Well you certainly have a good point just in general, especially about the health benefits which I admit to being a valid reason for vegetarian diets, but at the same time, the ethics part just doesn't click to me. Why is the ability to bind sensory inputs into a biological CPU more important than a decentralized input system? One has less memory capability than the other, in other words, one is of inferior 'intelligence,' for lack of a better word, and ergo less thought need be paid for it than the other. Then why not eat meat? Animals have less 'intelligence' than we do, less awareness, less self-determination [if any]...if having a much simpler 'intellect' is the grounds for your ethics...then why bother sparing animals? And what are the ethical concerns with drinking milk, eating eggs, cheese, that sort of thing? The egg isn't aware in any way whatsoever and the ones that get eaten are not even fertilized, so there is no pain or suffering involved there. Same with milk and cheese. As for fish, well...they're somewhere in that gray area between animals and plants, so I'll leave that up to you whether or not you feel the need to answer that part.
As far as suffering goes...unfortunately, whether we want to or not, we all cause suffering. It's good to minimize the output of it, of course, but...at some point you have to draw the line as to what you will and will not cause. Am I against eating meat that comes from mass-production beef farms, wherein the cattle are treated like shit, stuffed into boxes every day, and mass-fed byproducts? Yup. Am I against eating meat that comes from a farm wherein the livestock are treated well, allowed to roam around, and otherwise led comfortable lives? Nope. To me, I see no ethical compunctions doing that because I know the animal lived a good life, and was likely killed so quickly it never felt a thing...which is necessary for beef, by the way. Adrenaline, which gets pumped through the bloodstream when suddenly faced with mortal danger, is produced to such an extent that it ruins the meat. Flavor, tenderness, all of it. So by necessity of the trade, they HAVE to kill the cattle before they can even feel what killed them. As for chickens, neck snap, instant termination of all neural functions. All organs stop instantly. Consciousness is gone within a couple seconds, and pain is not felt because the nerve endings are completely dead. If the animals lived a good life, and died painlessly and without suffering, what does it matter if I eat its carcass or not? Hell, I have a problem with NOT eating meat ethically. By the numbers, for the most part people will consume meat as part of their diets, and probably always will. We're omnivorous, it's just how our nature tends to be. So there's always gonna be meat lining the shelves. And as long as there's meat lining the shelves, there's gonna be meat expiring. In other words, the reason for the animal's death gets wasted. Hell, at least they serve a purpose in death. More than can be said for most human beings...
As far as suffering goes...unfortunately, whether we want to or not, we all cause suffering. It's good to minimize the output of it, of course, but...at some point you have to draw the line as to what you will and will not cause. Am I against eating meat that comes from mass-production beef farms, wherein the cattle are treated like shit, stuffed into boxes every day, and mass-fed byproducts? Yup. Am I against eating meat that comes from a farm wherein the livestock are treated well, allowed to roam around, and otherwise led comfortable lives? Nope. To me, I see no ethical compunctions doing that because I know the animal lived a good life, and was likely killed so quickly it never felt a thing...which is necessary for beef, by the way. Adrenaline, which gets pumped through the bloodstream when suddenly faced with mortal danger, is produced to such an extent that it ruins the meat. Flavor, tenderness, all of it. So by necessity of the trade, they HAVE to kill the cattle before they can even feel what killed them. As for chickens, neck snap, instant termination of all neural functions. All organs stop instantly. Consciousness is gone within a couple seconds, and pain is not felt because the nerve endings are completely dead. If the animals lived a good life, and died painlessly and without suffering, what does it matter if I eat its carcass or not? Hell, I have a problem with NOT eating meat ethically. By the numbers, for the most part people will consume meat as part of their diets, and probably always will. We're omnivorous, it's just how our nature tends to be. So there's always gonna be meat lining the shelves. And as long as there's meat lining the shelves, there's gonna be meat expiring. In other words, the reason for the animal's death gets wasted. Hell, at least they serve a purpose in death. More than can be said for most human beings...
