The Secret Reason We Eat Some Animals (And Not Others) - General

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399448]So is it okay to murder a retarded person who can't ponder their experiences? [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] I'm not saying their morally equivalent, but the logic is the same. Animals do have moral value but just because it's lesser than humans doesn't mean it's okay to murder them. Also I think you're underestimating the havoc that the animal agriculture industry has on the environment.[/QUOTE] You precisely put that murdering your neighbor and an animal is morally equivalent did you not? I disagree on your latter point. It's not as straightforward as proponents of veganism would have you believe. That point aside, you did not address that no matter how good you can claim plant-based agriculture to be, it is beaten by an insect based diet on all fronts. With regard to a "retarded" person - they have the status of personhood. If you agree with the concept of abortion this shouldn't be a leap of faith for you.

[QUOTE=Carlito;52399438]What makes animals not deserve to be slaughtered? I actually want to know what about animal sentience actually makes it a matter of deserve. While I don't think it's a justification for the killing of animals for food, it's pretty clear when you probe deeper that our ideas about when it is right or wrong to kill someone become rather plastic. It's wrong to kill animals to eat, yes? What about when they threaten our agricultural products; we routinely kill populations of agricultural pests and destroy habitats in order to safeguard our plant-based crops, is that okay; we're not killing them [I]for[/I] food, but we're killing them for our food? What about the fact that our habits of consumption demand continual destruction of habitats, is that okay? We kill animals as a matter of convenience for us - animals are routinely killed in the harvest of crops because it's too much effort to relocate them temporarily. My point is that this line of argument comes from a place where you're certain that your ethical position is correct, when the foundation of your point isn't quite so concrete. You're arguing as if consumption of meat the only way in which animals are killed and eradicated, and that by not participating in their consumption, you hold the moral imperative compared to those that do, when that's simply not the case.[/QUOTE] Yes there are some moral gray areas but there's a difference between unnecessarily killing animals for food and animals that happen to be killed in our production processes. If an animal is a threat to our food supply and the only way to get rid of it is to kill it, then that would give justification. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52399439]would you kill a wolf to save a child?[/QUOTE] Of course, I think humans are of higher value, that doesn't mean it's morally justifiable to unnecessarily kill them for our own pleasure. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Inspector N;52399464]You precisely put that murdering your neighbor and an animal is morally equivalent did you not? I disagree on your latter point. It's not as straightforward as proponents of veganism would have you believe. That point aside, you did not address that no matter how good you can claim plant-based agriculture to be, it is beaten by an insect based diet on all fronts. With regard to a "retarded" person - they have the status of personhood. If you agree with the concept of abortion this shouldn't be a leap of faith for you.[/QUOTE] I was comparing the logic, not the content. As for insects, they have brains as well and it's still not understood whether or not they have a conscious. So until we can prove otherwise we should assume they do. What is it about "personhood" that separates us from animals? What difference is there in animals that if present in humans, would justify the slaughter of humans?

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399448]So is it okay to murder a retarded person who can't ponder their experiences? [/QUOTE] Uh... "Retarded"? Do you mean a person in a vegetative state? If so, more or less yes, it happens all the time, see switching life support off. If you mean actual mental retardation as in mental disability, of course not. You can't compare an animal to a disabled person, first - there's not a lot of kinds of mental disability that completely leave a person without [i]any[/i] degree of reason, intentionality or self-awareness, second - comparing an ill person to a healthy animal in its natural, 'default' state comes across as somewhat disingenuous.

[QUOTE=gudman;52399426]The lack of ability to ponder on their experience, as in, lack of conscious self-awareness and intentionality. Lack of consciousness entirely. There. That's why it's okay to slaughter and eat a cow and not your neighbour.[/QUOTE] A cow is totally conscious, though... They're even fairly intelligent and capable of emotions. I do think this is the core of the discussion, though. And it's an issue we can't truly work out until science obtains an understanding of how consciousness, feeling, and intelligence works. [QUOTE=Inspector N;52399454]I would amend the position to evolution and morals don't [I]always [/I]correlate. Consider morals [I]can [/I]be derived from how humans "are" i.e. how we have evolved.[/QUOTE] I don't think it would ever be derived from it, it would be a coincidence. Evolution cares only about what survives, not about how or why. Sometimes you get behavior such as empathy which made humans survive more - absolutely moral! But you also get genitalia built for inseminating the highest number of females possible. In any case, you can't argue morals from evolution because, like you said, they don't always correlate.

[QUOTE=gudman;52399479]Uh... "Retarded"? Do you mean a person in a vegetative state? If so, more or less yes, it happens all the time, see switching life support off. If you mean actual mental retardation as in mental disability, of course not. You can't compare an animal to a disabled person, first - there's not a lot of kinds of mental disability that completely leave a person without [i]any[/i] degree of reason, intentionality or self-awareness, second - comparing an ill person to a healthy animal in its natural, 'default' state comes across as somewhat disingenuous.[/QUOTE] I was comparing the logic. If you say it's okay to kill an animal because it's not self-aware, then you have to say the same for a person that's isn't self-aware, simple as that.

So in order to justify her belief system she has pulled together a mix of facts only related to the basic background of this topic; alongside emotive arguments and a few thrown in assumptions. And all of this comes together to a conclusion that seems like it was jotted down before the actual research. She mentions in passing important points about the ethics of the meat industry, and the way we value animals against others across the globe. These great starting points are then explored in no detail and just used as padding to say "meat is bad". Discussion of other factors that some might deem relevant, oh I don't know say maybe agriculture or biology would only have strengthened this video. But those would added a level of detail that would be inconvenient to her simplified explanations.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399466]As for insects, they have brains as well and it's still not understood whether or not they have a conscious. So until we can prove otherwise we should assume they do. What is it about "personhood" that separates us from animals? What difference is there in animals that if present in humans, would justify the slaughter of humans?[/QUOTE] at some point, it becomes not a question of morality but of feasibility. it would be extremely difficult for all people to get their protein exclusively from plants. bugs are the most efficient source of protein and if we are expected to cut down or eliminate other animal proteins from our diet we would have to rely on bug protein. additionally, drawing the line at conscious beings gets murkier the deeper you look into what constitutes consciousness. depending on your school of thought, even plants may have some low level of consciousness. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=booboowilson;52399483]I was comparing the logic. If you say it's okay to kill an animal because it's not self-aware, then you have to say the same for a person that's isn't self-aware, simple as that.[/QUOTE] why do you [i]have[/i] to say the same?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399444]I don't think there was anything wrong with Maosaic's argument... I think he was just saying that evolution and morals don't correlate. Is that not true? We might have evolved to kill and eat animals, but that doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean it is [I]right[/I] to do so. If we agreed that eating animals is immoral, then it wouldn't matter that we have evolved to do so.[/QUOTE] This is actually a fairly well-known problem in philosophy & ethics. It is widely referred to as the naturalistic argument, the appeal to nature, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy]the naturalistic fallacy[/url] or, as Maosaic phrased it, the is-ought problem. In summary, the naturalistic argument is an argument for a moral standard based in nature: if something occurs in nature (such as humans having teeth specialized in eating meat), then it is morally good for humans to do that same thing (such as eat meat). The naturalistic [b]fallacy[/b] comes from the fact that you can take that same naturalistic argument and come to absurd conclusions, such as (and these are examples from the Wiki page): "some animals kill their young, and so it's morally good for us to kill our young", "some animals eat others of their own kind, and so it's morally good for us to eat our own kind." Most sane people would agree that it is [b]not[/b] morally good to kill your own child or to eat your neighbors. But, if they subscribe to the naturalistic argument in some cases (such as "since humans have evolved teeth for eating meat, then it's morally good to eat meat"), then they should subscribe to the naturalistic argument in [b]all[/b] cases. The failure to subscribe to it in all cases is what, opponents argue, makes the naturalistic argument a fallacy. Ergo, that is why opponents call it the "naturalistic fallacy." The "is-ought" problem is extremely closely related, and comes in the form of "if x 'is', then x ought to be," ergo "if it is the case that humans can eat meat, then humans ought to eat meat." It's basically just a rewording of the naturalistic argument.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399480]A cow is totally conscious, though... They're even fairly intelligent and capable of emotions. I do think this is the core of the discussion, though. And it's an issue we can't truly work out until science obtains an understanding of how consciousness, feeling, and intelligence works.[/QUOTE] Depends on what you define as consciousness. Most common definitions AFAIK include such properties as self-awareness, intentionality, ability of reasoning, intelligence and sentience. As far as anyone can tell, cow's mind lacks intentionality (they don't 'think' like we do, they don't form coherent thoughts, neither do they act on that basis) and they're not self-aware. Yes, they are intelligent, they can feel and suffer, they even have a somewhat developed structure of psyche that can be damaged, but even if we don't have a complete understanding of exactly [i]how[/i] consciousness works, it's still possible to tell if a creature has the necessary properties or not. [QUOTE=booboowilson;52399483]I was comparing the logic. If you say it's okay to kill an animal because it's not self-aware, then you have to say the same for a person that's isn't self-aware, simple as that.[/QUOTE] But that's the thing though, I don't see how you can compare some kind of basic 'logic', free of nuance and detail in this kind of complicated moral question. If you want to go that way then yes, if there were 'persons' with no self-awareness in their natural state (although they wouldn't be considered a person, but fine, details, a "philosophical zombie" kind of deal), and if there was some kind of need for them to be slaughtered (because you can't go around killing animals willy-nilly, you know, you'll get a sentence for animal cruelty), I don't see anything wrong with that. Notice how many assumptions one has to make to answer such a question.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52399497]at some point, it becomes not a question of morality but of feasibility. it would be extremely difficult for all people to get their protein exclusively from plants. bugs are the most efficient source of protein and if we are expected to cut down or eliminate other animal proteins from our diet we would have to rely on bug protein. additionally, drawing the line at conscious beings gets murkier the deeper you look into what constitutes consciousness. depending on your school of thought, even plants may have some low level of consciousness. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] why do you [i]have[/i] to say the same?[/QUOTE] How much protein do you think people need? You don't need that much, for the average person it's only about 60 grams. It's almost impossible not to get enough protein if you only eat plants. Plants don't have consciousness, they don't have brains. They are intelligent though, in the same way a computer is. Because that's how logic works. Otherwise you're being inconsistent with your views and can then justify literally any horrible thing. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;52399512]Depends on what you define as consciousness. Most common definitions AFAIK include such properties as self-awareness, intentionality, ability of reasoning, intelligence and sentience. As far as anyone can tell, cow's mind lacks intentionality (they don't 'think' like we do, they don't form coherent thoughts, neither do they act on that basis) and they're not self-aware. Yes, they are intelligent, they can feel and suffer, they even have a somewhat developed structure of psyche that can be damaged, but even if we don't have a complete understanding of exactly [i]how[/i] consciousness works, it's still possible to tell if a creature has the necessary properties or not. But that's the thing though, I don't see how you can compare some kind of basic 'logic', free of nuance and detail in this kind of complicated moral question. If you want to go that way then yes, if there were 'persons' with no self-awareness in their natural state (although they wouldn't be considered a person, but fine, details, a "philosophical zombie" kind of deal), and if there was some kind of need for them to be slaughtered (because you can't go around killing animals willy-nilly, you know, you'll get a sentence for animal cruelty), I don't see anything wrong with that. Notice how many assumptions one has to make to answer such a question.[/QUOTE] Well if you had a legitimate need to kill that person then so be it. The point I'm making is that we don't need to eat animals except for our own selfish pleasure. So let me ask, would you be okay with [I]unnecessarily[/I] killing that person?

Pretty sure we only eat some animals because we've used thousands of years of selective breeding to produce those animals as efficient livestock??? I don't know just a theory~~ [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=booboowilson;52399518]How much protein do you think people need? You don't need that much, for the average person it's only about 60 grams. It's almost impossible not to get enough protein if you only eat plants. Plants don't have consciousness, they don't have brains. They are intelligent though, in the same way a computer is. Because that's how logic works. Otherwise you're being inconsistent with your views and can then justify literally any horrible thing. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] Well if you had a legitimate need to kill that person then so be it. The point I'm making is that we don't need to eat animals except for our own selfish pleasure. So let me ask, would you be okay with [I]unnecessarily[/I] killing that person?[/QUOTE] Do you seriously think protein is the only nutrient that meat contains? There are nutrients that can [I]only[/I] be found in meat. (IE: Vitamin B12, creatine, carnosine, cholecalciferol, DHA, and heme-iron to name a few)

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399518]How much protein do you think people need? You don't need that much, for the average person it's only about 60 grams. It's almost impossible not to get enough protein if you only eat plants. Plants don't have consciousness, they don't have brains. They are intelligent though, in the same way a computer is.[/quote] it isn't possible to grow up the necessary protein-rich plants everywhere, meaning people would necessarily need to survive off of livestock of some sort. i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concept of plant consciousness, it is something that is still in debate [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3489624/[/url] [quote]Because that's how logic works. Otherwise you're being inconsistent with your views and can then justify literally any horrible thing.[/QUOTE] it is only logically inconsistent if you agree with the concept that other animals and humans derive the same or equivalent conscious experience from life. the proposed "retarded person" was robbed of their capacity to ponder themselves and the world by circumstance, a cow may have never had the possibility of such capacity in the first place.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399444]I don't think there was anything wrong with Maosaic's argument... I think he was just saying that evolution and morals don't correlate. Is that not true? We might have evolved to kill and eat animals, but that doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] mean it is [I]right[/I] to do so. If we agreed that eating animals is immoral, then it wouldn't matter that we have evolved to do so.[/QUOTE] Until grown meat is a widespread and cheap technology, there's nothing immoral about this. It's necessary to have a varied diet to live a healthy life, and that includes eating meat.

[QUOTE=gudman;52399512]Depends on what you define as consciousness. Most common definitions AFAIK include such properties as self-awareness, intentionality, ability of reasoning, intelligence and sentience. As far as anyone can tell, cow's mind lacks intentionality (they don't 'think' like we do, they don't form coherent thoughts, neither do they act on that basis) and they're not self-aware. [B]Yes, they are intelligent, they can feel and suffer, they even have a somewhat developed structure of psyche that can be damaged[/B], but even if we don't have a complete understanding of exactly [i]how[/i] consciousness works, it's still possible to tell if a creature has the necessary properties or not.[/QUOTE] I'd think in a discussion about whether it's okay to kill a conscious being, the bolded part would be the most important part in my opinion. By your definitions, I was probably thinking of the word 'sentient' rather than 'conscious'. In my opinion there's good reason to avoid causing unnecessary harm or death to anything which perceives and feels.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399518]The point I'm making is that we don't need to eat animals except for our own selfish pleasure. So let me ask, would you be okay with [I]unnecessarily[/I] killing that person?[/QUOTE] I'm not an expert on farming and agriculture but I'm not sure that my country could grow the variety of crops needed for nutrition in the quantity needed for the population. Now you may consider not trying out such a system to be taking the easy road, but when it comes to the system that keeps the population fed it's a stretch to call it 'selfish pleasure' in not taking high risks.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399561]I'd think in a discussion about whether it's okay to kill a conscious being, the bolded part would be the most important part in my opinion. By your definitions, I was probably thinking of the word 'sentient' rather than 'conscious'. In my opinion there's good reason to avoid causing unnecessary harm or death to anything which perceives and feels.[/QUOTE] Killing something for food isn't unnecessary harm.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399415]I'm an ultra-lurker but I had to say something about this. Sure, we ate animals in the past (although it's debatable if we truly evolved for it) and the majority around you eat meat but is that really a justification? Most animals are sentient and don't deserve to be slaughtered, just like humans. There is no difference between humans and animals that makes it okay to slaughter animals. If there is I would like to hear it. So I ask, how do you justify killing these creatures? It has been proven time and again that we can all be perfectly healthy on plant-based diets. It's a little late so it's hard to piece my thoughts together but I hope you can understand the moral and logical hypocrisy in your guys' stance. That being that it's perfectly okay to slaughter a cow but not your neighbor.[/QUOTE] So simple answer: No. We could not all survive on a plant diet. Individually? Sure, but as a logistical thing? No. There is really one major reason for this: At some level, everything alive on earth relies on solar power. The Earth receives X amount of solar energy on its surface in an unevenly distributed fashion. This energy is converted into usable energy through the various lifeforms that use photosynthesis. These plants, now containing usable energy are consumed by animals like cattle and humans. In terms of efficiency, it is absolutely most efficient for humans to consume plants. Sun -> Plant -> Human. The minimum amount of lost energy in converting sunlight to calories. So yay! Everyone eats plants yeah? Solve lots of problems! Unfortunately it isn't that easy. So humans can only eat SOME types of plants. On top of that, we have a complicated digestive system that isn't particularly robust (though it is remarkably efficient) and can only eat SOME of the plant matter we grow of the crops that we can consume. Only SOME parts of the planet can grow the food we can eat. Worse, growing the crops necessary to obtain a rounded all plant matter diet is difficult and only a few climates could even begin to support it. This is obviously a problem, and it is where meat comes in. We go back to the beginning. Cattle also consume plants. People can consume cattle. Now this is less efficient. Sun -> Plant -> Cattle -> person. A lot of energy is lost between plant and person. This has some tradeoffs though. Cattle, unlike people, can consume plant matter that can grow in a wide variety of locations. They can be raised on land that can't support human crops. They can be fed the food from human crops that wasn't suitable for human consumption. They can provide all of the necessary proteins for human life basically anywhere that you can raise them or an herbivore like them. You can't feed the world on a plant diet because there straight up isn't enough land area that can grow the crops we need to accomplish this. And, even assuming there was, the distribution of that land wouldn't be such to make it so we could distribute that plant matter globally. Yes, an individual can stop eating meat and be find (depending on what country you live in and how much money you have), but globally no. You can't. It is a basic math problem. On a side note: Various human societies generally have certain animals that they consider taboo to eat. This has generally been because those animals have served humans in other ways. It is why dogs, cats, and horses, generally have a pass. It isn't a perfect rule of thumb, and it varies from society to society (obviously), but it seems reasonably consistent. We have, somewhat recently, also thrown intelligent mammals in there sporadically. Monkeys, whales, dolphins, etc. Birds of prey seem to be the only non mammal that might get a pass, possibly due to their use in falconry. It isn't taboo to eat a falcon, but people would consider it weird.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399518]How much protein do you think people need? You don't need that much, for the average person it's only about 60 grams. It's almost impossible not to get enough protein if you only eat plants. Plants don't have consciousness, they don't have brains. They are intelligent though, in the same way a computer is. Because that's how logic works. Otherwise you're being inconsistent with your views and can then justify literally any horrible thing. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] Well if you had a legitimate need to kill that person then so be it. The point I'm making is that we don't need to eat animals except for our own selfish pleasure. So let me ask, would you be okay with [I]unnecessarily[/I] killing that person?[/QUOTE] Can you stop with the appeals to emotion? Or are you unable to bring soils facts to the table?

Arguing morals for not eating animals like cows, chicken, pigs etc is kinda iffy when you consider the main reason these species are around is because they're our food source. When lab grown food overtakes animal products, there's going to be a lot less farm animals out there. Domesticated animals like that can't go back to the wild at that point either. It's not a nice reality that some animals live only to be food for us, but the alternative might be them not existing at all (in large numbers of course).

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52399518] Well if you had a legitimate need to kill that person then so be it. The point I'm making is that we don't need to eat animals except for our own selfish pleasure. So let me ask, would you be okay with [I]unnecessarily[/I] killing that person?[/QUOTE] It comes down to what you do and don't consider a legitimate cause. There's a ton of arguments to be made for and against livestock, and a lot of them have already been made by other people in this thread. I was only pointing out the conceptual difference between killing a neighbour and slaughtering an animal for food, mass produced or otherwise. As for the question, "unnecessarily", as in with no legitimate benefit - no, just as I wouldn't (and [i]do not[/i]) consider someone killing an animal for no reason to be okay. [QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399561]I'd think in a discussion about whether it's okay to kill a conscious being, the bolded part would be the most important part in my opinion. By your definitions, I was probably thinking of the word 'sentient' rather than 'conscious'. In my opinion there's good reason to avoid causing unnecessary harm or death to anything which perceives and feels.[/QUOTE] Same deal, pretty much. I can see and understand arguments over livestock and farming, can't really say I'm heavily on one side over the other, but as far as efficiency goes, including the use of available space, it seems to me that livestock is preferable as of today. As it's already been pointed out, today's farming sadly demands a ton of land and destroys ecosystems. I can fully understand that slaughtering animals for something humanity as a whole could do without to be seen as inhumane, but if the currently available and feasible alternative is to shit on our planet even more than we already do? I don't know.

[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52398520]Psychology. AKA the degree literally anyone can get and one of the most bloated fields in the US. She went to Harvard too. You can guess she's been part of a rich family and hasn't really experienced the world outside of her small bubble and understanding of that small bubble. She's also had a TEDx talk, which means she has connections at a University or two, probably financially (rich family and all). [/QUOTE] Pretty massive leap from disagreeing with somebody to "her degree is easy, the only reason she went to one of the most prestigeous colleges in the world is because she's rich also she's sheltered and doesn't understand anything outside of her tiny bubble"

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52399588]Arguing morals for not eating animals like cows, chicken, pigs etc is kinda iffy when you consider the main reason these species are around is because they're our food source. When lab grown food overtakes animal products, there's going to be a lot less farm animals out there. Domesticated animals like that can't go back to the wild at that point either. It's not a nice reality that some animals live only to be food for us, but the alternative might be them not existing at all (in large numbers of course).[/QUOTE] Interesting when you put it like that. The cattle we know today would definitely not exist if humans didn't domesticate aurochs ~10,000 years ago. They're literally a human invention.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52399567]Killing something for food isn't unnecessary harm.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree that killing animals for food is okay, but I'm not entirely sure about agreeing that anything necessary must be moral; it's a strange conclusion to come to, but isn't that the reason the concept of a 'necessary evil' exists? In any case, I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to argue against it, but from quick googling it looks like at least some of those meat-only nutrients can be found elsewhere or manufactured. [I](Eg. vitamin B12 is apparently produced by bacteria fermentation, carnosine is broken down into beta-alanine and histidine, both of which are available elsewhere)[/I]. So the discussion definitely is about whether it truly is necessary. Can you say more about some of those nutrients you mentioned, specifically about how necessary they are and whether they absolutely cannot be found elsewhere? I do think necessity is a strong argument.

If meat is so unhealthy and veganism is the way to go, then why do all vegans I see look scrawny and perpetually tired? [QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52399588]When lab grown food overtakes animal products, there's going to be a lot less farm animals out there. [/QUOTE] That's all nice, but you can't make something out of nothing. You need meat to grow meat, and it's very expensive to do so, which is why for commercial purposes it's pretty much far future tech.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;52399603]I don't disagree that killing animals for food is okay, but I'm not entirely sure about agreeing that anything necessary must be moral; it's a strange conclusion to come to, but isn't that the reason the concept of a 'necessary evil' exists? In any case, I'm not knowledgeable enough about it to argue against it, but from quick googling it looks like at least some of those meat-only nutrients can be found elsewhere or manufactured. [I](Eg. vitamin B12 is apparently produced by bacteria fermentation, carnosine is broken down into beta-alanine and histidine, both of which are available elsewhere)[/I]. So the discussion definitely is about whether it truly is necessary. Can you say more about some of those nutrients you mentioned, specifically about how necessary they are and whether they absolutely cannot be found elsewhere? I do think necessity is a strong argument.[/QUOTE] Of course you can consume some of these nutrients by other means, I mean supplements exist (but not everybody has access to supplements, and taking supplements is a lot different than eating the biological material that contains the nutrient as far as our digestive system is concerned). Vitamin B12 can be found elsewhere, but the only plant life known to contain it is certain types of seaweed or tempeh (fermented soy food). You need vitamin B12 for the development of red blood cells and it's also involved in the maintenance of brain function. B12 deficiency is linked to a variety of neurological disorders. Creatine and carnosine aren't necessary nutrients, as creatine is produced by the liver and carnosine as you said is made by amino acids (in your body). Vegan diets however are lacking in these nutrients, which results in less-functional muscles than someone with a non-vegan diet. Cholecalciferol is the most efficient form of vitamin D. (vitamin D3, Plants only contain vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol)) DHA is also important for normal brain function, it's a fatty acid found in fish. It can be found in microalgae, which [I]would[/I] be a suitable replacement for vegetarians, however it is an inefficient source. That's really all the time I have to go through right now before I go to work. The bottom line is even though there are other special sources for some of these nutrients, they aren't found in any commonly consumed plants. Sure some people might be able to get by obtaining microalgae and enriched foods or supplements, but that isn't something available to the majority of the human population. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;52399604] That's all nice, but you can't make something out of nothing. You need meat to grow meat, and it's very expensive to do so, which is why for commercial purposes it's pretty much far future tech.[/QUOTE] You're quite wrong. Lab-grown beef is made using a bovine fetal serum. Not a lot of cattle will be needed at all to grow this. Also, the technology is getting exponentially cheaper. In 2013 it costed $325K to create one beef patty; in 2015 it costed $11.

This post is probably going to come off as incoherent or snide but here it is anyways. "What is the value of life?" can only truthfully be answered only when we have the answer to "What is the meaning of life?", and I think I'm more curious by the absolute answer of the value of life than it's meaning. Currently, there are so many ways of measuring the value of life and most if not all of them are based on feelings, and that's okay. The thing that gets me curious about that line of thought is at what point our needs outweigh another being's will to live? Is it fine to kill a man if that man is endangering your life? Is it fine to kill 2 men if those two men are endangering your life? Some schools of thought believe that you should let 2 men kill you instead of killing those two men if you have the opportunity, since two lives are greater than one. Then there's the question of what non-essential needs outweigh that something's right to live (in [B]context[/B] to that person's current situation), which is what we're discussing now even though we don't know the absolute value of life nor the absolute value of that need, which again, that's okay. Vegetarianism is interesting when it comes to this question because choosing a sect of vegetarianism for moral reasons is saying this is how you view the value of life. Heavy emphasis on context when it comes to this question. Context is everything in this question, it's the reason why we don't flip our shit when someone eats raw human flesh of a dead corpse when they're starving to death, and why we do flip our shit when someone kidnaps a live human and eats them when clearly they could seek other means of nutrition :v:. Context is also a double edged sword. While I am not advocating for everyone to go vegan, some of us don't NEED to eat meat when there are other viable alternatives, some of us do because we don't have those opportunities. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=GunFox;52399581]So simple answer: No. We could not all survive on a plant diet. Individually? Sure, but as a logistical thing? No. There is really one major reason for this: At some level, everything alive on earth relies on solar power. The Earth receives X amount of solar energy on its surface in an unevenly distributed fashion. This energy is converted into usable energy through the various lifeforms that use photosynthesis. These plants, now containing usable energy are consumed by animals like cattle and humans. In terms of efficiency, it is absolutely most efficient for humans to consume plants. Sun -> Plant -> Human. The minimum amount of lost energy in converting sunlight to calories. So yay! Everyone eats plants yeah? Solve lots of problems! Unfortunately it isn't that easy. So humans can only eat SOME types of plants. On top of that, we have a complicated digestive system that isn't particularly robust (though it is remarkably efficient) and can only eat SOME of the plant matter we grow of the crops that we can consume. Only SOME parts of the planet can grow the food we can eat. Worse, growing the crops necessary to obtain a rounded all plant matter diet is difficult and only a few climates could even begin to support it. This is obviously a problem, and it is where meat comes in. We go back to the beginning. Cattle also consume plants. People can consume cattle. Now this is less efficient. Sun -> Plant -> Cattle -> person. A lot of energy is lost between plant and person. This has some tradeoffs though. Cattle, unlike people, can consume plant matter that can grow in a wide variety of locations. They can be raised on land that can't support human crops. They can be fed the food from human crops that wasn't suitable for human consumption. They can provide all of the necessary proteins for human life basically anywhere that you can raise them or an herbivore like them. You can't feed the world on a plant diet because there straight up isn't enough land area that can grow the crops we need to accomplish this. And, even assuming there was, the distribution of that land wouldn't be such to make it so we could distribute that plant matter globally. Yes, an individual can stop eating meat and be find (depending on what country you live in and how much money you have), but globally no. You can't. It is a basic math problem. On a side note: Various human societies generally have certain animals that they consider taboo to eat. This has generally been because those animals have served humans in other ways. It is why dogs, cats, and horses, generally have a pass. It isn't a perfect rule of thumb, and it varies from society to society (obviously), but it seems reasonably consistent. We have, somewhat recently, also thrown intelligent mammals in there sporadically. Monkeys, whales, dolphins, etc. Birds of prey seem to be the only non mammal that might get a pass, possibly due to their use in falconry. It isn't taboo to eat a falcon, but people would consider it weird.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if you mean that it's not possible in the present and future or if it's just not possible in the present. If you also mean future, would factoring in GMOs affect this response? Is it possible to create the ultimate totalitarian food ration that contains all the essential vitamins and minerals that could feed everyone 5 times per day with flavoring? (Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, x2 Snacks). I mean of course this whole idea of everyone switching to vegan overnight is insane and would cause a lot of problems, but it doesn't mean it's not possible. It's very similar to the argument that 100% clean energy isn't worth doing because if we switched overnight, we would have an energy crisis.

[QUOTE=legolover122;52398844][img]http://i.imgur.com/22uV9N7.jpg[/img] IDK if this counts as a reaction image but I feel like it fits the occasion given the topic at hand.[/QUOTE] Also this picture is kinda silly. Cows turn grass (free!) into food, dogs turn grass into vomit. The latter isn't a good food source.

[QUOTE=Gummylamb;52399278][URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/"]Atherosclerosis[/URL] :v:[/QUOTE] As Zonesylvania said, the build up of plack in arteries is a complex process and there is no clear link between it and meat consumption. But looking at it from this perspective and saying we aren't meant to eat meat because of one risk factor/disease is wrong because first of all, our bodies ware out from doing what's "natural" all the time. Age is a great risk factor for so many different diseases because of this reason. Secondly, if you are going to do it you should look at overall mortality not one disease. If you look at the current epidemiology the difference in life length between healthy meat eaters and healthy everything else is actually indiscriminate. The keyword here is healthy because there are a lot of studies where they compare average joes who don't know the first thing about staying healthy to vegetarians/vegans who has to know what their bodies need in order to not get a deficit.

[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;52399699]Also this picture is kinda silly. Cows turn grass (free!) into food, dogs turn grass into vomit. The latter isn't a good food source.[/QUOTE] Carnivores in general make for some pretty lousy meat, don't they ?

:snip: