An intelligent, articulate argument. How refreshing.

in my opinion, you only base it on awareness and feelings, which to me, are on a lower level of evolutional development of the brain

as long as any animal does not have the ability to view itself objectively, rather than going through the mechanics of life, and possess a "consciousness" as we do, i think it's fine to eat them

How are feelings a lower evolutionary development when... we're the only ones who have developed them to this extent?

animals might still evolve

when they get somewhat a consciousness and an objective sense, i'd campaign for no killing of animals

that's the theory anyway

Yeah, that didn't answer my question at all. We're the only species to have developed such a complex system of emotions. If we're the paradigm, then how is this development a "lesser" aspect of life?

oh I was referring to VEGANGELICA's usage of "feelings" in animal sense, as in "sensations of pain"

i'm not talking about "emotions"

i meant "sensations of pain" are a lower level of evolutionary develoment

I was under the impression you meant it was based on her feelings, hence the misunderstanding.

Pain isn't a lesser development. It's actually very important to the preservation of our bodies. Research CIPA. Not having any sensation of pain brings about a host of real life complications and actually puts you at severe risk. Pain is the sensation that tells our minds "stop doing that, it's bad".

it's still a basic survival defense

only because we are so clever, we use it to detect medical ailments

Patients with CIPA are at severe risk of anything from infection to brain damage. Not feeling the pain does not mean you have not been injured. You may have a wound, broken bone, or concussion that needs immediate medical attention, and not know it. CIPA patients regularly have to check their bodies for injury, from scrapes to burns to biting their tongues off in their sleep. I am getting the impression that you think we should develop immortality, rather than insensitivity to pain.

i meant the basic element of pain is not a highly evolved trait

of course CIPA patients are having a medical ailment, in that they can't feel pain, it doesn't mean they're less evolved or more evolved

i mean the sensation itself is available to the most basic of animals

i think you're misunderstanding me

other interesting, maybe pertinent points, raised by some other posters on a more or less similar discussion:-

one said cows are basically pretty stupid animals, if you look into their eyes, it's like staring into a black hole, cows are just a mass source of meat for predators, and Native Americans used to drive droves of buffaloes and cattle off cliffs like lemmings

another said not only is eating meat questionable, the idea of domesticating animals as pets is questionable - it's creepy to get a pet and then train them to "human" habits, when obviously this is against the animalistic traits, like chewing on the rug, crapping on floors - then when you adopt a puppy and it can't be housetrained, you return it to the pet store

I wouldn't call cows stupid. Sure, they aren't as smart as humans, but they're capable of learning, thought, curiosity, even friendship. And when they get thrown through the meat grinders, they're capable of pain.

i assume you have a pet cow then?

and to retread a stale argument, all this talk about empathy i'm going to counter with is do the animals really want us to care for their suffering?

it seems to be like some sort of set chain of life in the animal kingdom that herbivores are the staple diet of carnivores and omnivores, of course it's not that clear-cut that animals are meant to be eaten by us, but some of them do need to be devoured by carnivores anyway, i don't see any of you talking about empathy for wild gazelles and zebras horribly devoured by lions or take action to stop it

should we then corral all the wild carnivores and herbivores and then wait for the herbivores to die naturally then feed them to carnivores?

if it is so in the animal world, surely we can breed meat-intense herbivores for our consumption

My argument isn't about stopping natural meat consumption. It's about accepting our limits and understanding just how much meat we should be eating.

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.:thumb:

I had read that if you enter a cow field, yell, and lie down abruptly, the cows will all come over and stare at you in fascination, because their curiosity knows no bounds.

I attempted this experiment last night. I screamed for my friend to pull the car over at a pasture. I climbed out through the tall grass, and yelled "MOO" and flailed a little, and then I laid down in the grass whilst my friend wailed with laughter in the car. Only one cow looked up.

I may not have been close enough to the cows to receive a reaction, so I'm considering attempting the experiment again.

...


Now who sounds stupider here? :laughing:

^Just out of curiousity, how high were you?

Not at all. Mary Roach wrote that she did this experiment twice with positive results on two different continents, in her book Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife.

I had to know.

EDIT: Though, she may have been high when she wrote it. Didn't think of that.

Perhaps you should be high then. This experiment sounds like it would be perfect to do while baked out of your skull.

That doesn't sound very scientific.

And yelling in the middle of a cow field and falling to the ground is? At least if you get caught trespassing while high, people will be like, "Oh she was just high", instead of, "She was yelling and laying down in a cow filed for no reason!" "Was she high?!" "NO!!!" "What the ****?"

You only need to stand by a fence for them all to wander over in curiosity. Rolling on the floor is like curiosity if it had downed a gallon of Budweiser and decided to brutally assault the first person it saw.

What?

The cows in my area, never do that. They will just stay in their spot doing jackshit all like the stupid creatures they are.

it's just a sort of "sapiency" yardstick for me - if animals aren't capable of having that (a certain degree of sapiency) i don't see why they can't be bred for food

about evolution, it's been several million years since homo sapiens appeared, shouldn't they be a next step in humans by now? like people with green antennae to communicate telepathically or something, i find fault with Darwin.....

humans have changed slightly but no drastic changes where we needed to change to adapt to our environment only slight ones.

The webbing between our feet is an example of one.

Also the functionality of our appendix or lack there of I should say.

Even though there are wild claims that people think our appendix is still useful for something, I don't recall what exactly but I remember reading an article on it.

But what's so special about being sentient? Why can't you be eaten as food?

Are you kidding? As much as human civilization has evoled in the last few thousand years, and you don't think we're evolving?

it's my own judmental yardstick, as long as animals are just that stupid and non-human, i believe we can eat them

i'm not talking abut civilisation, i'm talking about the physiology of humans, there's not much change for the past million or so years

You'd be surprised. I'm 5'10". Back in the Middle Ages, somebody who managed to hit that would probably be considered a giant, whereas now I'm just normal size. Humans have evolved in many subtle ways, and it's not just about our bodies. Our minds, understanding, even human nature is beginning to evolve. We haven't had any huge physical changes because they would probably take millions more years to happen.

So it's not a moral argument for you. They can't stop you so they can go to hell?

Social structure is one of the most profound evolutionary developments in the history of the world. Where do you think you'd be right now if your ancestors had never thought, "Hey, you know maybe me and Ted should hand out more often. It's one more pair of eyes to watch my back and we can get food more easily."? It's even responsible for making us smarter. An animal that lives in a herd has to have the brain capacity to distinguish between the different individuals in it's group, recognize the interpersonal relationships going on in the group, recognize it's own place in those relationships, etc, etc, etc while a single organism has only itself to occupy it's mind.

it is some sort of moral criteria - if they haven't reached a state of "sapiency", where I feel I'm in the wrong for killing them or at least encouraging them to be killed, I figger it's alright then...

i mean, i'll draw the line at breeding dogs for food, as they seem to have some sort of "personality"

then again, saying that, I wouln't mind having a taste of dog just to know what it tastes like

In some parts of Africa there are some tribes that eat their dead kin in order to honor them. It makes sense to me and it's something that I might have to do if I was a missionary in those parts. They only eat relatives and members of the community who have died of natural causes and they get rid of all their worldly possessions in their way of dealing with the death of a loved one. Some people may find that sickening, but I actually find it as a beautiful concept. The thought of having that person inside you forever is mind boggling.

So guys, if you were living with one of those tribes for a while would you take part of those rituals, or would you rather fall out of an airplane without a parachute? I think I might be able to get away with a little nibble, only to honor the tribe and be respectful.

id chow down on the mother****er, i love eating people

cannibalism gives rise to a host of diseases

but yeah, i think i'll have a bite also just for the taste

the person wouldn't be inside you forever because you would digest them and crap them out.

I would only eat the heart and liver those are the most nutritious anything else no thanks.

Nah, it's more of a spiritual thing, they believe that once you take in a piece of someone, they will remain with you till you die. I do know how how the digestive system works, I have taken several health classes. ;)

I don't get the whole spiritual thing because if they are eating the body for spiritual reasons, they aren't eating the spirit, they are eating the body which are two separate entities. I don't get it.

But my question is, why is "sapiency" the deciding factor in whether or not an animal can be eaten? What is it about "sapiency" that should be preserved? Pigs are well known to be relatively intelligent. They have feelings and emotions. They can feel pain and suffer. They care for their young. I'm sure I could go on about how pigs are more than just unthinking machines that eat, sleep, and poop. Yet, we eat them almost without thinking.

So, for us to be okay with killing and eating them, all these things (many of which humans also show) must not be a deciding factor in whether or not we should eat them. I mean if killing and eating something that feels emotions isn't truly wrong, why should we have arrested Jeffrey Dahmer? What particular aspect of "sapiency" is wrong to destroy, when it is okay to disregard emotions, the ability to suffer, life in general, etc when deciding whether or not to eat something?

That's sick! Liver?! :eek:

Elephants are so intelligent that they ritualise their dead. And yet some humans are okay killing them just to rip out their tusks for ivory.

Crows have been observed gathering in the locations of deceased crows, much in the manner of funerals.

but are pigs really intelligent in the human sense?

or are we just anthropomorphising them based on observation?