Why kill animals unnecessarily?

Well said, OP. We can reason past this, so why don't we. Why even kill a fly? I think it's a test of our humanity : do we kill the "unneeded" creatures we encounter in our lives, or let them live. It says a lot about a person to me.

Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less understanding, by experience; the most ignorant, by necessity; the beasts, by nature.

Marcus Tullius Cicero

That being said, mosquitoes and other unreasoning parasites are still fair game!

reply to post by ABNARTY
Regarding making every sentient being's life joyful, it is indeed a lofty and probably unattainable goal. But shouldn't we at least aim high in our goals for the world? We may not know for certain what joy would be for a given animal, but we can use our best-informed judgment to do things we think would yield joy (as we do with our pets), and that would be a vast improvement over what we currently do.

I have seen the book you referenced and plan to read it. If the author's point is that veganism is not healthy because we did not evolve to it, we can still choose the option of near-vegetarianism and eat the bare minimum of meat.

reply to post by Jenna


As to this regarding carnivore "facts" ...

Man can't survive on roughage alone.

One of my favourite naturalist authors takes (at 18+ years a vegetarian, I'm also living proof of )

One farmer says to me, "You cannot live on vegetable food solely, for it furnishes nothing to make the bones with;" and so he religiously devotes a part of his day to supplying himself with the raw material of bones; walking all the while he talks behind his oxen, which, with vegetable-made bones, jerk him and his lumbering plow along in spite of every obstacle.

~Henry David Thoreau

reply to post by PayMeh
I would prefer pests not be killed, but if they invade your space, you often have no alternative (with today's technology). You do have the right to defend your home territory by the most humane method available. It is a demarcation on a continuum where there may be scope for individual judgment, but if the continuum is 0=kill nothing to 100=kill anything you want, I think we are on opposite sides of 50.

Have I tried to force anything on you? I have just presented an opinion, a world view.

"Don't even post about it" seems contrary to the spirit of free discussion central to ATS. Then you say "If you want to inform us about some aspect of veganism, post away."

reply to post by Aggie Man
I say much hunting is unnecessary, except possibly hunting to control animal populations.

If you received a lifetime supply of free vegetarian food, would you give up meat? Buying meat at a store has little moral difference from hunting it yourself. It is not too far-fetched to imagine a world where everyone has easily-affordable access to vegetarian food.

reply to post by Jumbles


Your thread title was a bit misleading. I feel animals should not be killed unnecessarily, but I had no idea you were going to go on a vegan/vegetarian rant.

To me eating a plant is no different from eating an animal. In my opinion plants are sentient beings and are aware. These things sleep at night, wake in the morning, and follow the sun all day with their leaves. The sun is 93 million miles away... if a tree knows where the sun is each minute of the day... I would say he is alive.

Actually, eating a plant is worse than eating an animal!!! A plant is the most innocent creature on our planet. What did they do to anyone? They gave us clean air, shade, and homes for creatures. They mind their own business and never killed anything to survive. Bugs kill and eat plants and small animals. Animals kill and eat other animals and plants. People kill and eat plants and animals. Plants killed nobody for food. They are the most innocent of them all. It should be a crime to murder such innocent beings!

Are you white?

Jokes aside, I think it is theorized that we have bigger brains because our ancestors ate meat. So if you believe in evolution, meat-eating is what allowed us to take an evolutionary step in the first place.

The reason I kill animals is because I eat them
The reason I eat them is because they taste good.

If we're not supposed to eat animals , then why do we have Incisors , cuspids and bicuspids? We have them for the same reasons we have molars... because we're OMNIVORES!

It's also the same reason 99% of land predators have eyes in front of their faces (Like You) and 99% of prey animals have eyes on the side of their heads.

So unless you have a mouth full of molars and eyes next to your ears, you too are a natural born predator.

Also since you are pushing the "don't eat the tasty animals" agenda , you'd better throw out any leather coats/ shoes or anything else in your closet that came from something that once had a heartbeat.

I'm just sayin...

reply to post by Jumbles


The author's intent with the book is merely to warn folks of the consequences of a poorly planned diet. Indeed, she still supports the ideals of veganism but in a more down to earth way. She does eat some meat now.

Agreed on the goals. Always shoot for that which is the highest road regardless if you get there or not.

I think some folks get upset about this discussion because it is akin to religion or politics. Strong beliefs meet strong beliefs. People go for emotion 9 out of 10 times over pragmatism which makes for a heated non-debate.

reply to post by Jumbles


I was under the impression that "baiting" and "trolling" are against the TOS of the site. This thread is just that. You offer an opinion about a somewhat divided topic with the hopes of a fight. You don't want to eat meat then don't. What is the point of propagandising your ideas and ideals in the hope of getting others to believe the way you do? The person that opposes eating meat is no more "holy" than the person who chooses to eat meat. I have a hard time when people see it fit to be so arrogant as to post their "ideals" as the way the world and people should be. Your post is the prime example as to why people as a whole will not accept peace. You "strongly" disagree with people killing for food, even one of your "followers" posted that people who do so are "scum". Acceptance of the different parts of society is the cornerstone in developing peace around the world. You need not agree with what some one does, but you should accept it. If it does not harm you as a person or any other person then it is not your issue to take up, but it is one for you to accept as a part of humanity. Live and let live, if we take that saying to heart then the hate and anger in the world will dissapear.

reply to post by Sahabi
"Alive" and "able to feel pain through a nervous system" are two different criteria; I guess we draw the line at different points. I would say that doing the minimum amount of harm to plants is also a worthy goal. If your house were burning down would you rescue your innocent geranium over your less-innocent cat? I assume you eat some plant-based food--does it ever bother you?

Please explain to me how my title was misleading. You may not like what I suggest, but I think the topic is clear.

If you agree that animals should not be killed unnecessarily, do you plan to begin (or continue) eating the bare minimum of meat required to live?

reply to post by 547000
I have heard the theory that eating meat allowed us to evolve our brains. I don't know if it's true, but assuming it is, we have made the evolutionary leap. Now we have the means to eat less meat and we no longer have to continue along that path.

reply to post by EyesWideShut
As I said in a previous reply (which you may not have had a chance to read yet), just because we may have evolved as predators does not mean we have to remain predators. We now have the choice to work towards minimizing the amount of predation in the world.

I try to avoid the use of animal-based products whenever possible, and since I became aware of the issues I no longer buy leather products. I still have a couple pairs of leather shoes I am wearing out so they don't go to waste, but they will someday be replaced with plastic shoes. (I never appreciated the comfort of leather until I switched to plastic, but I believe avoiding leather the right thing to do.)

Go calculate how much time and energy would be required just to provide adequete levels of protein on a global scale without the use of animals (milk, eggs, meat).

Now factor in that most of the highest performing vegetables are climate specific, and it's pretty easy to see why we continue to eat animals and their products.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
I reread the ATS Terms and Conditions and I don't believe I am baiting or trolling. Perhaps the moderators can judge that--I certainly wouldn't want to violate debating rules.

I offered an opinion in the hope of a debate, not a fight. All topics worthy of debate are at least somewhat divided. "Propogandising... in the hope of getting others to believe the way you do" is what anybody who makes any point in any debate does.

My argument did not say anything about scum, although a person who happened to agree with me (my "follower"? Are you suggesting I am in collusion with that poster?) used the term.

Tolerance is an important value, but governments exist because not everything can be tolerated. We can't tolerate the murder of people, for instance.

You say that if the issue does not affect me or another person I should live and let live and be silent. The issue affects animals, who cannot speak for their own interests, so I do speak.

reply to post by Jumbles


The animals that are used for food survive to this day because of the people that eat the meat that they provide, not because of people that "speak" for them. More money is put into conservation, study, and repopulation of game animals by the people that hunt them than by all of the other groups combined that stand against hunting. More habitat is rescued and preserved due to hunters financial support than by any other groups effort. By talking bad about people that eat meat and by trying to press an agenda you are in effect killing and harming more animals by altering a child's or someone who does hunt's oppinion of what they do. Some times the ideas that you think are helping can only do the most harm. You see hunters have a deeper love for the animals that they hunt, one that is deeper than the one of those that "speak" for them.

Why draw a distinction between plants and animals just because you are an animal? Are you a plant racist? There have been planty of studies showing that plants are aware of their environment. When you cut a head of lettuce off the vine, how do you know you are not causing pain to the plant by killing it unnecessarily?

Mother Nature is not a benign creature. Animals have been eating each other long before humans came upon the scene. In fact, you could say that's the way it works. There are even some animal eating plants. We all know the arguments for vegertarianism, but the fact is it is a political movement designed to allow its adherants to feel superior over their fellow man.

vegetarians still benefit from people eating animals. Unless they entirely divorce themselves from the social structure and create their own economy, including goods & services, they still live their lives the way they do because other people eat meat.

reply to post by peck420
Animal husbandry uses a huge amount of time and energy that could be diverted to finding ways of feeding the earth without harming so many animals. With today's and tomorrow's technology, farming and distribution networks could adapt to address the challenge. Perhaps if peoples' priorities changed, remote locations to which few plants are adapted would become less populous.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
More hunters conserve, study, and repopulate game animals because hunters are more politically powerful than people who dislike hunting. I question whether habitat preservation occurs more by hunters--could you please enlighten me about those efforts?

You seem to be saying that by opposing hunting I am harming ecological preservation, but ecologies were stable long before humans arrived on the scene.

Let's not compare whose love is stronger. You don't know my feelings and I don't know yours. I find it hard to comprehend a love that kills what it loves.

Actually, eating a plant is worse than eating an animal!!! A plant is the most innocent creature on our planet. What did they do to anyone? They gave us clean air, shade, and homes for creatures. They mind their own business and never killed anything to survive. Bugs kill and eat plants and small animals. Animals kill and eat other animals and plants. People kill and eat plants and animals. Plants killed nobody for food. They are the most innocent of them all. It should be a crime to murder such innocent beings!

Sahabi

This is the most important question to address in this thread so far, not the free choice (obviously no one is hassled), not the diet (fine either way; be smart), not the hunters political gain (who cares). Rather, the moral imperative to do the least damage to others we possibly can, and still survive.

I'll make a further point Sahabi : even nuts are the nucleus of life, that could grow into trees. Fruit contains living cells, which are still committed to stomach acids. So what do we eat?

I think, unless gazing at sunrises and meditative fasting can free us from it, the answer is that nature is provident and generous enough to not begrudge us. Perhaps we could do better on a petri dish, however, and create some really tasty Matrix goop.