Rafael David Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Slizz, with your experience do you believe that the human beings in a future not so distant will be vegetarians? I mean, everything both in science and moral tend to progress, not always together, but with the science that we have today looks like we don't need KILL these animals for food anymore. I mean, only with the milk and we will be guaranteed our protein (whey) and multivitamins would solve our possible vitamin deficiencies. This is all speculation, but I think is possible and this way will have much less impact in nature than the actual form of feed, because you also proved that it is possible to be healthy that way. And for the record: many of the great thinkers of humanity believed it too, including Albert Einstein, to name one, for they are many... :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D Nowell Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I sure hope so, then maybe filet will be priced more like london broil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Naterman Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Slizz, with your experience do you believe that the human beings in a future not so distant will be vegetarians? I mean, everything both in science and moral tend to progress, not always together, but with the science that we have today looks like we don't need KILL these animals for food anymore. I mean, only with the milk and we will be guaranteed our protein (whey) and multivitamins would solve our possible vitamin deficiencies. This is all speculation, but I think is possible and this way will have much less impact in nature than the actual form of feed, because you also proved that it is possible to be healthy that way. And for the record: many of the great thinkers of humanity believed it too, including Albert Einstein, to name one, for they are many... :|I hope not. As awesome as science is, war and violence can erase it and we will be left with what nature provides. I think it's important to take advantage of what science gives us without losing sight of what we can do with primitive nutrition as well. Besides, I love meat. I don't eat it all that often because it's expensive, but man it tastes great. I wish that our animals were raised with a natural diet, that would be way healthier, but I don't think it is wise to lose the habit of sometimes killing for food. Death at the hands of another or another's death at our hands, be it an animal or plant or person, is sometimes a part of life and to lose that awareness is to lose the ability to maintain what I believe is a truly balanced mindset. Of course it's fair to argue that since, by and large, we are not the ones killing and preparing our personal shares of beef or chicken or whatever that this mindset is already lost, and perhaps partially explains why so many people are blind to the fundamental realities of existence in an imperfect world full of imperfect creatures.This is the beginning of a philosophical discussion without an end or a right or a wrong, and if you want it to continue please copy this post and paste it into a new thread in the Community forum. It would probably be a fun discussion as long as no one takes anything personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael David Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 I hope not. As awesome as science is, war and violence can erase it and we will be left with what nature provides.That would be the worst case, which obviously would result in a necessity, which is quite different from the current senario, therefore superfluous and unnecessary killing to eat.Death at the hands of another or another's death at our hands, be it an animal or plant or person, is sometimes a part of life and to lose that awareness is to lose the ability to maintain what I believe is a truly balanced mindset.What?! This is not balance, it is the predominance of the body on spirit, predominance of the wild on civility. Nobody has the right to take the life of anyone, man or animal, except as self-defense and when there is no other way to defend (people) and when there is no way to nurture (animals). About plants, they have life, but are not sentient, do not suffer or think, which would give us the right to seize more of them than animal blood.Of course it's fair to argue that since, by and large, we are not the ones killing and preparing our personal shares of beef or chicken or whatever that this mindset is already lost, and perhaps partially explains why so many people are blind to the fundamental realities of existence in an imperfect world full of imperfect creatures.Since humanity is in this world is marching for a moral and intellectual progress, call it evolution, if you will, just understand that these imperfect beings have already been more imperfect in the past (both physical, intellectual and moral), which implies an improvement. However, how evolve if we eat as the infancy of mankind? This is not progress, it is retrogress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarun Suri Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 What?! This is not balance, it is the predominance of the body on spirit, predominance of the wild on civility. Nobody has the right to take the life of anyone, man or animal, except as self-defense and when there is no other way to defend (people) and when there is no way to nurture (animals). About plants, they have life, but are not sentient, do not suffer or think, which would give us the right to seize more of them than animal blood.Don't you find it a little bit convenient, or rather contradictory, that when we shouldn't have any right whatsoever to kill unless in mortal peril, that this argument goes out the window when it comes to plants? Go back to the root of this argument. Why should no one have the right to kill? Is it the pain induced that reinforces this statement or rather, is it the act of taking a way a life, to prevent its time to bloom live out its possibilities to continue and interact with nature and continue to produce offsprings offsprings.It's always been a debate as to when someone is considered alive. Is it when they are born, is it when they have a heartbeat, is it when they are conceived? Regardless, of when this happens, abortions happen after "life" is created. And by some's definition, some may consider the after day pill to do the same. I only bring this up to say that this act of abortion or prevention is similar to that of "killing" plants or eating their fruits without thought of their offsprings, the seeds. You prevent life from continuing and impacting nature. Sentient or not, this should not affect the rational IMO.And if the argument was to not induce pain, it needs to be reminded that death need not be painful. And although off-topic, they do say that some things are worse than death. I haven't considered a third reason for killing though.I personally see the future of humanity going towards vegetarianism as a regression. Besides the fact that the planet's capacity would not be able to accommodate the daily needs of over six billion people, I think humans should not lose sight of how they belong in the balance of nature, and how their actions affect it. It's easy for me to say right now, since I have never killed in order to eat, but it is something that I will one day go through with. I think everyone that eats meat should at least once kill an animal to not lose sight of how one gets their food, to earn a respect for the process, and to not take for granted the current lifestyle we live in. My optimistic side hopes that the future of humanity lies is the decline of overconsumption, rather than the rise of vegetarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael David Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Don't you find it a little bit convenient, or rather contradictory, that when we shouldn't have any right whatsoever to kill unless in mortal peril, that this argument goes out the window when it comes to plants? Go back to the root of this argument. Why should no one have the right to kill? Is it the pain induced that reinforces this statement or rather, is it the act of taking a way a life, to prevent its time to bloom live out its possibilities to continue and interact with nature and continue to produce offsprings offsprings."THEY ARE NOT SENTIENT, DO NOT SUFFER OR THINK" Understand as if they were objects, things, like a clock, a shoe, a broom, but they still have life. You do not eat a book if nourished and had a tolerable taste? The difference is that these objects were created for us and the plants are were create by God, so plants have another role in nature.It's always been a debate as to when someone is considered alive. Is it when they are born, is it when they have a heartbeat, is it when they are conceived? Regardless, of when this happens, abortions happen after "life" is created. And by some's definition, some may consider the after day pill to do the same. I only bring this up to say that this act of abortion or prevention is similar to that of "killing" plants or eating their fruits without thought of their offsprings, the seeds. You prevent life from continuing and impacting nature. Sentient or not, this should not affect the rational IMO.Life begins long before the birth, the heart beat and conception. You can not understand this because you do not understand a life beyond the material life, beyond the physical body and beyond the senses that is exposed in this world, so it would waste my time and your treat on it. Because you do not understand, you put the same level the life of a human and the life of a plant, saying that abortion is similar to eating plants, which is an unprecedented irrationality. I personally see the future of humanity going towards vegetarianism as a regression.Ok, Einstein. Besides the fact that the planet's capacity would not be able to accommodate the daily needs of over six billion people,Who says that the planet can not accommodate human populace? How did you come to this conclusion? Who are you? God? :roll: I think humans should not lose sight of how they belong in the balance of nature, and how their actions affect it. Sure, I agree. BUT, we lost this consciousness from the moment when kill to eat when we no longer need, when we cleared forests unnecessarily, when we produce out of necessity, when we pollute unnecessarily, when we extracted without necessity, when we buying out of necessity, and here it goes ... The problem is that for many, the words superfluous and unnecessary still hurt much the ego and attachment to material goods. I think everyone that eats meat should at least once kill an animal to not lose sight of how one gets their food, to earn a respect for the process, and to not take for granted the current lifestyle we live in. ''TO EARN RESPECT FOR THE PROCESS''?! Let me show you the process: Show it for your son if you have, show that for a child and see his reaction... Explains to him that is what he eats and see the tacit rejection...Ah, and if everyone that eats meat should at least once kill an animal to not lose sight of how one gets their food, start with your dog if you have! What? You can't? Why?! Dogs are more noble than cows? Why? In India cows are divinity (not actually wrong) and in China they eat dogs. So start with your pet! Is meat too, right? Is protein too, right? Jesus Christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarun Suri Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Mikael, I have a lot to contribute. You assume things about me that are incorrect. It's sad to jump to conclusions when I only posted once in goal of finding out what was the root cause for thinking in this manner, which you haven't addressed yet. I would love to continue this conversation, because it's interesting to hear different perspectives on a topic that has been established from the start as one with no definite conclusion. But I have no interest to do so, if for some reason you take personal offence at my comments (apologies if I appeared aggressive in my first post). I'd rather keep peace on this thread to be honest.EDIT: And I going to forget that most of your reply was basically mocking me Surely we can be more civilized than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quick Start Test Smith Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Dear Mikael, why should humans not eat other animals? That's the way nature works! Animals eat animals to stay alive... Why is it wrong for a human, who is the king of animals, to eat animals? Other animals eat animals... it's one of the most natural things in the world.True, it would be nice to not have to kill animals to eat meat, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have to. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. In this world, things have to die so other things can live. It's sometimes saddening, but it's just the way our imperfect world works.The reason why most of the world doesn't eat or raise dogs for meat is because the cost of raising a dog for eating is simply too high and inefficient. Cattle, fish, buffalo, and other such creatures are different. I would like to mention that some parts of the world do eat dogs for meat, but I don't think it's used as a primary meat source and only in more poor countries (afaik).The world isn't perfect. Good people suffer while evil people rule. Good people starve while evil people gorge... Some animals must die so other animals can live... it's an imperfect world. If you are religious and believe in life after death (I am and do), then at least you will know why our world is imperfect as well as have something better to look forward to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael David Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Dear Mikael, why should humans not eat other animals? That's the way nature works! Animals eat animals to stay alive... Why is it wrong for a human, who is the king of animals, to eat animals? Other animals eat animals... it's one of the most natural things in the world.So you is the same thing that a shark? A lion? A predator? So come back to the jungle. But no, you are a HUMAN. You compare a human with an animal, which only reacts by instinct. Do you think the jaguars living in the Amazon (the few currently) are discussing about deforestation or extinction? So what's the most obvious difference between us and them? Okay, I guess now you know. :roll: True, it would be nice to not have to kill animals to eat meat, and in a perfect world we wouldn't have to. Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. In this world, things have to die so other things can live. It's sometimes saddening, but it's just the way our imperfect world works.Who said that this world is perfect? No one said it. This is what I said: "Since humanity is in this world is marching for a moral and intellectual progress, call it evolution, if you will, just understand that these imperfect beings have already been more imperfect in the past (both physical, intellectual and moral), which implies an improvement."The reason why most of the world doesn't eat or raise dogs for meat is because the cost of raising a dog for eating is simply too high and inefficient.So eat a dog is fine to you? Because it is expensive you do not eat? So your case is serious.Cattle, fish, buffalo, and other such creatures are different.Are they different?! Then you categorize living things at a price that is given to them?! They are priceless! And the whales and dolphins?! You can eat?! Japanese eat! Do you approve?! If not, why not? Something say to you that is wrong... If not, I can't do nothing for you...The world isn't perfect. Good people suffer while evil people rule. Good people starve while evil people gorge...Not so, economic class does not define who is good and who's bad. Ethical and moral values ​​are independent of class. Do not fall into this mistake again.If you are religious and believe in life after death (I am and do), then at least you will know why our world is imperfect as well as have something better to look forward to.You do not like me. If you were like me, do not say these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael David Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 And just to record: this title is wrong. Vegetarianism would be a consequence of evolution, not a way as suggested by the title, but an end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Stelling Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Ah, and if everyone that eats meat should at least once kill an animal to not lose sight of how one gets their food, start with your dog if you have! What? You can't? Why?! Dogs are more noble than cows? Why? In India cows are divinity (not actually wrong) and in China they eat dogs. So start with your pet! Is meat too, right? Is protein too, right? Jesus Christ...Mikael, really? I don't eat my dog because I don't have to!!!!! I am fortunate enough to not have to kill my pet to survive. If it was a survival issue, well you gotta do what you gotta do. It's not that they are more noble than cows, we just have relationships with them. That's like telling a lion to eat it's cub when there is a gazelle in front of it!!!!! What on God's Earth was your point with this ridiculous statement? Get stranded on an island alone for a month with no food and tell me you wouldn't spear a fish that swims by???? That was Randomhavoc's point. We respect life and should not take for granted the animal lives that are lost to provide us the food that we can so easily obtain. This is why I HATE discussions with vegetarians on these types of issues; no matter how much you say it won't be personal, everything turns personal with yall. I used to date a vegan and she did nothing but give me crap and I never gave her crap because what you eat is your business.Butcher factories and slaughter houses are awful, I agree, but I have to eat, and it's either they kill them or I do. But most importantly, I am lost has to why getting rid of eating animals makes our race progress??? Raising animals to eat destroys just as much forest as farming vegetables. The production and distribution of vegetables uses just as much fuel, if not more than that of meat production. Your arguement seems to be purely based on emotions and not even relevant to the title, in which case no amount of facts or discussion will sway your thoughts. You don't like meat and a lot of us do. Can't we all be happy with that and do what makes us happy? Let's all eat whatever and train gymnastics!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Dano Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 And just to record: this title is wrong. Vegetarianism would be a consequence of evolution, not a way as suggested by the title, but an end.Slizz kindly requested you to start a new topic. I don't want to get involved with this kind of discussion, knowing exactly where it leads. I did my best to title it and move it.I will say that if all parties are able to remain polite, and civil the thread will remain open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael David Posted September 1, 2011 Author Share Posted September 1, 2011 Mikael, really? I don't eat my dog because I don't have to!!!!! I am fortunate enough to not have to kill my pet to survive. If it was a survival issue, well you gotta do what you gotta do. It's not that they are more noble than cows, we just have relationships with them. That's exactly what I was saying genius. You need a picture? And to correct you: we have a relationship with all living beings of this world, we are part of the whole as well as them. We not NEED kill anymore to survive (even your dog). :roll: That's like telling a lion to eat it's cub when there is a gazelle in front of it!!!!!1.You can not "tell" absolutely nothing for a lion.2.Who says they do not eat their cubs? Even dogs eat their cubs, bears eat too, etc...3. Again, as this absurd example, if we have our gazelle (whey protein), why eat other thing unnecessarily (the cub), only milk is sufficient.Get stranded on an island alone for a month with no food and tell me you wouldn't spear a fish that swims by????Dude, read the post first before make a comment. :roll: I said that all right in this case, it is a state of NECESSITY. But these cases are not as common and I doubt you go to the supermarket with a spear. Raising animals to eat destroys just as much forest as farming vegetables. The production and distribution of vegetables uses just as much fuel, if not more than that of meat production.Arguably, the production of meat is harmful to the environment than the production of vegetables. Just go do a little research.But most importantly, I am lost has to why getting rid of eating animals makes our race progress???Genius, read the posts."And just to record: this title is wrong. Vegetarianism would be a consequence of evolution, not a way as suggested by the title, but an end." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cole Dano Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Mikeal - insulting remarks are not tolerated here, they are particularly ironic in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts