I think you are making assumptions, that apparently being conscious some how equates to a need of being fulfilled - i disagree, fulfillment is an illusion. Immoral or not humans eat other living things to stay alive. I really want not only to eat, but to stay alive. Yet a nakedly logical way to judge the value of one kind of organism over another — the rightness of a plant’s death versus an animal’s seems, to me, out of reach. Just saying.
i personally am not a veggie due to the moral connotations that go along with eating meat, i dont like the taste or texture. it gives me the heebie jeebies. everyonce in a while ill have a bite of chicken just to see if my tastes have changed, but they never seem to. i dont think the fact that some scientist made the meat is gonna chnge that if anything im just going to think about it more and think ugh ok so this came from a lab i dont like that idea. i mean to each their own. if some people do wanna be a veggie for the whole "dont kill aminals" thing then more power to them, maybe this will be a good thing, i know lots of people who call themselves vegetarians and dont eat properly at all, only consuming carbs and very little protein. i guess what im trying to get at is... no i wouldnt eat meat if it was lab made
Do you agree that there is such a thing as proper function, and proper relationship? Is it a coincidence that vegetables fulfill our nutritional needs, and that they rot, dying a slow death of decay if we don't eat them when they're ripe? Do you really not see a difference between picking an apple and slaughtering a pig?
i just want to make sure i understand this correctly... are you saying that pigs are like apples because they die and rot if we dont kill them? or am i missing what you meant because if you really see it that way, we should eat people too, seeing as how they die and rot also. but again i state, i could have misread this totally lol
Humans are not herbivores but omnivores, obviously meaning we can eat both plants and animals - i wonder if that's a coincidence? hmmm Of course i see a difference because I'm human. Humans are closer (genetically and physically) to pigs than a apple so obviously we empathize (recognize) better with their suffering. However to say that the apple or apple tree does not suffer just because you can't tell it's suffering is a falsehood, and quite hypocritical if you're trying to take the moral high ground.
i'm saying they dont suffer because they dont have a nervous system. when we eat apples or most other fruits and veggies we toss the seeds, or eat them and then "evacuate" them (aka poopin) those seeds then have the chance to go into the soil and grow another apple tree or pumkpin vine or whatever it maybe. It's the natural cycle of things. most animals people eat today have been domesticated and basically genetically altered on the most basic level. whether or not thats the natural cycle of things, im not sure. But i think i can say, whole heartedly that creating "meat" in a lab is NOT the natural cycle. lab made food is not in any way natural.
From an evolutionary point of view, fruit such as apples evolved as a strategy for distributing progeny over a wider area. Animals eat the fruit, including the seeds, and then defecated the seeds somewhere else, along with plenty of fertilizer. This being true, I would be very surprised if the apple suffered as a result of being eaten - being eaten is part of its reproductive cycle. So maybe it has an orgasm when you bite it...
No, it is not a coincidence that we are able to eat both. That insures our survival. But carnivores have intestines which are not conducive to degesting plant matter. They have much shorter digestive tracts than humans. That is so the flesh can pass through them quickly enough to keep it from putrifying and acidifying the system. We don't have that. And that is not just a coincidence. http://www.eatveg.com/anatomy.htm
C'mon you give me a source that's vegetarian leaning, really dude. Find something neutral. Like i said before just because you can't tell it's suffering doesn't mean it isn't. I'm not good at the art of repeating myself so here's a picture of a praying mantis reproduction.... ....notice the female eating her mate. I have no doubt that he is suffering.
Damn, dbl post my bad. [edit] nvm, i'll make room for this one too. That was the common consensus until relatively recently when scientist discovered that plants release similar chemicals when injured just like human and other animals. In other words, plants do suffer just not the same way we do. Btw my first post in this thread is more elegant in explaining this. I agree, so is eating meat - hence why we evolved to do so. True, it's not natural, but i see it as sciences way to get people to eat meat in a more humane manner.
This is how Praying Mantises function in their world. Are you using Mantises as an accepted template for your own life? And the intestinal issue is a real issue no matter where the information comes from.
Please read the quoted text as well, then you might understand the response. what issue? we can eat meat and veggies or intestinal track evolved to do (omnivore)...lions, tigers, and polar bears (carnivore) haven't. I'm not seeing an issue...maybe you can clarify.
http://www.dogeatdogma.com/lsd.htm http://www.makelsd.org/ http://science.howstuffworks.com/lsd2.htm ­The ergot alkaloid is synthesized into a lysergic acid compound called iso-lysergic acid hydrazide. I usually dont trust the internet but you seem like you would trust a website over my word, so heres 3.
The point would be why you would utilize something that causes problems rather than use something that doesn't when you can get everything you need from a plant diet. Anyway, here's the good and bad of it. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...h-news/is-meat-good-or-bad-for-us-425192.html
a chemical that is released when there is damage done to the plant doesnt indicate pain. it indicates that there is a threat to the other plants and animals in the surrounding area. that doesnt mean its suffering