Music Banter - Is Meat Really Murder?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- The Lounge (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/)

- - Is Meat Really Murder? (https://www.musicbanter.com/lounge/47421-meat-really-murder.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1118597)

But Homo Sapiens today are not the same animals as our herbivorous ancestors millions of years ago and so we are not "supposed" to be like them; like something we're not ..

Plus, if you went further back in time, you would come across carnivorous ancestors too. :p:

Yes, but I still don't see why it would affect what we originally ate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsunami (Post 1118602)

Yes, but I still don't see why it would affect what we originally ate.

I'm not sure you understand me correctly. Your most recent ancestors (who are most like you biologically) were omnivores who included meat in their diets and were adapted to that. Accepting that, how can you say we are not supposed to eat meat? If anything, you are supposed to eat meat. Being a healthy vegetarian takes a lot more effort than being a healthy meat eater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1118606)

I'm not sure you understand me correctly. Your recent ancestors were omnivores who included meat in their diets. Accepting that, how can you say we are not supposed to eat meat? If anything, you are supposed to eat meat. Being a healthy vegetarian takes a lot more effort than being a healthy meat eater.

I do understand you, I suppose we're just having different timescales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tsunami (Post 1118609)

I do understand you, I suppose we're just having different timescales.

Well, the further you go back in time, the further away you get biologically speaking from modern man and the less sense it makes.

I feel I should point out that I'm not against vegetarianism. I'm against erronous claims. I think a vegetarian has to base a decision to be a vegetarian on something which is not false. I can see why one could wish to believe that humans are herbivores who just recently in modern times picked up meat, but that severly diminishes the extreme importance eating meat has had on human evolution and development. Vegetarians should acknowledge that and find something else to base their diet choice on, such as thinking meat tastes bad, because of vegetarianism being more sustainable or a refusal to support a meat industry which they have something against personally.

When it comes to animal suffering, I don't really believe we have a moral obligation to animals not to cause them to suffer any more than a lion or a shark does towards their prey. I don't believe in a God or universe that judges our actions. Any moral obligation we have in regards to animal suffering is to ourselves and eachother. We're morally judged by ourselves and the people we live with. We have a capacity to empathize with animals and when their suffering makes us or others feel bad, we may be doing something morally wrong. The way we treat animals can be a reflection on ourselves and someone finding enjoyment in torturing a cat probably has a lot of issues and you may want to stay away from that person for good reason. But when I'm out fishing a dinner and catch something, I don't feel a moral obligation towards the fish or anything else that tells me it's wrong to kill it and eat it. I would feel obliged to reduce it's suffering because causing suffering makes me feel bad. If someone cried and begged me not to kill the fish, I would also feel a moral obligation towards that person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaqarbal (Post 1118452)

OK, but I meant life in a broader sense (not just "being alive"). And in an intergenerational way. A famous Latin aphorism says: Ars longa, vita brevis ("Art is long, life is short"). ...

All the above is a consequence of the awareness of Death. We humans know that we are going to die sooner or later.

I understand now what you meant. Thank you for explaining. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaqarbal (Post 1118452)

B]the analogy animals-replicants is very relevant, enlightening and beautiful,[/B] but it's not 100% exact. Anyway, I really like it, and I'm sure that everybody will draw interesting conclusions from it. By the way, movie takes place in Los Angeles, but in Philip K. Dick's novel the city in question is San Francisco. That is Saint Francis. Interesting, isn't it?

I know what you mean. But, as regards me, you don't have to worry. ;) As an admirer of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, I always bear in mind the basic principle. That is: as a general rule, when discussing treatment of animals, the number-one criterion is "can they suffer?" The question is not, Do sheep dream of androids? but, Do sheep have nightmares about humans?

Yes, "Can they suffer?" is a question I also ask myself.

I like your new version of the title of the book upon which the movie "Blade Runner" was based. I wonder if the novel's setting was intentional, as the reference to Saint Francis does bring up the issue of compassion toward sentient beings, since he was reputed to care greatly about animals and consider them worth "saving" in a spiritual sense. Probably the symbolism of San Francisco's name wasn't lost on the author.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1118606)

If anything, you are supposed to eat meat. Being a healthy vegetarian takes a lot more effort than being a healthy meat eater.

Oh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore (Post 1118621)

If someone cried and begged me not to kill the fish, I would also feel a moral obligation towards that person.

Then I think you are kinder than most people, Tore.

No meat-eaters I've met have ever appeared to show a pang of conscience due to emotional pain I have felt as they cause my distant relatives to suffer or partake in eating those animals' bodies. In fact, the opposite sometimes appears true: the more emotionally perturbed I am by what they do, the more callous they become.

My bursting into tears when a relative brought home a pheasant he shot didn't end his pursuit of hunting as a pleasure sport. Killing animals is great fun, after all.

My bursting into tears at a restaurant after relatives ordered lobsters, who I knew were boiled alive before they were brought dead to the table, didn't affect the people at all.

My shouting, "Please stop! You're scaring her!" as relatives manhandled a frightened, bleating baby goat (a new playtoy for a 4-year-old boy to practice roping on) had no effect.

The impression I get is that most people care about neither the animals nor about any person's emotional pain over how mercilessly the people treat them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1119263)

I wonder if the novel's setting was intentional, as the reference to Saint Francis does bring up the issue of compassion toward sentient beings, since he was reputed to care greatly about animals and consider them worth "saving" in a spiritual sense. Probably the symbolism of San Francisco's name wasn't lost on the author.

I think so. After all, the novel itself gives us the clue:

Quote:

The novel is set in a post-apocalyptic near future, where the Earth and its populations have been damaged greatly by Nuclear War during World War Terminus. Most types of animals are endangered or extinct due to extreme radiation poisoning from the war. To own an animal is a sign of status, but what is emphasized more is the empathic emotions humans experience towards an animal.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't mean to break your balls Tore but you are seriously taking your ethical obligation way too far here. No meat-eater needs to apologize for the harm they're doing to the animal kingdom. Meat is a necessary component for survival. (And please, Erica, don't spout first-world sympathy to me, I've heard it all before. Yours is an irrational form of moral outrage.)

I tried being a vegetarian. It hurt. Literally. I'm already mildly lactose intolerant so it was really difficult for me to ingest enough cholesterol to have sex. I lost the willpower to chase women, ended up losing something like 20 lbs off a 180 lb frame, masturbation became a chore and I looked generally fucking terrible. I pooped like 4x daily and it wreaked havoc on my GI tract (probably from eating too much fiber and too little water...hey, I like to drink). After a while I realized having an environmental conscience is not nearly as important as a health conscience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam (Post 1119581)

I tried being a vegetarian. It hurt. Literally. I'm already mildly lactose intolerant so it was really difficult for me to ingest enough cholesterol to have sex. I lost the willpower to chase women, ended up losing something like 20 lbs off a 180 lb frame, masturbation became a chore and I looked generally fucking terrible. I pooped like 4x daily and it wreaked havoc on my GI tract (probably from eating too much fiber and too little water...hey, I like to drink). After a while I realized having an environmental conscience is not nearly as important as a health conscience.

Quote:

Fats and Cholesterol: Out with the Bad, In with the Good - What Should I Eat? - The Nutrition Source - Harvard School of Public Health

Most people make more cholesterol than they absorb from their food. A body of scientific studies shows only a weak relationship between the amount of cholesterol a person consumes and his or her blood cholesterol levels (weak but important for heart disease). For most people, the amount of cholesterol eaten has only a modest impact on the amount of cholesterol circulating in the blood.

The types of fat in the diet determine to a large extent the amount of total and LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream. Cholesterol in food matters, too, but not nearly as much.

(3) It isn't clear that increasing a person's cholesterol levels through diet will cause his or her testosterone levels to increase, with free testosterone being the form that appears to be active.

For example, here is a study on testosterone levels in vegans and omnivores that found that vegan men actually had higher testosterone levels and nearly the same levels of free testosterone as omnivores:

Quote:

Key, T. et al. (2007) Testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin, calculated free testosterone, and oestradiol in male vegans and omnivores, British Journal of Nutrition, 64: pp 111-119. http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...fbe7a12d05dd39

It is concluded that a vegan diet ... has little effect on total or free T [Testosterone] or on E2 [oestradiol].

(4) The relationship between testosterone levels and libido isn't simple or clear, since sex drive depends on many factors, not just testosterone levels. Testosterone levels don't perfectly predict libido:

Quote:

From: Low Testosterone Effects on Sex Drive: Low Libido and More.

Low testosterone symptoms don't always include feeling like you have no sex drive. Some men maintain sexual desire at relatively low testosterone levels. For other men, libido may lag even with normal testosterone levels.

Surprisingly, low testosterone by itself rarely causes erectile dysfunction, or ED. Low testosterone alone -- with no other health problems -- accounts for a small minority of men with erectile dysfunction. Erection problems are usually caused by atherosclerosis -- hardening of the arteries.

Low testosterone is only one of the causes of low libido. Stress, sleep deprivation, depression, and chronic medical illnesses can also sap a man's sex drive.

A study in which young men were given testosterone injections to nearly double their testosterone levels found that the heightened testosterone levels had little effect on the men's sexual behavior:

Quote:

From: O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., and F. C. W. Wu (2004) Effects of Testosterone on Mood, Aggression, and Sexual Behavior in Young Men: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Study, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 89 (6): 2837
Effects of Testosterone on Mood, Aggression, and Sexual Behavior in Young Men: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Study

The present results also confirmed that raising T [testosterone] levels into the supraphysiological range in healthy young men did not increase the interactional (i.e. the frequency of sexual intercourse) or noninteractional aspects of sexual behavior (i.e. sexual desire or intercourse satisfaction).

Lucifer, considering your own bad experiences when eating a vegetarian diet that appears to have lacked dairy but should have included eggs (a source of cholesterol that could be used instead of dairy or meat if you really wanted to increase your cholesterol intake), one possible explanation is that your dairy-free vegetarian diet simply was not a balanced one.

For example, perhaps you weren't eating sufficient levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats such as from nuts. Your rapid weight loss is a red flag that your diet may not have been adequate.

You might also be someone with hypocholesterolemia whose body has very low cholesterol levels (such as less than 50 mg/dL) due to a disease or an inherited problem in your cholesterol biosynthesis pathway: Hypocholesterolemia. [Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

If I were your doctor (and if I *were* a doctor :)), I would have:
(1) referred you to a nutritionist to ensure your diet was providing you with all the nutrients you needed;
(2) drawn your blood to obtain your fasting blood levels of cholesterol (total, HDL, and LDL);
(3) measured your total testosterone and free testosterone levels.

I agree that your health is most important, yet your description of what happened does not convince me that a nearly vegan diet was the cause of the problem, especially since I've not heard of vegan men in general having disappointing sex lives or sex drives.

I'm curious now what your doctor found out about you during your experience with vegetarianism. Do you have records of your cholesterol levels before and during your vegetarian phase, for example? As a vegan, the lowest my Total Cholesterol has been is 110 mg/dL and the highest is 127 mg/dL. I've been biosynthisizing all my own cholesterol for 14 years now...and I also produced all the cholesterol in a 9 lb 10 oz baby! :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam (Post 1119581)

What makes you think that meat is a necessary component for survival? If it were, how could I be typing this? ;) How could 30% of the population of India be vegetarian?

Can you think of any situation in which meat-eaters *should* apologize for the harm they're doing to the animal kingdom? Will you eat any animal without any twinge of conscience? A dolphin? A dog?

Finally, about my sympathy for animals and my moral outrage: what determines whether an emotional response is "irrational" or not? Aren't emotions distinct from reasoning and thus can't be determined to be "rational" or "irrational?"

I would say that a person's emotional response might be "unusual" yet not "irrational." Most people don't feel sad like I do when I see someone eating a chicken or part of a pig. I acknowledge that. Yet rather than viewing my response as irrational, I view *their* response as callous and oddly emotionally empty...and all too normal. From my vantage point as a vegan, it is as if part of their emotional center is dead and they seem emotionally blind when it comes to animals.

I recall how I felt when I was emotionally "blind" to food animals. Thinking about their feelings and experiences just wasn't something I did very often. It was as if their experiences didn't exist. In my view, ignoring other beings' existence, and one's impact on these animals, doesn't seem very rational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VEGANGELICA (Post 1122029)

I can understand how distressing it would be to experience a sudden reduction in libido, since sexuality can be such a revitalizing part of life. However, I think you are being overly hasty in concluding that a nearly vegan diet was responsible for your troubles. My reasons:

(1) Well-planned vegan diets, which lack any dietary cholesterol, are known to be healthful: Vegetarian Diets

It is possible, of course, that your particular physiology prevented you from thriving even on a well-planned vegan diet...although I'm not sure what the reason for that might be.

(2) Humans are generally able to biosynthesize all the cholesterol their bodies need, and dietary sources of cholesterol have much less impact on blood cholesterol levels than people once thought:

(3) It isn't clear that increasing a person's cholesterol levels through diet will cause his or her testosterone levels to increase, with free testosterone being the form that appears to be active.

For example, here is a study on testosterone levels in vegans and omnivores that found that vegan men actually had higher testosterone levels and nearly the same levels of free testosterone as omnivores:

(4) The relationship between testosterone levels and libido isn't simple or clear, since sex drive depends on many factors, not just testosterone levels. Testosterone levels don't perfectly predict libido:

A study in which young men were given testosterone injections to nearly double their testosterone levels found that the heightened testosterone levels had little effect on the men's sexual behavior:

Lucifer, considering your own bad experiences when eating a vegetarian diet that appears to have lacked dairy but should have included eggs (a source of cholesterol that could be used instead of dairy or meat if you really wanted to increase your cholesterol intake), one possible explanation is that your dairy-free vegetarian diet simply was not a balanced one.

For example, perhaps you weren't eating sufficient levels of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats such as from nuts. Your rapid weight loss is a red flag that your diet may not have been adequate.

You might also be someone with hypocholesterolemia whose body has very low cholesterol levels (such as less than 50 mg/dL) due to a disease or an inherited problem in your cholesterol biosynthesis pathway: Hypocholesterolemia. [Curr Vasc Pharmacol. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI

If I were your doctor (and if I *were* a doctor :)), I would have:
(1) referred you to a nutritionist to ensure your diet was providing you with all the nutrients you needed;
(2) drawn your blood to obtain your fasting blood levels of cholesterol (total, HDL, and LDL);
(3) measured your total testosterone and free testosterone levels.

I agree that your health is most important, yet your description of what happened does not convince me that a nearly vegan diet was the cause of the problem, especially since I've not heard of vegan men in general having disappointing sex lives or sex drives.

I'm curious now what your doctor found out about you during your experience with vegetarianism. Do you have records of your cholesterol levels before and during your vegetarian phase, for example? As a vegan, the lowest my Total Cholesterol has been is 110 mg/dL and the highest is 127 mg/dL. I've been biosynthisizing all my own cholesterol for 14 years now...and I also produced all the cholesterol in a 9 lb 10 oz baby! :)

What makes you think that meat is a necessary component for survival? If it were, how could I be typing this? ;) How could 30% of the population of India be vegetarian?

Can you think of any situation in which meat-eaters *should* apologize for the harm they're doing to the animal kingdom? Will you eat any animal without any twinge of conscience? A dolphin? A dog?

Finally, about my sympathy for animals and my moral outrage: what determines whether an emotional response is "irrational" or not? Aren't emotions distinct from reasoning and thus can't be determined to be "rational" or "irrational?"

I would say that a person's emotional response might be "unusual" yet not "irrational." Most people don't feel sad like I do when I see someone eating a chicken or part of a pig. I acknowledge that. Yet rather than viewing my response as irrational, I view *their* response as callous and oddly emotionally empty...and all too normal. From my vantage point as a vegan, it is as if part of their emotional center is dead and they seem emotionally blind when it comes to animals.

I recall how I felt when I was emotionally "blind" to food animals. Thinking about their feelings and experiences just wasn't something I did very often. It was as if their experiences didn't exist. In my view, ignoring other beings' existence, and one's impact on these animals, doesn't seem very rational.

tl;dr

My response was anecdotal in its expression, not argumentative. I still think that veganism is an ethically self-indulgent and unnecessary ascetic practice (your response definitely highlighted that admission for sure), and that's probably not going to change any time soon.

I don't consult studies when I feel like shit. I just do something about feeling like shit. Being a vegetarian might work for some, it definitely doesn't for me.

Quote:

Can you think of any situation in which meat-eaters *should* apologize for the harm they're doing to the animal kingdom? Will you eat any animal without any twinge of conscience? A dolphin? A dog?

Only if they violate their cultures taboos on what isn't acceptable.

Quote:

My bursting into tears when a relative brought home a pheasant he shot didn't end his pursuit of hunting as a pleasure sport. Killing animals is great fun, after all.
My bursting into tears at a restaurant after relatives ordered lobsters, who I knew were boiled alive before they were brought dead to the table, didn't affect the people at all.

Right; they should alter their behavior to please you. All your relatives, friends, and all people in the restaurant. "Sorry folks, there's a vegan in the restaurant - you can't eat meat in her presence!"