Originally Posted by The Batlord

What value does something being on a "lower" or "higher" level of evolutionary development have? A cockroach or a bacteria is relatively low on the evolutionary scale, and yet they will likely outlive us since they are much more resilient than us. And isn't that the whole point of evolution? To make organisms more capable of surviving. So aren't they more "highly" evolved than us?

Are you even a highly evolved organism at all? You percieve yourself as being just one being. But in reality you are just your consciousness, which is just one part of a collective of organisms (skin cells, muscle cells, brain cells, and even bacteria) that share DNA, living space, and self interest (if an organism without consciousness can be said to have self interest). They live together symbiotically because it is more conducive to their survival to combine their efforts, but they are not really one single organism. In fact, your consciousness is a result of chemicals reacting with your brain cells (as far as we can know scientifically at this point in time), so YOU aren't even really alive at all. You (your consciousness) are really just a mechanism created by a collective of organisms to coordinate their efforts to collect resources, reproduce, and avoid danger.

So I ask you, what real value does evolutionary complexity or consciousness (or self-determination or whatever) even have as a criteria for deciding whether or not an animal should or should not be eaten. I'm not really trying to sway you one way or another, just trying to get you to question your curent position of what constitutes...life deserving of not being killed for food, or whatever. And it's also an excuse for some philosophical wankery.

Originally Posted by The Virgin

what? i don't understand you. farming is for vegetables, not for meat. if ou disagree with a farming practice, you disagree on a vegetable. unless you have a different definition of farming.