chavez may have been wrong to oppose illegal immigration in the 1970s - or maybe he was wrong when he supported amnesty in the 80s. That's up to individuals to decide for themselves. I admire a great many things about Chavez, including that he did what he thought was right in terms of his diet.


"What motivates one in the struggle for social justice?"

Empathy and compassion.

"And, are the other forms of life on the planet to be always outside of the sphere of the concept of rights & justice?"

And as far as I'm concerned, the other forms of life on this planet are always going to be outside the sphere of rights and justice because they are incapable of understanding what such things are. They are also incapable of fulfilling any sort of responsibilities or obeying or disobeying laws. Our empathy and compassion must extend to these creatures, but rights? Of course not. Justice? No, but it is incumbent on humans to see to their welfare and humane treatment.

His book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, can be found on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Neither-Vegetarian-Animal-Lover/dp/0962616966.

As for your other points, I need to defer to the yard work while the weather is good.

you bear the characteristic extremely bad information about what nutrition is all about.

I meet not veg. people all of the time, and scarcely a one understands that a calorie is a measure of energy.

A human organism is extremely complicated in its interdependencies and biochemical functions, like most life forms, and especially the more advanced. The human organism "burns" calories. A characteristic trait of fats, carbohydrates, proteins and alcohol is that they all can be measured with calories.

People respond to these types of posts, like the OP, with mindless propaganda which has been fed to them since birth, with no reference or scarcely credible information. Logic and reason are also characteristics of the higher life forms.

If nature contains no morality, are humans then outside of nature and possessing the characteristic of morality (moral reasoning and logic)? Or do they not possess morality (moral reasoning and logic), and therefore exist within or as part of nature?

Which is it? If humans are not in nature, what planet do you inhabit? Is it a planet outside of nature? Are you like an oxycontin-based life form?

Disputing extremely toxic misinformation is not "proselytizing," as you so patronizingly term it. Of course, you probably have no morals anyway, or come from a red planet perhaps?

1. I understand that a calorie is a measure of energy. What on earth does this have to do with the topic?

2. I never said that humans exist outside of nature - we are still an intrinsic part of it. But as creatures in the system the only moral imperative on us is to survive and multiply - the same impetus as all other creatures have. There is no moral aspect to the question of whether or not to eat an animal. There are people - fruitarians - who go so far as to say that it's immoral to eat a carrot or other plant matter if you kill the plant in the process of eating it. What rubbish! You can do handstands to endow animals with human traits all you want, but they are not human. A cat will sit and watch its owner die under earthquake rubble and then eat the corpse. It doesn't care at all.

3. I live on this planet and choose to eat meat because it is the least expensive way to get the necessary dietary protein I need. The oxycontin quip is uncalled for.
This is not PETA's fucking website, so as far as I'm concerned, equating meat-eating with being a dittohead is fucking bullshit. The vast majority of DEMOCRATS still ENJOY meat as a part of their diets. And I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few republican vegetarians or even PETA members.

Maybe it's ttime these sorts of posts where banished to some sort of PETA/Vegetarian dungeon, the way 9-11 truth posts are banished. At least there are real questions yet to be answered about 9-11. Most of us already went through the whole "morality of eating meat" question in our teens and have moved beyond it.

And you are proselytizing. You're nagging at people to abandon a lifestyle they settled upon some time ago, a choice most of us are quite content with. It's not patronizing to say that your trying to spread your belief system is proselytizing, it's just the truth.

Your first response about calories, has everything to do with the topic. It's about fuel for the human body.

Meat is less expensive for the dietary protein you think you need. Don't know much about nutrition, do you?

I know that the human body needs protein to maintain muscle mass - about 70 g per day for an adult male. To get that much protein you'd have to eat a huge amount of beans (and all the extra carbs that go with them).

Considering that I maintain about 10% body fat and keep very fit, I'd like to think I know a little about nutrition - certainly more than some of my morbidly obese vegetarian friends did.

And yes, a gram of chicken breast protein is cheaper than a gram of bean protein.

I'm not going to tout experience here. I know lots of folks with opinions on their bodyfat levels and fitness that find themselves experts. Still don't know shit about nutrition.

Is that what they teach at PETA's "Go Veg" PR seminars?

I'm simply showing that there some dumb fucking idiot running around DU with shit information that thinks he knows what nutrition is.

Next, mark?

Let's assume my info is wrong. You've said absolutely nothing about nutrition except that a calorie is a unit of energy.

The fact that calories are units of energy does not mean that the various fats, carbs, proteins and fiber are the same, or handled in the same way by the body.

And then you have to stoop to profane name-calling. Is that supposed to bolster your case, whatever that is - since you haven't said anything.

What is your point? The human body doesn't need protein? A calorie is a calorie so we can get all the nutrients we need from carbs and fats?

Have a point or STFU.

You've not really provided any information. You've spouted idiotic opinion based on your nutrition expertise based on having some alleged sorta-low bodyfat levels.

Then, you got angry. At which point, you REALLY looked stupid.

Yeah, I suggested that the human body doesn't need protein, didn't I? Well, I must've because you stated so. Just feel free to point out where I did that.

I'll wait.

STFU indeed. Heed your own advice.

And as for "getting angry", I'm not the one hurling profanities and name-calling.

Is he wrong about the amount of protein we need? Is he wrong aboue the quickest way to get protein?

I would like to know what you dispute, so that I can see who makes the better point.

The poster you are referring is not specifically wrong about protein intake, but is generalizing. Most Americans tend to get more protein than they need. The RDA is .8 g for every kg we weigh. This recommendation includes a generous safety factor for most people. At the same time, excessive protein intake is correlated with osteoperosis and heart disease.

The question of the 'quickest way to get protein' is also misguided. Again, Americans eat a very protein-heavy diet, far more so than necessary. More isn't better in this case. Vegans and vegetarians do tend to eat less protein than the average American, but that doesn't mean we don't get enough protein.

Typical day:

Breakfast:
1 cup Oatmeal 6
1 cup Soymilk 7
1 Bagel 9

Lunch:

2 slices Whole Wheat Bread 5
1 cup Vegetarian Baked Beans 12

Dinner: 5 oz firm Tofu 11

1 cup cooked Broccoli 4
1 cup cooked Brown Rice 5
2 Tbsp Almonds 4

Snack: 2 Tbsp Peanut Butter 8
6 Crackers 2

TOTAL 73 grams


Protein really isn't a problem.

As a percentage of daily calorie intake, most people should be getting about 1/4 of their caloried from protein. Because Americans consume an average of 3500-4000 calories per day (double our calorie needs) we get more protein than we need, but also WAY too many carbs and fat calories too. For most people, the percentage of their calories coming from protein is much less than 25%. Even consuming 100g of protein per day (400 cal) - that's only 10% of a 4000 calorie daily intake, so yes, Americans eat too many protein calories, but they overeat carb and fat calories even more.

The example you cite is fine, for one day, but most non-meat protein sources have much less protein than the tofu, and there is a lot of research showing that the soy isolates in tofu and other coy product can wreak havoc with hormonal levels. I personally love tofu, but avoid eating it more than once a week for this reason.

I know that most vegans and vegetarians are quite mindful of nutrition, and thus are aware that removing animal proteins from the diet creates a number of nutrient deficiencies that need to be corrected with supplements - B12 being the best-known. Most people simply are not interested in a diet that requires the removal of so many pleasurable foods and extra vigilance just to maintain adequate nutrition.

Granted, the Standard American Diet is a poor one - probably significantly worse than what most vegetarians/vegans eat, but don't make the mistake of assuming that all omnivores eat the crap that is the Standard American Diet. My diet probably resembles that of a vegan more closely than it does the typical American's. It just so happens that I also choose to have sensible amounts of lean meats, fish eggs and dairy as a part of it,

I get all the protein I need by, every other day or so, drinking a blender-full of salted lassi (diluted yoghurt flavored with salt and cumin) fortified with whey. About a dollar's worth, I think, or maybe a dollar fifty. On alternate days, if I eat protein, I get it from doufu - generally drained, sliced, deep-fried, and eaten with a spicy dipping sauce. I'd prefer to get a good measure of my protein from beans and rice, too -red beans and rice are yummmmy!- but my age and genetic heritage make eating carbs a problem.

And the only deficiency from a well-chosen vegetarian diet is the B12 thing he mentions. Being a veg, I have to take B12 sups - 1g per day. Each such dose costs me a whole 11c.

I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. I have no ethical problem with eggs or dairy products, presuming the cows and chickens are treated decently. I'm as careful as possible when choosing the source of the yoghurt and (occasional) cheese, ice cream, and eggs I buy, but the cows and chickens aren't being killed or, to my best knowledge, suffering to provide me with those semi-optional foods, so I'm okay with doing it.

2. I didn't say you did. I asked a question because of the vague mumbo-jumbo of your replies. You clearly don't understand the principles of philosophical discussion to call such a discussion "rubbish". Instead of pulling nonsense out of your ass, why don't you refer to some substance of discussion somewhere. Why would I "endow animals with human traits?" A cat has the traits that it has, so does a lizard, so does a human doctor or painter or ship builder. Your concept of life so meaningless that the only "moral imperative" is to survive & multiply is right in line with the neo-fascist elite of the planet. That sort of nihilism is the foundational bedrock of the wealth-power-prestige oligarchy. And, why do you point out such meaningless, ridiculous fictions about cats? Each cat is an individual cat, possessing its very own cattiness. To state that "it doesn't care at all" betrays the nihilism at the core of your beliefs. A cat may care, or it may not. I don't think that you know.

3. Sorry, I thought it was funny. But, you still betray an ignorance of the needs of the human frame if you feel that you must have dietary protein from an animal source. That very concept has no basis in scientific reality. As an atheist, you should acknowledge that at least. Anyone who feels that dietary protein is economical and importantly provided from animal sources is terribly misguided. Why should you be offended by scientific facts? Do you place any credibility in science that claims that climate change is in a large and significant part affected by human activity?

If you feel that "eating meat" is not a political act, then you are misguided indeed. The science of global warming/climate change, the science of disease identification and analysis, the science of nutritional requirements, the science of organic agriculture are all inextricably bound in political acts. Nihilism essentially places little or no value on truth, since it is all relative. Your philosophy of survival and procreation would justify falsehood if it furthered those aims, would it not?

I'm not even going to get into whether or not my beliefs are nihilistic or not. I personally don't think so. Nor do I think they play into the ideals of "neo-fascist elite" or "the wealth-power-prestige oligarchy", because I care very much about the well-being of each and every person, regardless of class or social standing, which I happen to believe is a huge distinction. Nor do I utterly disregard the feelings of animals. If I did, I wouldn't have a problem with slowly clubbing cattle to death before eating them, rather then the swift and relatively humane slaughtering methods largely in use today.

And I didn't say that I think people "must" get protein from animal sources, but it is a more efficient way than most vegetable sources - most beans have huge amounts of carbohydrates in addition to protein, and there are health problems associated with eating excessive amounts of soy isolates as in tofu, and then there is the issue of the supplements that become necessary when animal products are cut out of the diet - these must also be figured into the cost of securing protein for a vegetarian. 100 grams of chicken breast has more than 3 times as much protein than an equal amount of tofu, not to mention, less fat, and it costs significantly less per protein gram. I'm not saying I'm against tofu either - I love it. But I choose to get my protein from a variety of sources including tofu, legumes, fish, eggs, chicken and other fowl, and pork. I'm not disputing that you can get adequate protein from vegetable sources, but that there are cheaper animal sources that don't require supplements and that there are concerns associated with basing too much of the diet on tofu/soy.

I also didn't say that eating meat didn't carry political implications. It most certainly has significant adverse effects on the earth's environment - effects that will undoubtedly do harm to humanity in the long run. In fact, I think most Americans would do well to reduce their meat consumption by half or more - for both health, and environmental reasons.

But that wasn't the question - the topic was whether or not eating meat is tantamount to canniblaism, and I still say "not by a long shot".


PS - I have had cats for most of my life, and have enjoyed their company, and they certainly enjoyed mine - snuggling in my hair or nestled against my legs in bed, etc. Wonderful animals. But do I think they would miss "me" if I were dead under a pile of rubble? Uh-uh. They would miss the comforts I provided, nothing more. Of course one could argue that that's all we humans miss about one another...

I agree with you about the cannibalism comment. I could argue/debate for animal rights, to which I do give great validity, but eating animals is not "tantamount" to cannibalism as it is defined and commonly used.

And likely your political and human philosophy is not nihilistic as it sounded, and I grant you that as well. I think that you are trying to responsibly think and debate about issues that are quite relevant and important today.

However, I do think that you are a little misinformed about dietary protein.

1. The "soy isolates" issue is not really relevant if one consumes the whole soybean products. It is the processing into isolates that are added to other ingredients which is very likely adverse to good human health and nutrition. I myself avoid all of the foods which contain these types of processed soy. I do regularly consume in moderation tofu, tempeh, soybeans and home-made soymilk, and I avoid all soy that is not certified organic.

2. Diseases in Western societies, which are migrating throughout the world, are diseases of excess, not of lack. You should know that all of medical science has NEVER uncovered even one disease, malady, infirmity or degenerative condition that results, even in part, from not having animal products. Vegans should never require supplements outside of special cases, with a possible exception of B12 which is produced by bacterial activity. B12 is fat soluble and stored by the body. Whether or not B12 supplementation is required is a relatively minor issue, but vegans are always recommended to be aware of that issue. When in doubt, vegans should make sure they have adequate B12 stores, one way or the other.

3. Be aware that you are much more in danger of too much protein than not enough. As a matter of scientifically proven fact, if you get the adequate caloric intake to sustain yourself solely from vegan sources, you are virtually guaranteed to get enough protein as well as enough of the essential amino acids. How could protein affect your health? The concept of renal acid load is one aspect of the issue. Animal proteins are unbalanced because of the excess of the sulfur bearing amino acids. The natural pH of the body/blood is an alkaline state. Animal protein typically presents large spikes in renal acid loads, and the body will typically try to compensate by buffering the acid with calcium from the skeletal structure. Extensive epidemiological studies have shown that the greater the animal protein consumption, the greater the occurrence of osteoporosis and injuries such as hip fractures. Studies clearly show that calcium intake does not indicate bone health. Osteoporosis is a disease of bone loss, not calcium deficiency--despite the propaganda of the dairy industry.

4. I am very glad that you understand the political implications. :thumbsup:

5. Carbohydrates are the cheapest and most efficient energy sources for the body. I think that if meat and dairy were not so heavily subsidized, the retail prices would dramatically show that as well. I haven't purchased animal products for decades, but the huge subsidies that keep the prices within the reach of so many has been well documented I believe. I feel that it is a significant part of the circle of corruption used to suppress true social progress while enriching the few.



Antonio Machado's verse seems much more inspiring than a smiley.

...so I would personally set them aside - until there is some real consensus on the matter, I prefer to eat soy in moderation - once or twice a week. If you're comfortable eating it more often, that's cool.


"5. Carbohydrates are the cheapest and most efficient energy sources for the body. I think that if meat and dairy were not so heavily subsidized, the retail prices would dramatically show that as well. I haven't purchased animal products for decades, but the huge subsidies that keep the prices within the reach of so many has been well documented I believe. I feel that it is a significant part of the circle of corruption used to suppress true social progress while enriching the few."

Yes - they're a cheap source of energy, but Americans are hadly lacking in consuming energy. The average American eats twice as many calories as they need, and the bulk of that overconsumption is in carbs and fats. True that they overconsume protein as well, but when we cut down that typical 3500-4000 cal diet to a more reasonable 1500-2000, we have to take more care to be sure that an adequate number of calories are coming from good lean proteins - men especially need adequate protein to keep up muscle mass.

Again, I also won't get into dairy consumption either - I have a bit of dairy in my diet, but I'm not a proponent of it. It can be an allergen and seems to disagree with many people's constitutions. The calcium and protein in dairy is easily replaced, so it can hardly be thought of as a necessity. I have dairy because I like lowfat milk in my cereal, a pat of butter now and then, and cheese on occasion. I've tried all the soy substitutes and found them quite unsatisfactory.

I don't want to be overly contentious about this - this is probably one of very few venues where vegetarians/vegans can even get a fair airing of their ideas and opinions. So many Americans are dismissive and even derisive of vegetarians and vegans, making them the focus of ridicule in the media, and that is disgraceful and pathetic. I think it's a defensive reaction by people who are aware on some level that their eating habits do have adverse impacts on animals and the environment. I totally respect your efforts to encourage people to change their eating habits, and mentioning the cruelty and environmental impact aspects should certainly be a part of that.

But implying that people who eat meat are cannibals takes it too far. It's a very negative, accusatory way of proselytizing that will probably drive more people away from vegetarianism and veganism than it would attract. People are funny in that they respond negatively when they are called ugly names.

Also, it would be good if more vegans/vegetarians would adopt a bit more of a flexible mindset that uses the facts to encourage the average person to reduce their meat consumption rather than quitting cold turkey. Doing so would probably be more effective and help more people improve their health while saving animal lives. The average meat-eater in America doesn't bat an eye at eating a steak almost the size of a Harry Potter paperback book in one sitting, when most doctors describe a healthy portion of lean meat as the size of a deck of cards, once or twice a day. If most Americans ate portions like this, don't you think we'd cut meat consumption in half in no time?

Although it would look cruel to us.

Cannibalism is binary, something is or isn't cannibalism.
You are either eating your species or you are not.

and what's the point?

debate killing self-aware animals for food if you wish, but that argument is a non-starter.

And, by the way, what's so big about "self-awareness" anyway?


It is a spurious, human-defined mythical distinction among animal species.

The ability to understand what an image in a mirror is is a specific cognitive capability that lots of animals don't have. So what? They can still feel pain, can still be glad to see you when you get home, can still show concern and affection for their young. Many species show concern for their peers - elephants will team up to help one that has gotten stuck in a mudhole. So they have empathy. Dolphins have been reported to assist swimmers to shore. These are all anecdotal, describe various aspects of other species overall cognitive and emotive capabilities. Drawing some fictitious line to say which of these characteristics makes eating them not ok is just bogus.

... why *is* there a taboo about cannibalism?

Alternatively, why isn't the taboo against homicide equally strong?

:shrug:

I'd rather eat a well-prepared person than kill one.

Your argument is specious and illogical. Humans are omnivores. Otherwise why the hell would we have canid teeth?
This is a judgemental piece of garbage. And as much as I think everyone has the right to eat what they want..its this kind of nonsense that makes me and a lot of other people loathe vegatarians. Especially preachy idiotic vegetarians.

A simple question was asked.

If you were concerned, why not just say no?

Humans kill other life. Otherwise why the hell would we have hands, tools and such?

Wow, just Wow.

How about this: Humans are doctors. Otherwise, why the hell would we have 2 million heart attacks and strokes in the US annually?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Oh, here's a good one: Humans are republicans. Otherwise, why the hell would we have $3 trillion dollar boondoggles in the middle east?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The poster you're replying to has a vested financial interest in animal abuse.

Good post, I also have seen animal self awareness when a wounded deer shot in the leg with an arrow was bleeding and would stop every few yards to pick up snow with its mouth and put it onto the wound to coagulate it, till finally it stopped bleeding and the deer just kept moving without stopping. That was my last hunting trip.

J

See, I can deal with slaughtering animals as quickly and humanely as possible, but shooting them and watching them limp around in pain - even as a kid I hated the idea of it and would never have anything to do with hunting - and I grew up in Texas...

is "near-cannibalism"?

you act pretty high and mighty for a plant murderer.

As in, I will eat anything. Even people. Children are my mostest favorites.

*drives ice cream truck through neighborhoods* Heeeere, kiddies..daddy needs a snack...

Before I get started, I am Buddhist. I have been following the path for over 5 years now.

To me, being a vegetarian is an integral part of my spiritual path, my adopted philosiphy, the truth in the Buddha's teachings are very profound and carry a "universal" truth.

There is no salvation without compassion for all living beings ~ Buddha

Welcome to Samsara.

That's because I don't have any.

Living free of the shackles of dogma, gotta love it.

:)

Don't quite getcha.

Buddhism is free of dogma.

It's not the same as catholic or fundie dogma, but there is still some dogma.

Not to mention a LOT of superstition. Hers is a cultish Japanese variant, where any good or bad fortune you experience comes from your making good or bad causes in life as well as chanting at a mandala or lack thereof. I love her, but honestly, if I had known I'd still have to be listening to religious mumbo-jumbo 15 years later, I wouldn't have gone through with the marriage and would have sought out a nice atheist girl. Now she tries to make the kids go to monthly "youth meetings" because god forbid we let them grow up without being indoctrinated while their minds are still tender...


PS - I don't mean this post to be insulting to your beliefs or my wife's, I'm really just venting. It was my fault, really - when we got married, I was so crazy about her that I chanted with her and pretended to be interested in the religion to a degree, but after several years I finally asserted that I would no longer participate in any religious activity because I don't believe in any of it. So now I'm stuck trying to defend my position as the atheist in the family, and of trying to protect my kids from overt proselytizing, while also reassuring them that what they choose to believe in (or not believe in) has to be their choice, and not what mom or dad believes. Unfortunately, mom doesn't think that way and wants them all good and brainwashed - to the point that she wants to send them to SGI's "University" in Orange County. How prestigious a degree from a Buddhist Cult school will look on their resumes! :sarcasm:

Yes, in Buddhism there is the spark of the Divine.

I hate to say it, but the SGI groups are the Mormons of Buddhism.

Very strange, I could never figure them out. They think all they have to do is chant and everything is ok. Never worry about anything but chanting. They are looking for the same things as every other Theologist. Those are not the true teachings of Buddhism.

I am an Atheist too. But I sure do love the Mahayana teachings of Cosmology. Fortunately most forms of Buddhism fully embrace science. But I do also believe that sentient beings exist in all realms of space, time and dimensions.

Thank you for being honest with me.

It's exasperating being married to someone whose beliefs are basically reinforced by ANYTHING that happens.

When I recently got a new, better-paying job, it was because she has been chanting for it.

If I hadn't have gotten it, it would be because I don't chant. When I lost a bunch of weight- it was because she chanted that I would do so. Never mind all the painstaking monitoring of my food intake or consistent dedication it took.

I understand that some people need for there to be something more in the universe than just what we see. Even I like the thought that that something might be out there and that I might commute with it when I die. But I don't need it to be all clearly defined, and I don't need to talk, read or think about it on a daily basis - I don't need reassurances. Either it is there, or it is not - and no amount of praying or chanting or good or bad deeds will change that. I just want to live my life to the fullest until I die and I see the practice of religion as a waste of that precious time that I could be devoting to my livelihood or to learning about other things that exist on THIS plane. If there is a higher power or whatever, then it put us here on THIS PLANE to experience THIS PLANE, not to obsess about the next one, IMHO.

cannibalism is about eating humans.

:shrug:

I love it!

:rofl:

So to speak...

It is not so much they exist as they ponder why they exist. We dominate those that cannot take the time or have the ability to think beyond the confines of their immediate surroundings. How do you know that is not what nature intended? This is a nonsensical argument at best.

I used that term because there are tabus in all cultures against what that culture counts as "cannibalism". All of them define it as "eating people", though who counts as "people" varies from culture to culture.

Several responders upthread used the word "species", as though that created an objective, science-based definition. They ignored or are unaware that taxonomy is in our heads, not in nature.

When we taxonomize, we focus on specific details and assign them definitional importance, while ignoring other details. For example, if the Neandertal people were alive today, we might be able to kill and eat them without being cannibals. Some scientists class them as "homo sapiens neandertalensis", not quite the same as us, but people nevertheless. But others assert, based on assigning importance to different details, that they are a different species altogether: "homo neandertalensis": not "people".

In other cultures, "people" are defined to be "our village", or for very cosmopolitan groups "us and the people we mate with".

Exactly the same thinking is behind our willingness to eat non-humans and the willingness of the DINOs and GOP to send our kids to kill Iraqi kids. It is *ALL* based on the idea that the "not-us" have no rights that we are bound to respect. The only difference is who gets stuck with being the "not-us".

Until we can stop being self-absorbed primitives and begin seeing (however imperfectly!) the real degree of our affinity with other creatures both human and non-human, *and according them rights consistent with their closeness to us* we are no more ethical or intelligent than the "get a brain morans" guys everyone here loves to laugh at. Until we grow up, we will continue to let psychopaths treat us like non-humans, lead us around by our noses, and make us the instruments of their atrocities.

That's why I used the term "near-cannibalism". It's a test.

The OP references Robert Heinlein and cats without noting that in his seminal work, "Stranger In A Strage Land," cannibalism plays a central, positively presented role, that of "not wasting food."

***********SPOILER*******************

At the end of the book, the protagonist, having discorporated, is eaten by his fellows as a celebration of his life. More particularly, he becomes a lovely stew.

*************************************

Thus, it appears that Heinlein maintained a special status for cats that he wouldn't reserve for his own kind.

"Thou Art God," y'all.

"Eating self-aware creatures? Why isn't that near-cannibalism?"

First three entries at Dictionary.com
1. the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2. the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3. the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.


Says nothing about awareness, or even sentience...

My point was that the "self-awareness" was where the goalposts were. "Okay, animals can think. But they don't use tools, which means they're not Like Us. So they have no right to rights." ... "Okay...don't make tools...no right to rights" ... "Okay, some animals do make tools. But they're not self-aware, which means they're not Like Us. So they have no right to rights." And the dance goes on.

And in this very thread, a few posts up, someone (I *hope* in jest, but it's hard to tell) moved the goalposts again, demanding proof that non-humans reflect on the meaning of life before being granted the right to rights.

Some computer-intelligence researcher (I can't remember his name) once said, in naive exasperation, that if a horse could do what a computer could (then) do, we'd certainly say the horse was intelligent. But of course we certainly wouldn't do anything of the kind, because we want to go on exploiting horses. We're barely willing to truly acknowledge the humanity of other humans, and then only if we don't want to steal from them.

"Self-awareness used to be the criterion for judging whether "non-humans are sufficiently 'like us' to merit treatment as near-humans."

When was this?

It was the most-recent re-positioning of the goalpost, done, iirc, right after non-humans began to be observed making tools, and it hasn't yet been changed. However, the people who want to "continue the systems of exploitation", as Malcolm said in a slightly different context, are scrambling to shift it again by, as usual, moaning about The End Of Civilization As We Know It. Somehow, any change to better the conditions of the powerless, whether it's a rise in minimum wage for humans or basic rights for non-humans, will inevitably lead to TEOCAWKI, to hear them tell it. Since they're shameless, it doesn't matter how many times they're proven wrong.

If you do a search on "animal rights" "criterion" and "self-awareness", you'll see where things stand now.

Maybe a group of academics agrees, but in practical application that standard is nowhere. We're just now getting to the point that all humans enjoy the status of a person, even in theory. I think we're far off from granting such rights to even the most intelligent, er, "non-humans."

That sounds like "a standard" to me. Pro-rights people say "the differences are unimportant compared to the similarities" and the exploiters say "no, the differences are major, namely that non-humans can't think/use tools/make tools/dance the polka/make war/whateverthehell plus they taste good, so that means they shouldn't have any rights".

I'd be okay with "criterion", though, if "standard" to you means something more official.

The animals are a TINY part of it.

Sad but true.

I have imposed an artificial restriction on myself: I consume only plant material and animal products that don't involve the death of an animal. Luckily, I can afford to be moralistic.

It would be fatuous to expect others to live by my personal standards, and I refuse to live by anyone else's.

Morality shifts. A lobster is merely a very large bug. Bugs are not way up on the sentience scale, but I could never boil one alive to improve the flavor of the bugmeat. I'm revolted by the conditions of factory "husbandry"; coop-raised chickens and immobilized calfs. The endless lines of terrified animals waiting in line as they hear the screams ahead of them.

In that regard, I certainly sympathise with your stance, but doubt that sufficient numbers will hear to change those realities.

And we have so many realities to reverse...

.....that doesn't signify "self awareness!" He may think he sees another cat, or just some image moving. I think you're reading too much into that!!

Probably people should be vegetarians for other reasons anyway though.

There is no "near-cannibalism". This is silly.