Social Animal consciousness. Does it change your perspective?

[subtlySteve]

I know I should probably stop eating meat. Maybe one day I’ll sack up and do it.

Realizing this is a fantastic first step.

Transitioning to a plant-based/vegan diet doesn't have to be abrupt or all at once.

Start by choosing one day a week to go without eating meat. Stick with that for a few months, then increase to two meat-free days each week. After a while, go up to three days without meat, and so on.

Soon enough, you'll find that you're not eating meat at all.

From there, you can use the same gradual approach to cut out dairy, then eggs, and eventually all animal products.

Everyone has to begin somewhere, and it's not as challenging as it might seem.

You can do it, and I encourage you to try.

 

[Bojka]

It's surprising that eating meat is still considered morally ok. Especially in the west. Even 10+ years ago it surprised me. I never had pets growing up, but it became evident immediately once my sisters started getting chihuahuas when it was a trend how shockingly similar we are. And you can extend that to various other species, especially ones raised in captivity.

Eating meat is obviously morally bankrupt. You have a choice between being a sack of sh*t and doing the bare minimum to not be one, I think. I don't consider myself a bleeding heart of any sort and even I have been vegetarian off and on as an adult. And I don't take anyone seriously if they claim to be compassionate and eat meat.

 

[PG29 red0 Jr]

It surprises me that more people have not moved towards the carnivore diet. So healthy, and so delicious.

 

[subtlySteve]

a rock can be "complex in its own way".

I stopped reading after that because I can't (and won't) take someone seriously when they start with such foolishness.

You seem more interested in being argumentative, insulting, and sarcastic than in having a meaningful discussion.

And just by consequence of having to scroll down, I witnessed this gem of a comment:

. you think the wolf will stop eating the deer because people like to speak in pretty phrases about them?

Predators depend on prey to meet their essential food needs for survival.

And as much as you might want to think you are, let's be very clear... you're no predator.

Humans, especially in the Western world, do not need to consume animal-based diets for basic survival.

Eating animal products is a matter of personal preference, but personal preference does not justify the moral implications of such a choice.

I'm done engaging in dialogue with you, take care #8 on the ignore list.

 

[subtlySteve]

Never really understood the arguments against eating meat.
Is it wrong for , say, a lion to eat a gazelle?

It's not difficult to understand:

Predators rely on prey as a vital source of food for their survival.

Humans, particularly in the Western world, no longer require animal-based diets for basic survival.

For the vast majority of people living in the West, eating an animal-based diet is a personal choice, but a personal choice does not make an action morally justifiable.

 

[USA!USA!]

Predators rely on prey as a vital source of food for their survival.

Humans, particularly in the Western world, no longer require animal-based diets for basic survival.

For the vast majority of the Western world, eating an animal-based diet is a personal choice, but a personal choice does not make an action morally justifiable.

It is healthy (and delicious) for humans to eat animals. That is all the justification you need to take part. It is completely natural and we have been doing it for over many millennia. The superior lifeforms eat the ones who cannot escape them. We ARE superior.

Having said that, animal cruelty is not justifiable. Eating animals isn't immoral - it's the abuse, torture and shitty lives many of them live until that point that makes it immoral IMO - not the actual act of eating them. If animals live humanely and are harvested without pain, and their bodies are not wasted, I see no reason why humans shouldn't continue to do this.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I stopped reading after that because I can't (and won't) take someone seriously when they start with such foolishness.

You seem more interested in being argumentative, insulting, and sarcastic than in having a meaningful discussion.

And just by consequence of having to scroll down, I witnessed this gem of a comment:



Predators depend on prey to meet their essential food needs for survival.

And as much as you might want to think you are, let's be very clear... you're no predator.

Humans, especially in the Western world, do not need to consume animal-based diets for basic survival.

Eating animal products is a matter of personal preference, but personal preference does not justify the moral implications of such a choice.

I'm done engaging in dialogue with you, take care #8 on the ignore list.

oh god, you're one of those that immediately starts crying if it doesn't go your way.
imagine such a weak individual talking about ethics.
"HEY WE MUST GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS CONTENTIOUS SUBJECT! OH YOU DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I SAY, PLEASE LEAVE!"

pathetic.

 

[subtlySteve]

To all the "Animals Eat Animals, So I Will Too!" folks:

Animals in the wild do all kinds of things we'd consider unethical... stealing, raping, even eating their own young.

Clearly, we shouldn't be using their behavior as a guide for what’s right or wrong.

So it's a stretch to argue that we should eat the same way certain animals do.

Humans have the capacity to reason, and we should be using it to make thoughtful decisions about what we eat and how we treat other living beings.

Period.

 

[subtlySteve]

It is healthy for humans to eat animals.

That's highly debatable.

Having said that, animal cruelty is not justifiable. Eating animals isn't immoral - it's the abuse, torture and shitty lives many of them live until that point that makes it immoral IMO - not the actual act of eating them. If animals live humanely and are harvested without pain, and their bodies are not wasted, I see no reason why humans shouldn't continue to do this.

Taking an animal's life for food is a bigger deal than just making them suffer. Sure, it's great when people care enough to reduce suffering by buying things like "free-range" eggs or "humane" meat. But when you think about it, if we believe these animals have the right to live their natural lives, then killing them is a way bigger issue than mistreating them.

You're stuck in a contradiction.

 

[Blayt7hh]

We don't even know what consciousness is at the moment, just a million theories of it, so the statement that there's consciousness in animals is a bit of a stretch. At most you can say there's awareness of external stimuli, but that does not imply awareness of that awareness, or deeper stages of self-reflection.

We all have a general understanding of what consciousness is. Let’s not get pedantic about it- these animals are displaying characteristics of it that we previously didn’t know they shared with us.

This sounds like you’re working to excuse something you do that might be a bad behavior more than a legitimate argument.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

We all have a general understanding of what consciousness is. Let’s not get pedantic about it- these animals are displaying characteristics of it that we previously didn’t know they shared with us.

This sounds like you’re working to excuse something you do that might be a bad behavior more than a legitimate argument.

We have to be pedantic about science. Because if we're not, it gets overwhelmed with emotional dumbasses like this dude crying in this thread, and it all turns to shit. Being pedantic in science is good.

 

[USA!USA!]

That's highly debatable.

It's also highly debatable that a meatless diet is healthy for everyone.

You're stuck in a contradiction.

I'm not. I think humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right by the natural order to eat what they want to in order to survive. Part of their (the animals) natural life would be succumbing to their predators (us). Doing that humanely instead of making them suffer is a noble endeavor. Killing them is not the issue - making them suffer is.

 

[Bojka]

It's also highly debatable that a meatless diet is healthy for everyone.



I'm not. I think humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right by the natural order to eat what they want to in order to survive. Part of their (the animals) natural life would be succumbing to their predators (us). Doing that humanely instead of making them suffer is a noble endeavor. Killing them is not the issue - making them suffer is.

In the same contexts that you consider humans superior to (other) animals, there are individual humans who are superior to other humans. And, frankly, you aren't looking like one of those who is superior to most.

 

[humdizzle]

fortunately it is a choice now. plenty of vegan athletes out there. some at the top of their sport (lewis hamilton, novak djokavic).

we eat mostly plant based in our house.

the downside is that it is costly to eat non-gmo/organic/vegan. and changing up your entire diet can seem daunting. alot of finding food that you like is just trial and error. there are some great vegan chicken/steak substitutes out there, but most are trash.

i still eat fish every so often
red meat and chicken extremely rare.

 

[Andy Capp]

Eating animals ≠ animal cruelty

Substantial breakthroughs may change the way we harvest and farm - which may be a good, moral thing - but I doubt it will ever actually make us as a species stop eating other animals. It's in our nature. Hell, it's in their own nature - animals eat each other. The levels and techniques might change, but it will still happen.

I don't feel bad about eating an animal as much as I feel bad about if it suffered to get to that point. Animal cruelty is never cool under any circumstance.

This, 100%

Humans are omnivores. The best diet includes a wide variety of sources of each of the food groups--including meat and fish. I agree people are not all the same and some may thrive on a vegan diet, but I would waste away to nothing in no time; there's no doubt about that. I have a fast metabolism--meaning I never have to worry much about getting fat so yay me--but it is possible for me to become dangerously underweight if I don't consistently consume dense sources of nutrition like that.

On the other hand, even if I don't care for pets at all, not even a little bit, I'm very definitely against animal cruelty of any kind.

 

[subtlySteve]

I'm not. I think humans are superior to animals and therefore have the right by the natural order to eat what they want to in order to survive. Part of their (the animals) natural life would be succumbing to their predators (us).

OK, so you want to go down the "I'm On Top Of The Food Chain" road.

Using phrases like "natural order" when talking about eating animals is usually just a way to make it seem like it's totally natural and necessary for humans to kill and eat them.

But here's why that doesn't work. First, these terms don't really apply to the way humans interact with the animals we eat.

Second, we don't actually need to eat meat to survive.

So "top of the food chain" mentality is kind of like a bank robber saying he's at the top of the business world because he can take what he wants.

Just because he can do it, doesn't make it right.

Doing that humanely instead of making them suffer is a noble endeavor. Killing them is not the issue - making them suffer is.

When people talk about "humane," they're referring to being kind, merciful, or compassionate. But let's be real, there's no such thing as "humane meat" because it's neither kind nor compassionate to kill an animal just for the taste of it.

Sure, you might hear about animals being raised in decent conditions, but that's only part of the story.

Keeping an animal captive and then killing it isn't humane, even if it had a comfy life before the end.

Of course, you can give someone a good life up until you bolt-gun them in the head, hang them upside down, and stab them in the throat.

That's one issue.

The other is that "humane" labelling is mostly just a marketing trick.

Do you think these big businesses truly care about the lives of animals they make money from by killing?

It's way more likely they're using fancy marketing to make you feel good about buying their products.

If you look into what "free-range" or "grass-fed" really means, you'll find there's a ton of wiggle room in the legal definitions, and none of it is aimed at giving animals a better life beyond what's necessary to get them to slaughter.

I'd love to live in a world where people really cared about animals, but you won't find that attitude in most farming businesses.

When you make your money from killing, it's hard to believe that it's done out of kindness.

 

[USA!USA!]

In the same contexts that you consider humans superior to (other) animals, there are individual humans who are superior to other humans. And, frankly, you aren't looking like one of those who is superior to most.

Lol at getting upset at me because I like eating meat. Cry me a river, buddy.

 

[Lucas1980]

Well...It Lunch Time and now I feel like going to get a nice Juicy Bacon Burger...

 

[dirtypablo]

It is healthy (and delicious) for humans to eat animals. That is all the justification you need to take part. It is completely natural and we have been doing it for over many millennia. The superior lifeforms eat the ones who cannot escape them. We ARE superior.

This exact reasoning can be used to defend rape, the holocaust, slavery etc.

Might is right, and that's all there is to it. Its piss poor reasoning and I'm sure you don't actually believe it, but use it in cases where its easier than having to face the truth.

 

[USA!USA!]

This exact reasoning can be used to defend rape, the holocaust, slavery etc.

Might is right, and that's all there is to it. Its piss poor reasoning and I'm sure you don't actually believe it, but use it in cases where its easier than having to face the truth.

LMAO - so now I am supporting rape, the holocaust and slavery? You people are insane..