Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 80

Thread: Vegan

  1. #46

    Default

    My grandfather's family ran a Butchers in Skewen until the early 60s and I like food, and also consider Vegetarianism to be the ultimate food fad. Yet, being a tender hearted soul, if I actually saw an abattoir in action, I'm sure it would stop me in my tracks.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HMGovt View Post
    P D Mangan has some interesting ideas about how high Iron levels might be killing us all...
    Is this why people in developed countries are in general living longer than ever?
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  3. #48

    Default

    I'm going to ask: Is the ethicalness of veganism founded on an arbitrary distinction?

    To expand: if one does not eat meat on the basis of animal suffering or pain (or some Carol J Adam's equation of dominance and power) then why is this principal not extended to plants? Why recognise the value of life in one kind but not another?

    I've got other questions about veganism and identity politics but I'd like to hear thoughts on this question first...

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Loondon
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Bit hard proving a leek feels pain though isn't it, or is indeed conscious of it's impending doom. The former at least is fairly obvious with animals.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyL View Post
    Bit hard proving a leek feels pain though isn't it, or is indeed conscious of it's impending doom. The former at least is fairly obvious with animals.
    I'm with you on this but there is clearly a sliding scale of consciousness and there is a bit of a grey area when you get to insects and prawns and all that.

    Another Dan we are familiar with has written this recently:
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...animal-welfare

  6. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyL View Post
    Bit hard proving a leek feels pain though isn't it, or is indeed conscious of it's impending doom. The former at least is fairly obvious with animals.
    Well, yes. But isn't 'pain' a human idea of an organism's awareness of damage inflicted upon it (too hot, cold, limbs or branches ripped off etc). So to say 'hard to prove a leek feels pain' is quite anthropocentric - what you're saying is that it is difficult to prove that a leek feels pain like 'us animals'. But surely a plant, whilst not having the any system like a mammal's nervous system, still moves too and from stimuli that do not benefit its life (they move towards light when they need it etc).

    So, to base an ethical division on the basis of what we humans identify as 'pain' is not far from the myopic empathy of a racist who cannot understand suffering in those who appear different to his/her reflection in the mirror.

    I'd be interested in the difference between a complex plant and a simple animal in terms of pleasure and pain - but really isn't the distinction arbitrary? This is my point...

  7. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john eden View Post
    I'm with you on this but there is clearly a sliding scale of consciousness and there is a bit of a grey area when you get to insects and prawns and all that.

    Another Dan we are familiar with has written this recently:
    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...animal-welfare
    This sliding scale of consciousness.... to double-down on my previous point: Isn't the question of consciousness a loaded human premise? Just because a human and a daisy exist in the world with differing levels of biological reaction does not grant an ethical double standard does it? If you were to follow this line you'd veer towards a horrid position of ethics - rights based on observable reactions that match one's own - i.e. 'If they cannot write and orate in the same way as I they shouldn't have the same rights like I.'

    I realise I'm flipping from thin to thick ends the wedge. But it's only to illustrate the question I'm posing.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by you View Post
    I'm going to ask: Is the ethicalness of veganism founded on an arbitrary distinction?

    To expand: if one does not eat meat on the basis of animal suffering or pain (or some Carol J Adam's equation of dominance and power) then why is this principal not extended to plants? Why recognise the value of life in one kind but not another?

    I've got other questions about veganism and identity politics but I'd like to hear thoughts on this question first...
    It actually goes even further. BC the vast majority of animals that end up getting eaten wouldn't even exist without the meat industry in the first place.

    But I agree, that's indeed the ethical blind spot of veganism - plants clearly are living things and got a right to live as any other biological entity that "lives". So the "suffering" or "pain" aspect doesn't hold much weight. What about wild animals then + hunting?

    Strongest ethical point veganism has is the fact it's the least probelmatic way of nutrition regarding environmental concerns
    Last edited by firefinga; 25-04-2018 at 06:42 PM.

  9. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefinga View Post
    It actually goes even further. BC the vast majority of animals that end up getting eaten wouldn't even exist without the meat industry in the first place.

    But I agree, that's indeed the ethical blind spot of veganism - plants clearly are living things and got a right to live as any other biological entity that "lives". So the "suffering" or "pain" aspect doesn't hold much weight. What about wild animals then + hunting?

    Strongest ethical point veganism has is the fact it's the least probelmatic way of nutrition regarding environmental concerns
    Gonna pounce on this. Why something is alive shouldn't have a bearing on the ethics of eating it. Surely?

  10. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefinga View Post
    What about wild animals then + hunting?
    Wild or not I don't see the import of the distinction. Hunting however is different. I suppose if one wishes to limit suffering in an organism that will be eaten then hunting is wrong. Though, if you're going to kill and eat something then concerns about the quality of it's soon to be extinguished life's quality seems like a moot point in the shadow of it's death. I've always found the 'happy chickens' argument to hold a certain ethical dissonance in this respect.

    Hunting is bad because it is an archaic method and utterly inefficient.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firefinga View Post
    Strongest ethical point veganism has is the fact it's the least probelmatic way of nutrition regarding environmental concerns
    You might think so (and lots of people do), but in fact full veganism is not the most environmentally sustainable way to eat. (Although that's based on land use rather than other environmental concerns such as GHG emissions - then again, the argument against meat is very often framed in terms of environmental opposition to cattle farming, which ignores the fact that there are meats other than beef and that they have wildly varying environmental impacts.)

    Quote Originally Posted by you View Post
    Wild or not I don't see the import of the distinction. Hunting however is different. I suppose if one wishes to limit suffering in an organism that will be eaten then hunting is wrong. Though, if you're going to kill and eat something then concerns about the quality of it's soon to be extinguished life's quality seems like a moot point in the shadow of it's death. I've always found the 'happy chickens' argument to hold a certain ethical dissonance in this respect.

    Hunting is bad because it is an archaic method and utterly inefficient.
    Now this I don't understand at all. Surely any wild animal has a far superior quality of life to any farmed animal, even one on a relatively 'ethical' farm? And isn't the relentless drive for efficiency the root cause of the cruelty of factory farming? It is after all far more efficient to keep hens in tiny cages than it is to keep them in a large open-air space.

    I don't know if it's meaningful to talk about the happiness of chickens as such, but it's surely reasonable to assume that chickens than can move around, interact with other chickens and see daylight are at least less miserable than chickens confined in spaces so small they can't even turn around.
    Last edited by Mr. Tea; 25-04-2018 at 09:25 PM.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  12. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    Now this I don't understand at all. Surely any wild animal has a far superior quality of life to any farmed animal, even one on a relatively 'ethical' farm? And isn't the relentless drive for efficiency the root cause of the cruelty of factory farming? It is after all far more efficient to keep hens in tiny cages than it is to keep them in a large open-air space.

    I don't know if it's meaningful to talk about the happiness of chickens as such, but it's surely reasonable to assume that chickens than can move around, interact with other chickens and see daylight are at least less miserable than chickens confined in spaces so small they can't even turn around.
    I took hunting to imply a stressful demise for an animal. So, in that regard, I thought hunting would be worse than 'humanely slaughtered' (which for some reason makes me think of respectable alcohol stupors lol) animals.

    Re. efficiency - I'm not sure it is the root cause. That seems too simple. I'm wary of accepting that greater efficiency automatically means greater suffering. Hunting (let's think about venison farming as an example) takes a lot of 'man' power - which needs to be fed. So, surely avoiding the heavy labour of trad-hunting is preferable in terms of the panorama of killing and eating.

    Thirdly, and this isn't a counter argument, just an observation - just because an animal's life in the wild is the way that species existed for millennia previously doesn't automatically mean it is the most pleasurable existence. It makes it natural, but nature is brutal and unforgiving. Of course, this is not a defence for zoos or farming methods - we are not smart enough to provide ourselves with non-damaging environments for our minds and bodies, let alone other species we cannot communicate with or understand.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by you View Post
    I took hunting to imply a stressful demise for an animal. So, in that regard, I thought hunting would be worse than 'humanely slaughtered' (which for some reason makes me think of respectable alcohol stupors lol) animals.

    Re. efficiency - I'm not sure it is the root cause. That seems too simple. I'm wary of accepting that greater efficiency automatically means greater suffering. Hunting (let's think about venison farming as an example) takes a lot of 'man' power - which needs to be fed. So, surely avoiding the heavy labour of trad-hunting is preferable in terms of the panorama of killing and eating.

    Thirdly, and this isn't a counter argument, just an observation - just because an animal's life in the wild is the way that species existed for millennia previously doesn't automatically mean it is the most pleasurable existence. It makes it natural, but nature is brutal and unforgiving. Of course, this is not a defence for zoos or farming methods - we are not smart enough to provide ourselves with non-damaging environments for our minds and bodies, let alone other species we cannot communicate with or understand.
    Iam from Austria and here hunting is possibly very different from the UK, I don't know how hunting is being done there. But here, you need to go to a sort-of school to finish a course, take a test and pass it to get a hunting-licence. And hunting here is done in a way that seems in fact not stressful to the animal at all, meaning usually animals, for instnace wild boars, are being killed by hunters using precision hunting guns from a distance. Which brings me to the next point: industrialized agriculture has distorted "nature" to the extent it "produces" wild animals, like said wild boars via extensive corn farming, those wild boars become a danger to both the corn and sometimes people like hikers. In such cases, hunting even has "positive" environmental effects.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    960

    Default

    Fun Fact: The Bible, especially the Old Testament, includes several references regarding veganism.
    Last edited by firefinga; 26-04-2018 at 10:09 AM.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to firefinga For This Useful Post:


  16. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    North East London
    Posts
    5,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by you View Post
    This sliding scale of consciousness.... to double-down on my previous point: Isn't the question of consciousness a loaded human premise? Just because a human and a daisy exist in the world with differing levels of biological reaction does not grant an ethical double standard does it? If you were to follow this line you'd veer towards a horrid position of ethics - rights based on observable reactions that match one's own - i.e. 'If they cannot write and orate in the same way as I they shouldn't have the same rights like I.'

    I realise I'm flipping from thin to thick ends the wedge. But it's only to illustrate the question I'm posing.
    I am a human.

    I think the capacity of a species, in general, to suffer pain is more relevant here than the ability to write.

    Although I would definitely argue that if there are plants which can write, we should not eat them.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to john eden For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •