Could veggie burgers increase your lifespan? Many experts insist that switching to a vegetarian lifestyle can greatly increase overall health, leading some to ditch their pork rinds like an old smoking habit. Still others swear by an omnivorous diet, saying that occasional New York steak never hurt anyone. Is a fresh helping of tofu just what the doctor ordered, or only a lot of empty calories?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
When we see a bird, we do not salivate
Speak for yourself!
I don't know about you, but I look at a good steer and think steak, I see a healthy dairy cow and I think about milk, butter, cheese, yoghurt, and ice cream. I see pig and I think bacon, I see turkey and I think Thanksgiving. If animals were not meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made out of meat, and the human body would not require nutrients that can only be found in their flesh.
- richardsonkr
January 24, 2009 11:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am sorry you have lost empathy
When you see birds in flight, do you not feel their joy? Do you only think of their flesh? If so, that is too bad. You have become disconnected.
When a nest with baby robins falls down, do you feel sympathy for the family or do you think "Oh good, now I can eat them."
When you see a dog, do you think "steak?"
When you see a weak, lost dog, belonging to no one, do you think "easy steak?"
I volunteer at a farmed animal sanctuary, and the vast majority of people who visit - most of whom are meat-eaters, and including the families who are on a county-wide "farm tour" and not exclusively going to the sanctuary - feel affinity toward the animals as they get to know them individually, as they see their personalities and their dignity, and witness their joy of life, at accomplishing tasks, at partaking in lasting friendships.
I see this especially in children, but also in most adults. Perhaps at the sanctuary, meeting the animals, it is safe for adults, especially men, to express some empathy and kind sentiments toward the animals.
Children naturally think of animals as friends. Their stories, their movies, their toys strongly reflect this attachment. But since our society is vested in exploiting animals, we basically lie to children about the torment and harm we cause to animals in the process of making them food and other products. We also lie to ourselves, and we teach our children to gradually get used to animals being exploited, and to not think about their misery in factory farms, or the one-day old calf on a dairy farm being stolen from his mother (standard practice), or the frantic "breeding turkey" struggling as two men hold her down to inject semen into her vagina. We block out the horrors of still-bleeding pigs thrashing in tanks of hot water in slaughterhouses until they drown; we inure ourselves to the suffering of farmed animals' pain, we get hooked on feasting on the products of exploitation and torture.
But this can be un-done. We have consciences that allow us to feel bad about inflicting avoidable harm on fellow sentient beings. We have the capacity to feel compassion, to not want to hurt others if that can be avoided. We have brains and inventiveness that allow us to produce b-12 supplements that don't require violence. (Do note that many meat-eaters also have b-12 deficiencies.) We have the brains to realize that vegans as a group tend to be healthy as long as they follow some simple guidelines, thus proving that we can do fine without eating animal products.
Yes, animal flesh may taste good. Human flesh might taste good, too. But our morals aren't defined by what tastes good. They are based on universal principles: The golden rule, showing kindness, being humble and unselfish. When we follow these basic maxims and extend compassion as widely as possible, we feed our souls with needed nutrients: empathy, friendship, and connectedness with nature and all living beings.
- garyl
January 25, 2009 2:05PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your reactions to certain animals may be conditioned, not innate
If I may add just a bit more to my response.
Of my many friends and relatives who eat animal products, none - unless perhaps acting out of bravado or trying to provoke me - has seriously looked at a dairy cow close up, in the eye, and thought "ice cream." I doubt that in such a situation, their, or your, salivary glands would start to produce saliva and that they, or you, would get hunger pangs. They may be more likely to pet the cow if she were friendly.
None have indicated any desire to suck on the cow's teats and ingest the warm mammary fluid that comes out. I doubt that any would want to shove the mother's calf aside so they could have a drink. Furthermore, in nature, they probably wouldn't be able to do that even if they wanted to - a protective bull would be standing guard. Also, in nature, a cow would have her first calf around four years old, rather than at 18 months, when we first artificially impregnate her, and sde would produce one-fifth or less the amount of milk that we have coaxed out of modern dairy cows through intensive breeding.
When you see a pregnant pig or a dog do you think "yogurt?" It's possible to make yogurt from their milk, too. Human milk, also. I suspect there's been some conditioning that has affected your reactions.
But that can be un-donel and in fact, if guided by compassion and empathy for animals, it is quite easy to think of them in new, non-exploitative ways.
- garyl
January 25, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MY reactions are conditioned?
When primitive man saw a bird in flight, he didn't get a warm feeling in his pants and have flight fantasies. He tried to figure out how to get it down so he could eat it and stay alive. When primitive man saw a fallen nest, he ate the eggs. When he saw a dog, he tamed it, and made it into a hunting companion. When he saw the amount of sustenance a cow could provide her calf, he utilized that sustenance. When he saw goats, pigs, and other animals, he probably did the same with them as well, and there are examples of people using horses in history. Ultimately man found cattle to be best, and also found them easy to keep and raise for meat. Once man had picked out the best animals for agriculture, (mostly cattle, swine, sheep, goats, fowl, etc.) in addition to the best plants, he relied on them, and, when compared to his previous state, he wallowed in plenty, and no longer had to view every animal and plant as potential food. He was able to allow himself the luxury of eating only certain animals, and allowed himself to be conditioned into regarding the others as non-food items. Then, and only then, could he imagine flying with birds, or feel sypathy for a fallen nest. After man had become so successful he could disconnect from the harsh realities of life could he develop empathy. The unfortunate continuation of this, of course, is in the modern world, when food magically arrives at the supermarket in all of its plentiful glory, and most people are totally disconnected to the food that they eat, to the back-breaking labor that went into it, to the blood, sweat, and tears used to make it. Real life is not easy. It is hard, brutal, and bloody. Easy is a fantasy made up by fat people living a nice, cushy life on their nice, cushy sofa in front of the television screen. The fact that these fat, cushy people occassionally get off their fat, sensitive asses and see real animals and treat them like pets is not a demonstration of human nature. It's a demonstration of how far from nature we've gotten. Now shut up and eat your meat.
- richardsonkr
January 26, 2009 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your version of history is wrong and self-serving
Ancient art and stories affirm that early humans felt kinship to the animals and the earth. Many aboriginal peoples eat a mostly vegetarian diet . Little kids will pet a bunny but eat an apple - they instinctively know the difference. To combat discomfort at having to kill a sentient being, humans invented elaborate distancing and rationalizing mechanisms: prayers for the animals, hunting rituals...more recently, myths that we need meat to survive and that farm animals are treated well.
The first "pet" dogs may have been injured wolves rescued and rehabilitated by kind and sympathetic women.
Once man started dominating animals, he became harsher and more distant from nature and his true nature. As man came to control and oppress animals about 10,000 years ago, we see a transition in artwork and ancient writings from respecting a feminine mother earth to a desire to dominate and control. Cattle became property, and so did humans whom men could control ("chattel," "capital," and "cattle" have the same root). Those with the most property exerted power over those with less.
In this country, in the 1880s, cattle ranchers displaced Indians (many of whom had a largely vegetarian diet rich in grains, vegetables, and beans) from their lands, and gradually wiped out vast amounts of native flora and fauna, displaced by the non-native cattle. We developed conditions as described in Sinclair Lewis' "The Jungle." We developed factory farms - concentration camp-like operations in which 10 billion animals a year suffer despair, misery, and deprivation.
You're right - we have grown distant from our food. Most people who drink milk have no idea that we keep dairy cows almost constantly pregnant and steal their babies so we can have all the milk. Hardly anyone who eats eggs realizes that nearly all hens come from hatcheries in which newborn male chicks are summarily killed, usually by suffocation, gassing, or being ground up alive. At the farm sanctuary, people meet grown-up, rescued veal calves for the first time, and see how friendly they are, and it's transformative. My mother saw the intelligence and personalities of chickens, and their sheer delight at being alive, and decided she could no longer eat chicken. She followed her better nature.
When we are kind and respectful, we tend to operate better. When we give peace, we find peace. When we act in accordance with our deepest morals, such as being generous and following the golden rule, we no longer carry the burden of having to deceive ourselves about the avoidable harm we cause. Try a vegan diet with an open mind and optimistic attitude and I can nearly guarantee that you will experience the kinship with other animals that our most ancient ancestors felt. It's a magnificent feeling.
- garyl
January 26, 2009 8:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No arguing with revisionist history.
You can think what you want about history. An informed and discerning audience is going to see the true story. I would advise you to spend a week in the woods with nothing but your hands and your wits and we'll see how long your compassion holds up. Also, find me just one example of an aboriginal culture that is vegetarian, with an independant source to back it up. A vegan group doesn't count. Primitive man didn't revere animals out of compassion, they revered them because that's what kept them alive.
- richardsonkr
January 26, 2009 9:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The question is "What should I do, today?"
If you read anthropology you will see that there are peoples whose diets are mostly plant-based throughout the world. This information is almost too easy find with a few online searches. In our neck of the woods, Indians such as the Choctaw and Cherokee had a largely plant-based diet: many vegetables, grains, legumes, and fruits that we enjoy today were developed by the Indians.
There is such an abundance of expression of pure reverence and kinship with animals, from all times and all places, independent of whether the animals were used for food, that it is pointless to debate whether such evidence exists.
Likewise, the story of how cattle ranching displaced native peoples and animals and destroyed Western habitat is thoroughly documented. Today, modern animal farming produces massive amounts of pollution and is a major ecological threat.
But we're straying...
When I asked the question about how you felt when you saw a fallen nest with baby robins, you did not answer the question. Instead, you imagined what the ancients might have done. If you are like most people, I will assume you feel some sympathy for the tiny helpless creatures and out of kindness you would pick them up and put the nest back securely in its place. And because you have a heart, you may feel some happiness when you see the mother bird once again feeding her young, and feel good about how you helped to make that so.
There is no reason to believe that someone in that same position 50,000 years ago would have felt any differently. Our DNA and basic makeup hasn't changed. It is natural to feel empathy with other sentient beings. The animals share most of our genes, and it is well-proven and obvious that they experience emotions such as joy and fear. They're far more like us than like inanimate objects. That is why children have stuffed animals with names, why we cry when our dog dies, and why animals loom so large in how our ancient ancestors related to the world.
Of course, ancient peoples lived under a far different set of circumstances than us. Today, we're not compelled to emulate everything that was done thousands of years ago - and it's a good thing. Similarly, we need not act as though we're alone in the woods, fighting for our survival - under extreme circumstances, people are forced to turn to extreme measures, sometimes even cannibalism. Today in our daily lives, and at every meal, we have many choices available, some kinder than others. Choose kindness and you will embrace rather than be threatened by a non-violent diet.
- garyl
January 26, 2009 10:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
BTW, meat-eaters are no mooe independent than vegans
Just an aside... If a vegan group's assessment (of, say, aboriginal cultures) is automatically dismissed, then so should that of a group comprised mostly of meat-eaters. Meat-eaters have a vested interest in justifying their avoidable violence, and in my experience, will often go to great lengths to do so.
In fact, I would argue that vegans, as a whole, in this part of the world, are more independent; they have questioned the ethics of their diets and transcended cultural norms.
One last reiteration...Yes, your views of animals as food are largely culturally influenced. Offer chicken feet to a group of Americans and they'll go "yuck." Yet down the street, Chinese are eating them without any such thoughts. Conditioning is powerful, especially when it starts in childhood. But we can evolve.
Peace and good fortune.
- garyl
January 26, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yeah, and Creationism is just as valid as Evolution.
The truth of the matter is, you are a small sect trying to challenge the widely accepted, mainstream body of history. You saying that a vegan activist group's version of history is just as valid as the widely accepted view is like Creationists saying that their version of science is just as valid as the main body of science. If you want to challenge that mainstream view, you are going to have to bring some pretty heavy evidence just to be considered.
You are absolutely right. My views of animals as food are largely culturally influenced. It's why I only consider some animals to be food, and think of animals like ostrich, kangaroo, alligator, rattlesnake, and cockroach, among others, as novelty foods, instead of fair game, as is man's nature.
I do believe that I have brought up before, perhaps against one of your fellow vegetarians , that choosing to be a vegetarian is not evolution . It is... choosing to be a vegetarian, nothing more. Evolution requires natural selection, which no longer occurs in this country, thanks, once again, to easy living.
P.S. I appreciate your wishing me well. The same back to you. What you seek, may you find, what you strive for, may you achieve.
- richardsonkr
January 27, 2009 8:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here's some fun
I have read your responses, and disagree. But instead of arguing, I'm going to throw something at you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090407223640.htm
Explain that in terms of natural, instinctive empathy. Sure, animals are smart. Smart enough not only to experience empathy enough to understand the thought process of another individual, but also to take that one step further and manipulate that thought process to the betterment of their own cause. To obtain meat .
Damn dirty apes.
- keytud
August 3, 2009 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.