Do you agree with Richard Dawkins?

[TheJackel]

Plants don't have a nervous system capable of supporting sentience. Show me a plant that can meaningfully suffer and then there will be an issue.

You are still killing life... You are just discriminating based on what you think suffers more. And that's fine.. However, you are still killing life and even contributing to the extinction of many species as you compete for resources and habitats. Seems you don't have an issue with agriculture destroying entire ecosystems while you pile your plate with vegetables ect. So where is your moral boundaries when it comes to the destruction of life?

[Scabby Joe]

I think you have missed the point. Sure, we may kill something. Step on a bug etc. the point is, should we inflict UNNECESSRY pain and suffering when we can decide not to.

eating plants is killing something, and even competing for food resources. And the argument you are purposing is a guilt trip argument for people who eat meat. Tell me, do you tell this to bears or other animals? And do you have any idea how much natural habitat we would have to convert to farming to feed the world all on a vegetarian diet? You have any idea how many ecosystems we have destroyed as a human species just by converting natural habitat into farmland? agriculture is the principal cause of habitat destruction.

The Chaco thorn forest is being destroyed at a rate considered among the highest in the world to give way to soybean cultivation.



Satellite photograph of deforestation in Bolivia. Originally dry tropical forest, the land is being cleared for soybean cultivation.[6]

Or how about here in the United States where there are so few states that even have what you can actually call "wilderness"? :

United States agriculture in 2007, there were 2.2 million farms, covering an area of 922 million acres (3,730,000 km2).

And that doesn't include Urban sprawl, highway and road systems ect.. To put that into context, the size of the United States is about 3,794,100 sq miles (9,826,675 km²).. Remove Alaska and you kind of get the picture..So what do you plan to do to reduce "Unnecessary" pain and suffering on species in which we destroy by ripping apart their natural habitats so we can make you feel better about not eating meat?

There is no evidence that plants suffer or feel pain. They lack a central nervous system and of course it would serve no evolutionary purpose - they can't tun away.

The opposite is true of what you claim about the need to increase farm capacity to cater for bigger numbers on a vegetarian diet. Take a look at this United Nations report,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

See also

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ate-change

Cattle rearing is the biggest cause of deforestation by far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil

What you dont seem to understand is that much of the soy bean production you mention is grown for animal consumption!! They feed cattle and chickens with it. Some estimate that as much as 80% of soy bean production is for animal feed.

It is simply less economic to produce meat because they have to be fed on plant foods. Theer are lots of reputable scientific sources to back this up which can be provided if you wish.

Meat production also contributes more to greenhouse gases than the whole of transportation combined!

It can provide lots of reputable sources to substantiate any statements I have made and which you dispute.

While you may be in error on some facts, the point of the thread was to look at the ethics of causing unnecessary suffering. If you thought it was necessary to protect the environment then you can see that the opposite is true. In the light of this, would still be interested tp hear your ethical justification.

PS I would not try to engage a bear or other animal in a discussion of ethics as they lack the ability to rationally discuss the issues.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's bad ag, cattle are actually wonderful little creatures but not cheap enough for us to consume in the manner that we do without resorting to soy or corn (which is problematic in and of itself). Of course, massive swaths of land are great for soy or corn production but not mixed veggie production. This place isn't exactly a paradise.

Pointing to inefficiency in a system as though it were somehow indicative of the value or merit of the product is pretty narrow minded. As is ignoring why we adopted the system in the first place

Try "to feed the poor among us". Now, smugly argue against that, if you please.

(pro-tip, human beings also lack the ability to discuss the issues in a rational manner, by and large)

[jackman]

not sure of the level of sentience that matters here for the plant eaters. if "happy" is the only word used to describe a plants feeling, then ok, i don't think plants can be happy or feel sad if they're eaten. but, if you go a little more into what can lend itself to having a consciousness, then let's go to defenses that some plants have developed to avoid being eaten. maybe answer to venus fly traps, roses and poison ivy. sure, they're maybe not plants in particular that vegetarians eat, but by developing defense, it's it showing that they're sentient to an extent as well?

[Scabby Joe]

That's bad ag, cattle are actually wonderful little creatures but not cheap enough for us to consume in the manner that we do without resorting to soy or corn (which is problematic in and of itself). Of course, massive swaths of land are great for soy or corn production but not mixed veggie production. This place isn't exactly a paradise.

Pointing to inefficiency in a system as though it were somehow indicative of the value or merit of the product is pretty narrow minded. As is ignoring why we adopted the system in the first place

Try "to feed the poor among us". Now, smugly argue against that, if you please.

(pro-tip, human beings also lack the ability to discuss the issues in a rational manner, by and large)

Hey, sorry you thought it smug. It's just a few facts that are hard for you to deal with.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, when it comes to ag all facts are hard to deal with. This addresses what? Ag is not a place for hardline idealism, people need to eat, regardless of what they may believe about morality or ethics, it is a long list of concessions along the lines of practicality.

Let me help you. Yes, more acreage would have to be converted for a full vegetarian diet, this is due to suitability of land.

No, livestock production is not "less economic" than vegetable production, again, due to suitability of land (and just icing on the cake, suitability of crops for human consumption). We actually engage in it only when it is "more economic", why you think otherwise is beyond me... Do you think that livestock producers are in the business of losing money?

Greenhouse gases are symptomatic of/required by life, not just this or that bit of life, all life. In fact they facilitate life, without them we're fucked, entirely (it's awfully cold out there in space).

[LiberalHearted]

I think that it does not follow that being an atheist means that you should be a vegetarian. Of course not. Atheism is just a lack of belief in something.

I do agree, logically speaking that a magic man were magicians, illusionists. It is all entertainment.

However, believing in a god or gods which people state are really a magic man and had written a book that is the word of this god. With no evidence is where I think most atheists derive the non belief in what is being said.

I didn't come into atheism all angry, irate stomping my feet. I came into this with a great deal of peace and relief.
[quote='Scabby Joe' pid='273870' dateline='1334686594']
It maybe atheism attracts those who don't want to live by any ethical or moral code; maybe that's what they didn't like about religion.

Only if there were no ethics or moral code at all, and generally the old fashioned word sociopaths would fit better. Claiming to be an atheist at that point is moot.

However, for those thinkers out there atheism does at least raise some issues to consider.

Haven't met an atheist that wasn't a great thinker. Come to think about it haven't read a book from an atheist that was not great for thought.

First, we were not created in the image of God. We are not special, just another animal. We do not necessarily need to hold onto the Christian idea of dominion.

Yet many do hold on to the thoughts (which haven't ended) in evolution.

We are now a social creature, there are cities, to consider and the general social environment, not to mention laws of the society, whichever country.

Second, atheists reject God given moral law. Morals or ethics may be subjective or objective but some atheists may want to to ethical/moral even without the threat of eternal hell. So, can we agree on the following:

Causing unnecessary pain and suffering is unethical.

I like this, not all do which for them is ok. If we are just considering 'farm animals' etc. People need to eat. The choice is theirs.

Now back to the sociopath, yup it's known most or a majority begin their behavior by hurting animals. ie The Iceman (former hit man for the mob) began by throwing puppies off the roof. Back to nature or nurture. Problems in psychology are passed on yes, but is it primarily nurture which prevents them from acts that are considered unethical or immoral?

For those that can, and do eat factory farmed meat, how is it ethical.

After seeing some videos I had no stomach to eat anything from industrial farms. But, that is me, I'm not everyone. I do have friends on the same page. Cool and that is all there is to say about it, if Richard Dawkins claims the same, extra cool once again I'm in good company.

[Scabby Joe]

LOL, when it comes to ag all facts are hard to deal with. This addresses what? Ag is not a place for hardline idealism, people need to eat, regardless of what they may believe about morality or ethics, it is a long list of concessions along the lines of practicality.

Let me help you. Yes, more acreage would have to be converted for a full vegetarian diet, this is due to suitability of land.

No, livestock production is not "less economic" than vegetable production, again, due to suitability of land (and just icing on the cake, suitability of crops for human consumption). We actually engage in it only when it is "more economic", why you think otherwise is beyond me...

Are you more of an authority than the United Nations? Let's have some sources plkease to back up your claims. Let's see the evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

What would you like a source for? I'm always looking for an excuse to talk food.
(you're going to be very dis-appointed when we're done, the UN isn't exactly an impartial body, or an authority in the field of ag. It's a political body.....that comes with certain issues)

[TheJackel]

There is no evidence that plants suffer or feel pain. They lack a central nervous system and of course it would serve no evolutionary purpose - they can't tun away.

The opposite is true of what you claim about the need to increase farm capacity to cater for bigger numbers on a vegetarian diet. Take a look at this United Nations report,

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

This is a load of shit when considering the need to increase farm capacity to support billions of people on a vegetarian diet. And still not removing the need for fertilizers. If you go without, you are talking even more need for farm capacity as the natural soil can not keep up with the growth demand per farmed year.. You will end up with a dirt foundation unable to support farming.. Not to mention if you want to plan on getting away from fossil fuels since you want to play the pollution game, that's also going to require increase in farm capacity..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...ate-change

Cattle rearing is the biggest cause of deforestation by far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Brazil

Sorry, meat prevention will not prevent climate change.. BTW, Nitrous Oxide is not the most potent green house gas, it's water vapor.. Nice to know your source is ill educated on greenhouse gasses. And you kind of missed this:

Nitrous oxide is emitted by bacteria in soils and oceans, and thus has been a part of Earth's atmosphere for eons[vague]. Agriculture is the main source of human-produced nitrous oxide: cultivating soil, the use of nitrogen fertilizers, and animal waste handling can all stimulate naturally occurring bacteria to produce more nitrous oxide. The livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide.[3] Industrial sources make up only about 20% of all anthropogenic sources, and include the production of nylon, and the burning of fossil fuel in internal combustion engines. Human activity is thought to account for 30%; tropical soils and oceanic release account for 70%.[4]

Even a 50% reduction in total human caused Nitrous oxide, it would have a minimum impact.. But let's say we get rid of chickens and cows... Do you think increase in need for fertilizer for the increase in need for human consumption of farmed vegetarian foods would be any less? .. Can you provide me a peer review journal supporting your hypothesis?

What you dont seem to understand is that much of the soy bean production you mention is grown for animal consumption!! They feed cattle and chickens with it.

Soy is largely used in consumer products and foods and not just for feeding cattle and chickens.. This includes biofuels..

It is simply less economic to produce meat because they have to be fed on plant foods.

And increasing human consumption of plant foods isn't making much of an impact at all.. You would still end up with requiring an increase in farm capacity.

Meat production also contributes more to greenhouse gases than the whole of transportation combined!

Where do you plan to get fertilizer from to keep farms going and producing massive amounts of food each year? Or is your answer going to be to cause more deforestation when the farmland's soil becomes infertile dirt from over farming?

It can provide lots of reputable sources to substantiate any statements I have made and which you dispute.

So far you have provided none. And lastly, you missed the point entirely... You are causing damage regardless of what choice you make.. It's all a part of agriculture. And sorry, farming has a lot to do with loss of habitat no matter how much you want to sit there and try do down play it. ..

Also, you are now trying to setup accusations for a game of morality by claiming I some how said plants could feel pain.. Could you please outline for me where I have ever made the claim?

PS I would not try to engage a bear or other animal in a discussion of ethics as they lack the ability to rationally discuss the issues.

If you can find one not being slowly suffocated by human development and agriculture.