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

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52399627]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. (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.[/QUOTE] Thank you for those examples. It looks like it goes back to your first statement about how it's moral at least until alternatives are widespread and cheap. I think there's an argument for reducing our production and consumption, also for environmental reasons, but yeah I agree that it's not feasible to get rid of slaughter and therefore probably also meaningless to call it immoral, except concerning the extent of it and obviously when it comes to the treatment of the animals.

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52399560]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, [B]and that includes eating meat[/B].[/QUOTE] This is incorrect and I shouldn't have to explain why. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=V12US;52399604]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] My vegan friend is one of the fittest and most active people I know. I can spout useless anecdotal shit too.

Wait, did she ever answer one of the initial questions? Why don't we eat swans and mice? I genuinely want to know, as I am all for meat diversity. My principle is that everything goes, except for primates and carnivorans.

[QUOTE=Scot;52399766]This is incorrect and I shouldn't have to explain why.[/QUOTE] Oh please do. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Silikone;52399874]Wait, did she ever answer one of the initial questions? Why don't we eat swans and mice? I genuinely want to know, as I am all for meat diversity. My principle is that everything goes, except for primates and carnivorans.[/QUOTE] We don't eat mice probably because a little thing called the [I]bubonic plague [/I] made us lose our appetite for them. That and they are inefficient food sources.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52399661] 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] Ultimately the solution to the problem is printing meat artificially. Even that has distribution problems, but with the appropriate setup it could be far more energy efficient and humane.

[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] Do you mind posting some sources? I've read that feeding the world on a plant-based diet is actually very doable, since the majority of the space used for crops is for livestock and then there's the land that is currently used by livestock. I have read an Australian [url=http://www.veganaustralia.org.au/impact_of_a_vegan_agricultural_system_on_land_use]report[/url] (It's a vegan site though) that argues that there would be enough land to feed itself and have land left to give back to nature. [quote]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] In a way it isn't consistent and we put arbitrary rules on what is beneficial to us. You could argue that chickens and cows could be exempt as well, since eggs and milk has been a staple for humans for a long time. If I do take your claim at face value then there's the issue of scale. It's pretty known that animal agriculture has a sizable influence on climate change, this is partially tied with the ludicrous amount of meat people it now compared to the past. If you combine that with the empathetic argument, you should at the very least see or encourage a dramatic decrease in the consumption of animal products. This [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372775/]study[/url]: [quote]The production of animal-based foods is associated with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than plant-based foods. The objective of this study was to estimate the difference in dietary GHG emissions between self-selected meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Subjects were participants in the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. The diets of 2,041 vegans, 15,751 vegetarians, 8,123 fish-eaters and 29,589 meat-eaters aged 20–79 were assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Comparable GHG emissions parameters were developed for the underlying food codes using a dataset of GHG emissions for 94 food commodities in the UK, with a weighting for the global warming potential of each component gas. The average GHG emissions associated with a standard 2,000 kcal diet were estimated for all subjects. ANOVA was used to estimate average dietary GHG emissions by diet group adjusted for sex and age. The age-and-sex-adjusted mean (95 % confidence interval) GHG emissions in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per day (kgCO2e/day) were 7.19 (7.16, 7.22) for high meat-eaters ( > = 100 g/d), 5.63 (5.61, 5.65) for medium meat-eaters (50-99 g/d), 4.67 (4.65, 4.70) for low meat-eaters ( < 50 g/d), 3.91 (3.88, 3.94) for fish-eaters, 3.81 (3.79, 3.83) for vegetarians and 2.89 (2.83, 2.94) for vegans. In conclusion, dietary GHG emissions in self-selected meat-eaters are approximately twice as high as those in vegans. It is likely that reductions in meat consumption would lead to reductions in dietary GHG emissions.[/quote] To put it in perspective, the average american eats almost 375 grams of meat per day. About the [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4372775/]soil[/url]: [quote]Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. in limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet. The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people.[/quote] Then a further consequence of the amount of animal products being eaten is[url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160419120147.htm]deforestation[/url]: [quote]Karlheinz Erb summarizes the results: "According to our analysis, human nutritional behaviour is the most important component. If the world's population followed a vegan diet, all combinations of parameters, even those with lowest yield levels and low cropland expansion, would be feasible. With a vegetarian diet, 94 per cent of all of our calculated scenarios would be feasible." While a full change towards such diets of the entire world population is of course not realistic, it illustrates the massive impacts diets have on the future options space for development.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Lobstuzz;52399545]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] 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] You can get all of those nutrients in a plant based diet or through synthesis in our own body. In regards to B12, it comes from bacteria and we would get plenty of it if we didn't wash our produce so effectively. So yes, a vegan has to take a supplement or eat fortified foods as a consequence of our modern practices. It's also worth noting that livestock are fed B12 supplements. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=RAG Frag;52399566]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] Yes because the food and land it takes to feed hundreds of billions of animals couldn't be used for us? I don't think you understand how destructive it is and how many resources we allocate to keep all of these animals. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52399555]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] 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] You don't have to eat protein rich plants, virtually any plants would do. The only thing we have to go off of in regards to consciousness is our brain and the areas of our brain that correlate to our conscious. A plant has neither. They also don't have nerves. What does the level of conscious experience matter? Just because they have a lesser experience doesn't make it okay to murder them. [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] How can you know that? Do you have anything to back this up? I'm not advocating that people that can't follow a plant based diet do so, it would be a justification in that circumstance, but why don't you personally make the change? [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=discofex;52399583]Can you stop with the appeals to emotion? Or are you unable to bring soils facts to the table?[/QUOTE] I assume you're referring to "selfish pleasures" because that's the only appeal to emotion in there. Whatever, just omit the selfish part. I don't need to appeal to emotion. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;52399590]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] A legitimate cause would be one that justifies ending an animals life, like pest control. Since we don't need to eat animals, killing them to eat would be unjust. Animal agriculture is one of the leading causes of global warming

Vegetarian based diets have shown to have athletic superiority? I'm sorry, what? Where's the citation on that? Protein is one of the staples of an athletic diet, and supplements don't do nearly as much as meat. In fact, where the citations for [I]any[/I] of this?

To be quite honest, I stopped caring about what animals are okay to eat. I mean, I'm not going to eat my dog, but if they were breed like cattle and butchered in the same way, I'd have no issue with it. Same goes for any other animal, unless they're an endangered species or something. The bigger issue is whether or not it'd be efficient to do so, which the answer is probably not.

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;52398504]yeah its all brain washing lady our biology certainly can't tell us if we're meant to eat meat or not oh wait [t]https://static.turbosquid.com/Preview/2014/05/18__04_12_31/2_render.jpg705a5a6c-3ae5-4bcf-a2db-29c78b5f3a8bOriginal.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Yeah but teeth are social constructs, shitlord.

[quote]Do you mind posting some sources?[/quote] For what specifically? Nothing in there should be out of bounds for common knowledge. I mean a huge percentage of the world can't even maintain potable water and people are suggesting that we could feed the entire world on a plant diet. The logistical requirements would be staggering. Then you have issues like hyper dense agriculture can also lead to disease that spreads rapidly and destroys massive crops. [quote]How can you know that? Do you have anything to back this up? I'm not advocating that people that can't follow a plant based diet do so, it would be a justification in that circumstance, but why don't you personally make the change?[/quote] Personally? Humans operate well on a diet where your calories come from mostly fat and protein. It seems to solve a lot of health problems. Additionally I live in a northern climate and produce is mediocre at best. When I lived in California? Produce was cheap, plentiful, and of excellent quality. Here the produce is terrible but I can go to almost any body of water and pull up a ton of fish for the cost of a fishing license. I can go into the woods, shoot a deer, and have meat for a month or two.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;52401759]Vegetarian based diets have shown to have athletic superiority? I'm sorry, what? Where's the citation on that? Protein is one of the staples of an athletic diet, and supplements don't do nearly as much as meat. In fact, where the citations for [I]any[/I] of this?[/QUOTE] From what I've seen the current body of evidence seems to suggest that animal protein is better for athletic superiority.

Every single human (even the most hardcore vegan) kills other living organisms. Be that cows, chickens, fish, insects, potatoes down to microorganisms. Everyone draws a line what he thinks humans are justified to kill based on his conscience, vegetarians just happened to draw it at plants. What is the justification for that? A pig wants to live just as much as a plant does. What is the justification for that other than "it's a different thing"? What argument makes it okay for a vegetarian to kill plants to eat while at the same time not justifying killing animals? And then even if you don't eat any animals you still contribute to their deaths. Animal products are everywhere from car tires through plastic bags to toothpaste.

[QUOTE=booboowilson;52401650]In regards to B12, it comes from bacteria and [b]we would get plenty of it if we didn't wash our produce so effectively.[/b] So yes, a vegan has to take a supplement or eat fortified foods as a consequence of our modern practices. It's also worth noting that livestock are fed B12 supplements.[/QUOTE] Gonna have to ask for some sources fam

The irony is that this video seems really westernised and doesn't take into account the views of other people eating stuff we don't normally eat... Humans eat all kinds of animals from literally every animal kindgom.

These videos can never seem to stick with meat industry reform and always have some weird argument that flirts with ignoring history and biology. [QUOTE=Robber;52399402]"Have you ever thought about that?" "Yes, of course" "Any have you ever thought about why you never thought about that?" "wat" "I wondered why I would rather eat pork than golden retriever" "Because we love dogs as pets and part of our family" "I just couldn't figure it out" "I'm leaving"[/QUOTE] Yeah basically this. "It's all a conspiracy to stop you from realizing that you've been conditioned to enjoy stuffing animal parts in your mouth." "Well actually my thought process is very different from what you're saying it is I'm pretty sure my views are fairly progressive without being too unreali-" "SILENCE, CARNIST!"

"the secret reason" yeah it's not a secret why we usually prefer not to eat animals that aren't domesticated primarily for meat consumption

Yeah! Good question. Why don't we eat the animals that have [I]protected our homes, herded our sheep, killed rodents, helped us plough the fields, herd our cattle and take us places, on top of providing excellent company?[/I]

[QUOTE=RetaDepa;52402979]The irony is that this video seems really westernised and doesn't take into account the views of other people eating stuff we don't normally eat... Humans eat all kinds of animals from literally every animal kindgom.[/QUOTE] This struck me too. What are these magical animals people don't eat? As far as I'm aware, people will pretty much eat whatever they can get their hands on, snakes, spiders, scorpions, crickets, worms, owls, hedgehogs. You name it, somebody's digested it.

[QUOTE=El Burro;52405019]This struck me too. What are these magical animals people don't eat? As far as I'm aware, people will pretty much eat whatever they can get their hands on, snakes, spiders, scorpions, crickets, worms, owls, hedgehogs. You name it, somebody's digested it.[/QUOTE] Rough skinned newts?

[QUOTE=El Burro;52405019]This struck me too. What are these magical animals people don't eat? As far as I'm aware, people will pretty much eat whatever they can get their hands on, snakes, spiders, scorpions, crickets, worms, owls, hedgehogs. You name it, somebody's digested it.[/QUOTE] Abyssal invertebrates, probably. I'm not sure anyone would want to eat a sea pig.

[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;52405116]Abyssal invertebrates, probably. [B]I'm not sure anyone would want to eat a sea pig.[/B][/QUOTE] I would