Is Meat Really Murder? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-18-2011, 03:01 PM   #911 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Mr November's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon View Post
Do you have links to those studies that claim that our appendixes are not inactive? this is the first I'm hearing about it and i'm inclined to not believe that one bit.
I don't have time to try and find a 100% reliable source, but this one seemed pretty legit.

The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising | LiveScience

Either way, if you've had your appendix out you'll survive. Much better to lose it than die I'd say.
Mr November is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 03:45 PM   #912 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I don't agree with that. Humans have more or less stopped natural selection for themselves. When you can change your environment to suit you, there is no longer a need or drive to adapt to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
I'm inclined to think it would take a more grievous and long term disaster than we've seen for any evolution to take place. Disasters like Katrina and the 04 tsunami just killed a shitload of people, seemingly without any rhyme or reason. I imagine that if there were an evolutionary effect of these incidents, it wouldn't be seen for hundreds of years, by which point I imagine we'll all have died out due to some other circumstance. The one thing I can see still forcing evolution of our species is global warming/pollution, which is widespread and ongoing enough for long term natural selection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman View Post
You're right about this. Natural disasters kill on an instantaneous and random basis (the exception being geographical so there might be an argument there). But, I think that if over the next million years if humans stopped eating meat, there might be some small effects. Then again some studies say even our appendixes may not be totally inactive.

Perhaps human evolution has taken a different turn. Maybe the next step is genetic engineering (I hope so). And it might be a necessary one since flipping the bird to natural selection can have some funky genetic effects.

In any case I still think that the argument that humans aren't ethically subject to their own nature is a valid one.
Natural selection is a consequence of life as we know it. You can't turn it off. What changes is stuff like the strength and direction of selection (is it better to have a smaller or larger beak? Better to birth females or males?). Random killings from natural disasters is part what's called genetic drift and it generally does have an effect (it changes the overall genetic makeup (allelic frequencies) of the human population ever so slightly), but the effect is smaller the larger the population is.

As for what evolution favours, you should remember that fitness which is what is selected for is measured by how much one's able to perpetuate one's genes. If society is made up in a way that makes asocial people and criminals have overall less fitness (have fewer children) than their counter parts, then that could translate to a selection on a genetic level with important effect on our common genetic makeup over the course of our relatively recent history. You could arguably call that natural selection because it is the environment of the societies which dictates the consequence (making it a natural consequence in that environment), but it's not consciously selected for by a great manipulator. Environment is important, so for our example, let's say in pre-society, the traits which more often create asocials and criminals had a generally more positive effect on fitness.

Ecologists often say simply that evolution is simply a change in allele (varieties of genes) frequencies over the course of generations, for example that the relative frequency of the allele which codes for blue eyes is less in the new generation compared to the parent generation. Going by that definition, it would be hard to argue that mankind does not evolve .. or is f.ex the North American population pretty much similar to what it was like 100 years ago?

edit :

In modern society, people can get by as vegetarians as they can get fruits and vegetables from all over the world, filling every nutritional dietary need. For us to evolve the ability to eat and digest more greens than we can now so that we can get by more efficiently on a plant diet, you'd need a pressure in that direction (generally speaking; vegetarians with plant eating behaviours would need to have a fitness benefit over meat eaters) and you'd need a helluva lot of time too .. making it a sort of irrelevant argument.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 04:49 PM   #913 (permalink)
Justifiable Idiocracy
 
Bloozcrooz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,244
Default

Jesus Christ eating meat is not murder unless your a cannibal. This is almost like saying drilling for oil and gas is wrong, and should be banned. You have to eat and if you dont like to eat vegetables then eat meat or eat both of them together. Yes its a sad thing that ignorant cows are born, raised, fed, and fattened up just to satisfy our taste buds. But there are more pressing issues in the world than people who like eating cows and chicken and etc.
Bloozcrooz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2011, 09:49 PM   #914 (permalink)
Reformed Jackass
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,964
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plum View Post
A Ketosis Diet?

Do people know that's not a good idea to make yourself be in the state of ketosis?
What gives you that impression? It was our natural state for, oh 100,000 years or so.

Quote:
One thing I've come to realize about the Atkins Diet is that it was developed for all those poor ****ers that have to work desk jobs. While an active human being's diet should consist of about 1/3 grain, if you're just sitting in a cubicle all day, all of those carbs are just going to sit there with you and turn to fat. That was something I didn't understand about Atkins when I first analyzed it.
No. The place of grain as the largest source of calories in the modern and post paleolithic diet is the single worst thing to happen to our species health wise ever. PaNu - P
ProggyMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 02:15 AM   #915 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProggyMan View Post
No. The place of grain as the largest source of calories in the modern and post paleolithic diet is the single worst thing to happen to our species health wise ever. PaNu - P
There are indeed a number of what I think are good arguments as to why one should consider cutting grain (like just about all bakery stuff), sugar (candy, soft drinks etc.) and milk (drinks, lots of bakery stuff) from a healthy diet. The general argument is that the inclusion of these things in our diets is so recent that we haven't had much time to adapt to them, hence they have negative effects on our health. Many scientists believe that a number of the common lifestyle diseases as well as anti-social behaviour and mental problems often stem from our modern diets which include these 3 no-nos.
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 05:58 AM   #916 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 2,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman View Post
Human's are "meant" to do many things. I would agree that we are suited by natural and evolution to consume meat.

BUT

Something that's special about humans is that we can make choices against our own nature. We would never have gotten as far as we have if we didn't suppress some of our natural urges and behaviours (even if some of that is what has allowed us to become what we are... but every hand of cards can have its aces and its jokers).

I'm nowhere close to being a vegetarian. Even still, I don't question that there's ethical merit to not killing other living animals if possible not to.

I don't care what the chemicals in my brain tell me to do. I will do what I want... but I will still eat meat.
I would say that making choices using ethics is *part* of our human nature.

I agree with you that we can suppress many urges and behaviors when we feel we have a good reason to do so.

For example, I love the taste of cheese...hot, gooey, salty, fatty!! And I liked the taste of hamburgers and even veal when I was a kid, not knowing exactly whom I was eating or how people had treated them. However, avoiding actions that support the killing of "food" animals, who have feelings and experiences that I assume they enjoy, is much more important to me than the momentary pleasure I might get from eating these animals.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
VEGANGELICA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 10:18 AM   #917 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
Natural selection is a consequence of life as we know it. You can't turn it off. What changes is stuff like the strength and direction of selection (is it better to have a smaller or larger beak? Better to birth females or males?). Random killings from natural disasters is part what's called genetic drift and it generally does have an effect (it changes the overall genetic makeup (allelic frequencies) of the human population ever so slightly), but the effect is smaller the larger the population is.

As for what evolution favours, you should remember that fitness which is what is selected for is measured by how much one's able to perpetuate one's genes. If society is made up in a way that makes asocial people and criminals have overall less fitness (have fewer children) than their counter parts, then that could translate to a selection on a genetic level with important effect on our common genetic makeup over the course of our relatively recent history. You could arguably call that natural selection because it is the environment of the societies which dictates the consequence (making it a natural consequence in that environment), but it's not consciously selected for by a great manipulator. Environment is important, so for our example, let's say in pre-society, the traits which more often create asocials and criminals had a generally more positive effect on fitness.

Ecologists often say simply that evolution is simply a change in allele (varieties of genes) frequencies over the course of generations, for example that the relative frequency of the allele which codes for blue eyes is less in the new generation compared to the parent generation. Going by that definition, it would be hard to argue that mankind does not evolve .. or is f.ex the North American population pretty much similar to what it was like 100 years ago?
Indeed. I would also like to add that human evolution does not need to affect only our physical bodies. Our brains didn't just magically pop into existence. They evolved due to the fact that we were using them more (creation of fire, tools, agriculture, and even group interactions since they require more brain power than being solitary). And we are still finding ever more complicated and difficult things to make our brains deal with, so our brains are still evolving and will always be evolving.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 10:30 AM   #918 (permalink)
Zum Henker Defätist!!
 
The Batlord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Beating GNR at DDR and keying Axl's new car
Posts: 48,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirty View Post
Ok, let's not go off into crazy comparison land here.
You only consider the comparison crazy because you don't want to think of animals as having equal worth to a human.

Quote:
Abolishing slavery was a good thing.
Yes, because we stopped the suffering of a living, feeling creature and gave them a possibility to experience happiness.

Quote:
People of all races are still people.
And empty milk cartons of all sizes are still empty milk cartons. What's your point? Are you just appealing to my innate sense of human superiority over non-humans?

Quote:
I don't feel nearly as sensitive to animals as I do people.
As slave owners didn't feel nearly as sensitive to black people as they did white people. The fact that you are not as sensitive holds no actual weight. If you really wanted to, you could try to develop more sensitivity to the suffering of animals, you just choose not to.

Quote:
My basic feeling is that animals taste good, are good for the economy, and provide little else to humans other than when they are killed.
I think the key word here is "basic". Has it ever occured to you that perhaps animals might have more worth than just their usefulness to humans?

Quote:
Just like lions attack deer, and larger fish eat smaller fish, I don't mind that we eat animals. And because I know this same argument is gonna come back around, let me say that I PERSONALLY am only really concerned with HUMANS. I don't care what is best for the world. I care what is best for people.
Because, of course, humans are superior to the rest of the world and are not actually part of it.


I'm not asking you to become a vegetarian. I'm just asking you to perhaps challenge your own notions of what is moral conduct in relation to other species.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.R.R. Tolkien
There is only one bright spot and that is the growing habit of disgruntled men of dynamiting factories and power-stations; I hope that, encouraged now as ‘patriotism’, may remain a habit! But it won’t do any good, if it is not universal.
The Batlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 11:04 AM   #919 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

well, as long as the steak I'm sticking my chops into doesn't moo at me, I don't feel much empathy
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 11:32 AM   #920 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Paedantic Basterd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,184
Default

Dirty's never heard of an ecosystem.
Paedantic Basterd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.