Meat consumption and the Libertarian Philosophy

Your post comes off like this, primarily because you're saying in one breath:

"Let's not talk about nutrition because it's contentious. However, I'm going to tell you how you're wrong without doing anything more than deflect criticism while not citing legitimate facts and simultaneously slamming you if you oppose me."

You seem to have allowed your personal emotions to get in the way of my arguments. You don't seem to have understood my point about nutrition. I was very explicit, but let me try again - this thread has NOTHING to do with nutrition, but about philosophy and personal choices.

www.fi.edu...

www.independent.co.uk... -535726.html

www.livescience.com...

You can go on and on. On the meat side: The fact is that there's a whole body of scientific evidence that shows the value of eating meat. On the vegan side: There's a whole lot of blogs which throw around opinion, personal testimonials (interestingly a significant portion also point to needing to go back to animal protein such as eggs), and other non-reputable bodies of evidence.

I'm sorry, but you are simply incorrect. Your links do not support your argument that meat is necessary. If you can point out a specific nutrient essential present in meat, which is not found in any plant, be my guest.

But to help you save time, let me just tell you that you won't find any. That's why I spent so little time on the nutrition aspect, because it's not an issue for biology; it tends to be an argument coming from people lacking a sound foundation in how nutrition works on a chemical scale.

Fact: we are omnivores as a result of evolution - not herbivores. In fact, the herbivore parts of our system are minimally such. Take for instance the almighty cow. The most efficient grass chewing machine on the planet. Flat teeth. Multiple stomachs. Sedentary lifestyle which allows it's manure to help recently chewed grass to grow back to repeat the cycle. Our being omnivores is not some genetic accident. It is not 'more natural' for humans to eat plant matter at the complete exclusion of animal matter. We are designed to eat both and we very efficiently process animal matter. Vegetable matter actually has difficulty processing due to our very simplistic digestive system (compared to traditional herbivores). Our digestive system closely mirrors carnivores, but we ADAPTED to ALLOW vegetables into our diet.

Some people live as carnivores. Some people live as herbivores. Most people live as omnivores. It's a choice of lifestyle. As I pointed out above, we did not adapt to any specific diet, because all adaptation is in the context of optimizing procreation. Any diet adaptations are only relevant to procreation, scientifically speaking.

That said, I have to agree with the previous poster from the libertarian perspective. You're taking the stance that violence against any creature is the same as the non-aggression property in libertarian creedo.

en.wikipedia.org...

Aggression, for the purposes of the NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

Now.. I know this will probably be controversial, but person is referring to humans. Dictating what people can and cannot eat is extremely authoritarian and violates more core libertarian values than I care to mention.

So do as you like with your food, as long as you don't force it on others or cause harm to other humans in the process.

What if I considered you my food? The only thing stopping me would be the law, and my moral compass. See what I mean? Re-read my paragraph about aliens landing, I covered this aspect pretty substantially.

Thanks for the responses.

I believe in freedom just like you, but I just can't give up my need to eat meat. Some things must die so I can live on, hopefully when it comes down to it I will represent those who I have consumed.

At least that's how I think it should be. If I could put down the animal myself I would gladly do so, but that's not the world we live in. I really wish things were different for me and everything else.

Originally posted by RSF77
I believe in freedom just like you, but I just can't give up my need to eat meat. Some things must die so I can live on, hopefully when it comes down to it I will represent those who I have consumed.

At least that's how I think it should be.

How does eating someone accurately represent them or their interests?

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

Dairy cows are loaded with genetically modified hormones from birth to death, and you drink those GMO hormones with every glass.

If there's some point in your comment, I didn't catch it. Vegans are far less likely to consume GMO products simply because they tend to be picky eaters and picky shoppers, and are generally health freaks. Either way, this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic.

reply to post by Son of Will


I don't think it's really a question of something's interest when you intend to eat it. Maybe more so that you give it a decent life while it's alive, that is what has been lost.

As far as me representing that organism, you could probably consider that part of my native American ancestry. I am more capable of making change in the world than a pig, so if I eat the pig I am responsible for making it's kin more comfortable in life. Understand?

I have to eat the pig, but just maybe I can make life better for next one, or the next human or animal all the same. It's personal responsibility even though it seems to be lacking in the world today. In a nutshell, have respect for what you consume because it becomes you.

And what does this have to do with any libertarian philosophy? Seems like you're grasping at straws to try and discredit it. A vegan diet really has nothing to do with politics unless you try and make it so.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by Son of Will

 

I don't think it's really a question of something's interest when you intend to eat it. Maybe more so that you give it a decent life while it's alive, that is what has been lost.

As far as me representing that organism, you could probably consider that part of my native American ancestry. I am more capable of making change in the world than a pig, so if I eat the pig I am responsible for making it's kin more comfortable in life. Understand?

The intention to eat something is, in a way, the point of this thread. You're still eating the animal and robbing it of its chance to live and prosper, and this is where the conflict with the non-aggression principle comes in.

I have to eat the pig, but just maybe I can make life better for next one, or the next human or animal all the same. It's personal responsibility even though it seems to be lacking in the world today. In a nutshell, have respect for what you consume because it becomes you.

Keeping a pig locked on a farm its entire life is not exactly a life it would choose for itself. Being conditioned since birth to remain there, it would probably not leave if given the chance, but such is behavioral conditioning. Humans are just as susceptible to such things. Either way, you are arguing from a stand point that certain species of sentient life are less important than others. Where does one draw the line then? Chimpanzees? You're basically arguing for an intelligence factor, which I briefly covered.

And a great deal of my OP focused on why we "don't" have to eat the pig, and how it ultimately comes down to a personal choice to do so.

And what does this have to do with any libertarian philosophy? Seems like you're grasping at straws to try and discredit it. A vegan diet really has nothing to do with politics unless you try and make it so.

edit on 12-7-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

Wait up here, did you think through what you just wrote? We're talking about philosophy here, not politics. Nowhere in the OP did I even mention politics. The Libertarian philosophy *can* be applied to politics, and these days that is often the context in which it appears. But as I mentioned in the beginning of the OP, the Libertarian philosophy is about taking personal responsibility for one's life, and not infringing upon the lives of others with physical violence.

Hopefully you can see how this is *completely* relevant to a vegan lifestyle.

Cheers.

reply to post by Son of Will


For the record, even commercialized and practically inbred pigs try to escape all the time - it is their nature and instinct to run away and hide. They love to range because they are natural foragers. I like pigs, they're funny.

I want to be a farmer. I raised farm animals when I was a kid, and remember the first time I ever saw a cow being butchered. And, to be honest, it is extremely unpleasant to hear a pig screaming before being butchered. However, there are humane ways to kill animals, and that is what I will do when I choose to raise animals for meat.

It is very simple to maintain a sustainable system for egg and milk harvesting.

For eggs: have more hens than roosters, harvest 3/4 of eggs before fertilization, allow the other 1/4 to be fertilized and bring the next generation of chickens.

For milk: only harvest milk from cows with unweaned calves. When the calves wean, the cow will begin oestrus and likely become pregnant by bulls who live in the herd - after she gives birth, her milk can again be harvested. The calves, then (male and female), can grow and mature and procreate and milk can be harvested from the subsequent lactating mothers.

I can live a vegetarian lifestyle very easily (and have done so), because I don't crave meat or meat byproducts. I still eat meat if I feel like eating meat; for me it's not a philosophical choice, but a biological one. Usually if I am craving meat, it is because I am missing some nutrient.

I agree with RSF77 in that there is no aggression on my part when eating meat or plants. I respect that animal or plant who died so that I might live. I thank that animal or plant who died that I might live. I make sure that I actually Live, that the animals and plants I have consumed did not die in vain.

You have stated that it is aggression, in your opinion, to take away another sentient being's chance to prosper.

What do you consider sentient?

Sentience, to me, is when one is able to think about experiences subjectively.

The reason most of us don't picture the majority of animals as sentient is that most animals do not have brains capable of thinking of experiences subjectively.

The smaller the animal's brain in proportion to its body, the less likely it is to be sentient. This is not to say that all large animals are capable of sentience: an elephant is self-aware and operates on thought and emotion, but a horse has a very small brain and is not self-aware, operating on instinct.

Where is the line drawn?

Originally posted by ottobot

The smaller the animal's brain in proportion to its body, the less likely it is to be sentient. This is not to say that all large animals are capable of sentience: an elephant is self-aware and operates on thought and emotion, but a horse has a very small brain and is not self-aware, operating on instinct.

I thought I'd explain this paragraph in more detail:

By "self-aware" I mean "capable of thinking about oneself in a subjective manner", not "aware of self's placement in environment".

Elephants understand that they are not one and the same as other animals, but they also understand that their actions affect the lives of other animals. This is why we see elephants burying their dead, or saving their young from drowning, or crying when one of their family members is injured. Elephants can see how major events will affect their lives, and react to them with more than just instinct.

Horses understand that they are not one and the same as other animals, but they only understand their environment as a positive or negative. They know how to do those things which their species has evolved to know in instinctual memory. They can learn how to perform tasks, they can learn cues to respond to humans. They can think in the sense that they can solve problems, but they can't think, "Why do I need to solve this problem?" Horses understand that a major event has caused change, but do not understand potential effects in their lives. They grasp only that something is different, and will react with either fear or curiosity.

This is how I differentiate between sentient and non-sentient.

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

Dairy cows are loaded with genetically modified hormones from birth to death, and you drink those GMO hormones with every glass.

If there's some point in your comment, I didn't catch it. Vegans are far less likely to consume GMO products simply because they tend to be picky eaters and picky shoppers, and are generally health freaks. Either way, this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic.

For us in modern cultures, those sacrifices are minimal. They revolve around changing which parts of the supermarket we shop at, and not much else.

these are your words im responding to when i say

and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

if your gonna start a propaganda thread do it diligently and not half @$$ not even remembering your own posts.

and by the way does a species that communicates not show some forms of intelligence?

io9.com...

and

inhabitat.com...

and

africascience.blogspot.com...

and

i cant find the article, but read in a hard copy the other day that stated a species of African plants that grow together have root connections over miles and miles of territory, when the grazer come through to eat, they are not toxic and are completely edible to grazers by the time the remaining 3rd of the plants are left that remaining third creates a toxin not previously produced. These plants didn't want to die and fought back, but also respects its part in the food chain. it wont allow itself to go extinct but will provide food to grazers who fertilize and spread there seed. interestingly enough the toxin can actually kill some grazers leaving random dead animals for scavengers to feed on, killing and eating is natural and is necessary for all life to thrive, but to keep on topic is a species that communicates not intelligent? please answer me this.

Originally posted by DocHolidaze

Originally posted by Son of Will

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

Dairy cows are loaded with genetically modified hormones from birth to death, and you drink those GMO hormones with every glass.

If there's some point in your comment, I didn't catch it. Vegans are far less likely to consume GMO products simply because they tend to be picky eaters and picky shoppers, and are generally health freaks. Either way, this has NOTHING to do with the thread topic.

For us in modern cultures, those sacrifices are minimal. They revolve around changing which parts of the supermarket we shop at, and not much else.

these are your words im responding to when i say

and i would rather eat wild caught salmon jerky hering eggs and venicin before i eat the gmo foods u buy at the grocery store.

if your gonna start a propaganda thread do it diligently and not half @$$ not even remembering your own posts.

You never made a point, this comment was totally irrelevant in the first place. That's why it didn't get a response.

And I don't think you even understand what "propaganda" means. This is a philosophy thread, and I'm stating an opinion. Your inability to read without letting your emotions utterly derange your logic is not my problem, and to be honest I'm surprised that a mod hasn't gone through your inflammatory posts.

and by the way does a species that communicates not show some forms of intelligence?

io9.com...

and

inhabitat.com...

and

africascience.blogspot.com...

and

i cant find the article, but read in a hard copy the other day that stated a species of African plants that grow together have root connections over miles and miles of territory, when the grazer come through to eat, they are not toxic and are completely edible to grazers by the time the remaining 3rd of the plants are left that remaining third creates a toxin not previously produced. These plants didn't want to die and fought back, but also respects its part in the food chain. it wont allow itself to go extinct but will provide food to grazers who fertilize and spread there seed. interestingly enough the toxin can actually kill some grazers leaving random dead animals for scavengers to feed on, killing and eating is natural and is necessary for all life to thrive, but to keep on topic is a species that communicates not intelligent? please answer me this.

edit on 12-7-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

Thanks for finally contributing something to the thread. Very good points. However when scientists say that "plants communicate with each other", these can be reduced to chemical interactions which are entirely understood. Cut a vein on a plant, and a cascading series of chemical processes take place, and even though it might seem to an aware human that the plant "wanted" to escape danger, there was never any conscious decision to do so. We understand how these systems work to a very fine detail.

Sentient creatures who can make decisions, feel love, hate, pain, pleasure, is an entirely different story. We can choose our course through life - unconscious plants simply react to their environments. I don't think there is any comparison relevant to the non-aggression principle.

Originally posted by ottobot

Originally posted by ottobot

The smaller the animal's brain in proportion to its body, the less likely it is to be sentient. This is not to say that all large animals are capable of sentience: an elephant is self-aware and operates on thought and emotion, but a horse has a very small brain and is not self-aware, operating on instinct.

I thought I'd explain this paragraph in more detail:

By "self-aware" I mean "capable of thinking about oneself in a subjective manner", not "aware of self's placement in environment".

Elephants understand that they are not one and the same as other animals, but they also understand that their actions affect the lives of other animals. This is why we see elephants burying their dead, or saving their young from drowning, or crying when one of their family members is injured. Elephants can see how major events will affect their lives, and react to them with more than just instinct.

Horses understand that they are not one and the same as other animals, but they only understand their environment as a positive or negative. They know how to do those things which their species has evolved to know in instinctual memory. They can learn how to perform tasks, they can learn cues to respond to humans. They can think in the sense that they can solve problems, but they can't think, "Why do I need to solve this problem?" Horses understand that a major event has caused change, but do not understand potential effects in their lives. They grasp only that something is different, and will react with either fear or curiosity.

This is how I differentiate between sentient and non-sentient.

edit on 7/12/2012 by ottobot because: (no reason given)

That's a very important point you raise - where do we draw the line between sentient and non-sentient? As you say, we can compare brain size to body size to get a rough idea. From my understanding, the size of the brain is not always proportional to its complexity - so this scaling approach you mention has some limitations.

I've read a bunch of articles on how certain brain structures are pivotal in various aspects of consciousness, but it's all a big mess inside my head. If "awareness" can be conclusively shown to exist in some species and not others, then that would be a very important distinction to draw. I would then agree with you that consuming meat below this line is not violating the non-aggression principle.

Then again, some people might have a different concept of what "non-aggression" means. From following the responses to this thread and considering everyone's input, I'm personally comfortable with the above two paragraphs.

reply to post by Son of Will


Well, with the brain/body ratio it's actually one specific part of the brain that is being measured. If the size of the cognitive area of the brain is small, the animal is not capable of higher thought processes. Also, the number of "folds" a brain has, the smarter the being.

So, let's look at some brains!

Elephant - very complex brain, very large frontal lobe:


Human - frontal lobe is quite large, this is where our cognitive functions take place:


Horse - cerebrum is where cognitive functions take place, no frontal lobe. This image illustrates the size of a horse's cerebrum (part of the brain they use for thought, tan colored area here) compared to its head and a walnut -



Dog - consciousness is in the cerebral cortex, some folds:


Cat - consciousness in the cerebral cortex, few folds:

reply to post by Son of Will



so what about the

Sentient creatures

that eat meat, after your done with humans are you going to spread your propaganda to the animals as well? if you do happen to get your point across, you realize our whole ecosystem would collapse and not only would humans perish but animals also. why do

Sentient creatures

get to follow there instincts, but we cant. it seems that your "philosophy" gives animals complete freedom to animals, but restricts human freedom, is that what libertarian philosophy all about? if so, i pass as well as most of the human race.

reply to post by ottobot


Sorry for taking so long to respond, I've been away from home and absurdly busy.

That's very interesting stuff! Although, it is undebatable that there is some degree of consciousness going on in all of those creatures. Even insects seem to show signs of intelligence - granted, it only seems to manifest when looking at groups, swarms, colonies, and not individuals.

I was having this exact debate with my brother during my time away. My argument came down to this - basically, since there's no reliable way to measure something so poorly understood as consciousness, there is no good evidence that other animal life forms are somehow fundamentally different or less capable of awareness. (My brother countered with an argument that not even humans possess free will, and are just more complex versions of lower animals. The debate stopped there.)

Thanks for posting =)

Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by Son of Will

 

so what about the

Sentient creatures

that eat meat, after your done with humans are you going to spread your propaganda to the animals as well? if you do happen to get your point across, you realize our whole ecosystem would collapse and not only would humans perish but animals also. why do

That's right, if people stopped consuming meat, the forests would all burn down from hippie drum circles littering still-lit joints, the oceans would all become polluted with fish crap because people stopped eating fish, and lines at Whole Foods Market would stretch so far back that entire city districts would have to be shut down. Total chaos!

Sentient creatures

get to follow there instincts, but we cant. it seems that your "philosophy" gives animals complete freedom to animals, but restricts human freedom, is that what libertarian philosophy all about? if so, i pass as well as most of the human race.

edit on 13-7-2012 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

Learned behavior and habits have nothing to do with instinct. That's why children naturally show affection to their stuffed animals. THAT is the result of instinct. Their parents feeding them grilled sirloin at dinner is learned behavior.

Libertarianism is about allowing others to live in peace. Veganism is the same thing. This is the future. It might take 100 years, maybe 1000, but minimizing our footprints on the planet necessarily includes minimizing aggression and pollution. Consuming meat constitutes both.

Cheers