Meat diets vs. vegetarianism

[Laird]

Yep. A while back, I looked up the figures in UN reports, and it turns out that globally, three times as much plant matter (mostly grain) by weight is fed to animals as meat is produced (again, by weight). And that's counting meat that is produced from purely grass-fed animals too. If only grain-fed animals are counted, the ratio is even higher.

In other words, if we stopped farming animals altogether, both feed-lot and free-range, we would gain three times as much food as we currently get from them.

I guess it depends why a person is avoiding meat. If the suggestion is that plants respond in some way to stimulus or show signs of intelligence so it’s ok to slaughter mammals (or anything else for that matter) I don’t buy it. Each to their own I guess..

What I find difficult to reconcile is this fact; that for me to live - something must die.

Now whether that something is a plant or a cow is irrelevant. I believe that it’s only our limited minds that see them differently. To me, all life is sacred. Once again, I think a lot depends on ones worldview.

That is my theoretical or strict ethical view.

Practically, the conditioned, relatively ignorant picture that I have in my head is that there is an order of things, mammals appear to be closest to us, so they are most difficult to kill, then fish like salmon or cod, next may be prawns & other shellfish, then so on down the ‘line’ until we get to plants.

So while it might make us feel better snipping plants from trees of bushes rather than slaughtering a cow and having its blood spilling out over the ground. Is there any difference in the eyes of God?

Is it just one more difficult choice that He has us deal with when we come to earth? Another of the many difficult ethical things that we are automatically forced to deal with living a life on this earth. Doesn’t that thought in itself fill you with awe? [emoji120]

Nobody said it would be easy! [emoji4]






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep. A while back, I looked up the figures in UN reports, and it turns out that globally, three times as much plant matter (mostly grain) by weight is fed to animals as meat is produced (again, by weight). And that's counting meat that is produced from purely grass-fed animals too. If only grain-fed animals are counted, the ratio is even higher.

In other words, if we stopped farming animals altogether, both feed-lot and free-range, we would gain three times as much food as we currently get from them.

Mmmm. Some might say that denying life to billions of animals would be wrong. How much does quality of life make a difference? Is the experience of living the short life of a factory chicken better than not living any such life?
These are questions no one can answer. As I said - we do our best. 

What I find difficult to reconcile is this fact; that for me to live - something must die.

Now whether that something is a plant or a cow is irrelevant. I believe that it’s only our limited minds that see them differently. To me, all life is sacred. Once again, I think a lot depends on ones worldview.

That is my theoretical or strict ethical view.

Practically, the conditioned, relatively ignorant picture that I have in my head is that there is an order of things, mammals appear to be  closest to us, so they are most difficult to kill, then fish like salmon or cod, next may be prawns & other shellfish, then so on down the ‘line’ until we get to plants.

So while it might make us feel better snipping plants from trees of bushes rather than slaughtering a cow and having its blood spilling out over the ground. Is there any difference in the eyes of God?

Is it just one more difficult choice that He has us deal with when we come to earth? Another of the many difficult ethical things that we are automatically forced to deal with living a life on this earth. Doesn’t that thought in itself fill you with awe? [emoji120]

Nobody said it would be easy! [emoji4]






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Apparently not.

[quote pid='20736' dateline='1536483177']

Genesis: 1, 26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And  blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

[/quote]

Apparently not.

[/quote]

I’m not a great believer in the bible as a source of ‘fact’. Are you ?

I’m not a great believer in the bible as a source of ‘fact’. Are you ?
[/quote]

No. But if you're going to question what God thinks you need to know the Bible.

[Laird]

Mmmm. Some might say that denying life to billions of animals would be wrong.

Yep, some might (and do). Here's a way of interrogating that perspective: imagine that we bred a class of humans for meat. We locked them up packed tightly in small cells in massive, multi-storey, industrial farms, and bred them to grow to adulthood in only a few years, after which we slaughtered them, packed up their flesh in plastic, and shipped it off to the supermarkets.

In that scenario, we could stop breeding them and instead eat the food we'd been feeding them... but some might say that denying life to them would be wrong. Would you?

How much does quality of life make a difference?

A lot. But it's also about objectification (think again of how easy it is for us to see what's wrong with objectification when it comes to humans): treating living beings as means to our ends rather than as ends in themselves. And you could argue that the same applies to plants, but there are some important differences, especially in that plants don't have a need to move around, and, in the ideal, don't need to be slaughtered for us to derive food from them: they freely and willingly produce fruit for us, along with a surplus of seeds, nuts, beans, legumes, etc.

Is the experience of living the short life of a factory chicken better than not living any such life?

No - I think it's pretty much impossible to make that case. Have you seen how they live? It's a waking nightmare.

I’m not a great believer in the bible as a source of ‘fact’. Are you ?

No. But if you're going to question what God thinks you need to know the Bible.

Only if you believe in the God of the Bible. It seems that you do?

Yep, some might (and do). Here's a way of interrogating that perspective: imagine that we bred a class of humans for meat. We locked them up packed tightly in small cells in massive, multi-storey, industrial farms, and bred them to grow to adulthood in only a few years, after which we slaughtered them, packed up their flesh in plastic, and shipped it off to the supermarkets.

In that scenario, we could stop breeding them and instead eat the food we'd been feeding them... but some might say that denying life to them would be wrong. Would you?

No


A lot. But it's also about objectification (think again of how easy it is for us to see what's wrong with objectification when it comes to humans): treating living beings as means to our ends rather than as ends in themselves. And you could argue that the same applies to plants, but there are some important differences, especially in that plants don't have a need to move around, and, in the ideal, don't need to be slaughtered for us to derive food from them: they freely and willingly produce fruit for us, along with a surplus of seeds, nuts, beans, legumes, etc.

Makes sense to me. 


No - I think it's pretty much impossible to make that case. Have you seen how they live? It's a waking nightmare.

I agree. Where humans are concerned and baby’s are born with deformities or other disabilities, we tend to assume it’s a bad thing. From what I have seen, such assumptions are often incorrect. Children are incredible, and resilient. Love beats anything. Animals are too, I reckon you really have to fuck up an animal to bring it into a state of depression. My cocker spaniel that was my constant companion for the two years I lived in Zambia as a young boy (8/9) refused to eat and eventually died when we parted. It probably had a lasting effect on me too, as I never wanted another dog. Was this a lesson?

So while a certain action might appear to be best for the creature involved, we are really guessing as to the truth. As I said in an earlier post, a lot comes down to worldview. Atheists must really be less compassionate just to survive this life imo.

[Laird]

Where humans are concerned and baby’s are born with deformities or other disabilities, we tend to assume it’s a bad thing.

Yes... I'm not sure whether you've yet read Michael Patterson's blog post on "difability" - if not, I think you should as I reckon you'd really appreciate it: A Reflection on a Decade of GBS.

Atheists must really be less compassionate just to survive this life imo.

Can you elaborate on this a little, Steve? Am genuinely confused as to what you mean and why you say this.