What do you think about Japanese whaling

[mrfox]

But why killing a wasp is good and killing a chicken for food is wrong? Or a deer for fun? Or a whale for whatever reason? Yes, gorillas and kittens are cute and sweet with those big eyes and everything but what is the difference in quality (philosophically speaking) between a dog and a snake or frog? More developed nervous system? What are you going to do with a disabled people with severe develpment problems then?

But if this human was a small child in a persistent vegetative state with serious development deficiencies in nervous system due to some DNA problems and the gorilla was really cute, healthy and happy (and can communicate using basic sign system) whom would you choose to save?

Along the same line of thought, a common domesticated pig - the kind that is slaughtered for food - posesses similar cognitive abilities as a normal human 3 year old. You can all guess where this question leads.

[czokletmuss]

What you're using now is sophism. No, I can't give you a purely mathematical reason why.

Why do we help injured people? There is no sound moral argument on that because you can always ask "but why?" and that will never end.

Oh, so I guess I'll remain totally wrong for the reasons unknown than And I don't agree - there are reasons for which we do this, after all. So it's not wrong to ask "why" - unless one don't know why.

I never said killing a wasp is good. I've just compared treating gorillas the same way we treat wasps. I will not actively search for wasps in order to kill them, of course. I'm not a deranged person. If I see one in my house, I'll open the window. If a wasp is trying to attack me or I can't make it leave my icecream, I'll use a pesticide or newspapers.

If a gorilla attacks me and I have a weapon, I'll try to disable it even if I need to kill it. I'm defending my life and I value my life over a life of a gorilla.

But if there's a forest filled with gorillas and a corporation seeks to destroy the forest and kill the gorillas in the process, kill them like pests, I will be against it. If someone wants to eat a gorilla because he's craving for some fancy gorilla meat, I'll be against it.

Once again I have to ask - why? I mean, is there a logical reason for it or just you feel that this is wrong? And if so, why killing animals for fun is wrong? Because you don't like it? That doesn't sound convincing, unlike what you are saying about self-defense, which is completely reasonable and I agree with it.

There are levels of behaviour here. You can't shove everything into good and bad and back it up with ancient Greek philosophy.

I don't try to. I'm just curious why you have such opinion on these things. I mean, I'm sure it's based on something and I'm trying to find out on what exactly.

Persistent vegetative state is a state caused by unrepairable brain damage, with very low probability of regaining consciousness, diagnosed after a few weeks of vegetative state. After a year, it's permanent.

There is a possibility of recovery. Also, there is a reasonable chance that the brain might be aware and could suffer. Letting such child burn to death would be very inhumane. The child wins, legally and morally.

I'm happy to hear that There are some who would disagree with you, you know - like Peter Singer who's taking animal rights to the extreme. And I mean really to the extreme.

I don't want to argue, I'm just interested - so please don't take what I'm writing here as an attack.

Along the same line of thought, a common domesticated pig - the kind that is slaughtered for food - posesses similar cognitive abilities as a normal human 3 year old. You can all guess where this question leads.

I can and that's why I completely disagree with this. Humans and animals have a lot in common but in the end they are different. Making them equal would lead to very bad things IMO.

BTW it's nice to see discussion about whales evolve so much so fast

Edited January 17, 2014 by czokletmuss

[goldenpeach]

[...]

I'm happy to hear that There are some who would disagree with you, you know - like Peter Singer who's taking animal rights to the extreme. And I mean really to the extreme.

[...]

What do you mean by that?

[czokletmuss]

I suggest you read the wiki entry, it's kind too nuanced to explain in few sentences. And I would brake forum rules by precise description of some of his ideas I'm afraid.

[lajoswinkler]

Once again I have to ask - why? I mean, is there a logical reason for it or just you feel that this is wrong? And if so, why killing animals for fun is wrong? Because you don't like it? That doesn't sound convincing, unlike what you are saying about self-defense, which is completely reasonable and I agree with it.

Healthy human beings have empathy, besides reason. Killing animals (let's define it as inducing extensive suffering with intent of causing death; because that's how hunting goes) for fun is violating the principles behind empathy and in addition, it is not a reasonable act. As a consequence of all that, the most developed legal systems in the world recognize killing animals for fun as a crime. Killing for food, legally speaking, is ok, if you ensure the minimal suffering of the animal.

I'm happy to hear that There are some who would disagree with you, you know - like Peter Singer who's taking animal rights to the extreme. And I mean really to the extreme.

I've heard about this guy. I don't know everything about him, but I've heard him advocating for complete equalization. If you don't think about it, it looks like the ultimate noble act, but if you try to think that more thoroughly (like, more than a minute), you come to a scenario where you have two burning buildings: a chicken factory and a kindergarten, and the firefighters are not using all their resources to save the kids. Disgusting, but that's what a great deal of modern philosophy has turned into in the last decades.

I suggest you read the wiki entry, it's kind too nuanced to explain in few sentences. And I would brake forum rules by precise description of some of his ideas I'm afraid.

If it's not politics, and as long as users aren't advocating for crimes, it's ok. But it's better to just read the article.

Edited January 17, 2014 by lajoswinkler

[czokletmuss]

Healthy human beings have empathy, besides reason. Killing animals (let's define it as inducing extensive suffering with intent of causing death; because that's how hunting goes) for fun is violating the principles behind empathy and in addition, it is not a reasonable act. As a consequence of all that, the most developed legal systems in the world recognize killing animals for fun as a crime. Killing for food, legally speaking, is ok, if you ensure the minimal suffering of the animal.

Ah, but this is the problem you see:

-Healthy human beings have empathy

-Therefore, killing for fun is unreasonable

I don't see logic in this honestly. We have empathy, yes - so that's why we have to obey the rule "don't kill animals for fun"? What if someone likes this and find pleasure in doing so (however I also find killing for fun not entertaining)? Why should society say "don't do this or else"?

In other words, define the principle behind empathy, as you put it.

I've heard about this guy. I don't know everything about him, but I've heard him advocating for complete equalization. If you don't think about it, it looks like the ultimate noble act, but if you try to think that more thoroughly (like, more than a minute), you come to a scenario where you have two burning buildings: a chicken factory and a kindergarten, and the firefighters are not using all their resources to save the kids. Disgusting, but that's what a great deal of modern philosophy has turned into in the last decades.

True. I completely disagree with him and I agree that modern philosophy is often, well, very... eccentric. But we know that ancient philosophy is even worse, right?

[lajoswinkler]

Ah, but this is the problem you see:

-Healthy human beings have empathy

-Therefore, killing for fun is unreasonable

I don't see logic in this honestly. We have empathy, yes - so that's why we have to obey the rule "don't kill animals for fun"? What if someone likes this and find pleasure in doing so (however I also find killing for fun not entertaining)? Why should society say "don't do this or else"?

In other words, define the principle behind empathy, as you put it.

If we take empathy and our reason as guidelines, and an act in the question violates both of them, the act is highly improper (I used "not reasonable", not having any applicable word at the moment, so let's not get all semantic).

If you ask why should we take them as guidelines, the best I can offer is social evolution. What you seek is to receive an explanation in the terms of "carbon tetrachloride is nonpolar because of its tetrahedral shape which cancels dipole moments".

There are no such answers. At best, I could ask why is giving a hungry child good, why are we morally obliged to do it? There's also no solid answer for that simply because morality is relative. That doesn't make it nonexistent, though. I'm certainly not falling into the traps of modern philosophy which has deconstructed literally everything.

True. I completely disagree with him and I agree that modern philosophy is often, well, very... eccentric. But we know that ancient philosophy is even worse, right?

Ancient philosophy didn't tackle many things modern philosophy commonly discusses. I'm not that into philosophy, but from what I've been learning in school, Middle Age philosophy was among the stupidest ones ever.

Ancient Greek philosophy were more about the nature and the basis of the world. Lots of it was wrong, but it wasn't very stupid, given the fact those people didn't have the knowledge we do today.

[mrfox]

Healthy human beings have empathy, besides reason.

Killing for food, legally speaking, is ok, if you ensure the minimal suffering of the animal

Heres the delimma, which brings the discussion full circle - why is killing for food ok, emphatically speaking?

(this is assuming you have both the means and the choice to go vegeterian of course)

[Nuke]

im not about to deceive myself about human blood lust. if were not out there doing the killing then we are paying someone else to do it for us. save the few that guilt tripped themselves into not eating meat. this also doesn't just pertain to food. many resources we consume come from conflict zones where humans are being brutalized, exploited, enslaved and even murdered in the process of getting the raw materials to make products that we buy all the time. we are murderous beasts who will turn a blind eye to animals (including humans) suffering if it suits us.

[lajoswinkler]

Heres the delimma, which brings the discussion full circle - why is killing for food ok, emphatically speaking?

(this is assuming you have both the means and the choice to go vegeterian of course)

Vegetarian diet is not suitable unless you're an healthy adult. Putting babies and sick people on a diet that lacks the optimal quality (we obviously want the best for babies and sick people) is unethical.

Mind that "killing animals for food" can be "kick and drag the animal, torture it, kill it brutally without anaesthesia" or "use modern methods to ensure minimal suffering".

[peadar1987]

Vegetarian diet is not suitable unless you're an healthy adult. Putting babies and sick people on a diet that lacks the optimal quality (we obviously want the best for babies and sick people) is unethical.

Mind that "killing animals for food" can be "kick and drag the animal, torture it, kill it brutally without anaesthesia" or "use modern methods to ensure minimal suffering".

Not necessarily. Perhaps in days gone by, but with modern dietary supplements and knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can get you everything you need without all of the nasty saturated fat and stuff that comes with eating meat.

[lajoswinkler]

Not necessarily. Perhaps in days gone by, but with modern dietary supplements and knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can get you everything you need without all of the nasty saturated fat and stuff that comes with eating meat.

a) Full diet is always better than a diet where you need dietary supplements. Paediatrics does not recommend vegetarian diet to babies. They need the optimal diet because other solutions bring a high risk of childhood malnutrition and that results in chronic problems in adult stage of life.

Only a handful of people knows enough about proper nutrition so that they could do it properly. It's simpler to just grab a piece of meat once in a while. Meat should not be the base of nutrition, though.

Forcing the entire population to stop eating meat would result in lower IQ after a couple of decades simply because of poor childhood nutrition, as well as other problems.

c) Without saturated fats, the human body dies. We need those just as we need water. If we increase their intake over RDA, we can expect to develop health problems.

[peadar1987]

a) Full diet is always better than a diet where you need dietary supplements. Paediatrics does not recommend vegetarian diet to babies. They need the optimal diet because other solutions bring a high risk of childhood malnutrition and that results in chronic problems in adult stage of life.

Not necessarily true. I know it's wiki, but it's extensively referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_diet#Health_effects

Vegetarians are statistically more likely to live longer, healthier lives than meat-eaters.

Only a handful of people knows enough about proper nutrition so that they could do it properly. It's simpler to just grab a piece of meat once in a while. Meat should not be the base of nutrition, though.

The same applies to eating meat. Meat is not magic, it contains nutrients. Nutrients that can be obtained from non-meat sources, without major effort or planning.

Forcing the entire population to stop eating meat would result in lower IQ after a couple of decades simply because of poor childhood nutrition, as well as other problems.

Do you have a source for that? Everything I've found suggests the opposite, with high fat intake and childhood obesity affecting development far more. The one study I found says childhood anaemia results in lower IQ, but vegetarianism != anaemia.

c) Without saturated fats, the human body dies. We need those just as we need water. If we increase their intake over RDA, we can expect to develop health problems.

And you can get them from all sorts of places besides meat. 99% of the population is not short of saturated fat in their diet.

[Nuke]

the increased eating of meat is directly tied to the evolution of the human brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Encephalization

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meat+in+the+human+diet:+an+anthropological+perspective-a0169311689

im going to have a ribeye steak, an inch thick, and i want it rare.

[mrfox]

Or is it the evolution of the human brain that provided humans the intelligence to hunt, and hence the regular consumption of meat?

Chicken or egg?

[Nuke]

did you even read the sources? the fossil record clearly shows a change in dental structure to better accommodate meat followed by an increase in size of the cranial cavity.

the moral of this story is: dinosaurs were laying eggs long before chickens ever existed.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Nuke

[Firov]

the increased eating of meat is directly tied to the evolution of the human brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Encephalization

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meat+in+the+human+diet:+an+anthropological+perspective-a0169311689

im going to have a ribeye steak, an inch thick, and i want it rare.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was the discovery of a monolith that was tied to the evolution of the brain...

Seriously though, while there is likely a correlation there I suspect that the actual reasoning is that more intelligent hunters were obviously better hunters, and as such better able to gather food as well as avoid injury or death by the prey they were hunting. This naturally lead to more of these intelligent hunters surviving to reproduce, which resulted in evolutionary pressure. And so the modern brain was born.

[jwenting]

of course, the japanese are killing blues and humpbacks. but the anti whaling groups want a total, unconditional ban on whaling. they could easily compromise, but both sides are stubborn and no one is negotiating.

And the Japanese are only killing a very small number a year, well below the restocking levels (dirty little secret: all the species they're hunting are increasing in numbers).

Mostly I think they take a few humpbacks and minkys, both of which are not critically endangered, and close to not being endangered at all.

Strangely the same people who scream at the Japs for killing whales and using 99% of the animals think very little of the Chinese killing tigers and using only a few teeth, claws and bits of grease.

[jwenting]

Not necessarily. Perhaps in days gone by, but with modern dietary supplements and knowledge of nutrition, a vegetarian diet can get you everything you need without all of the nasty saturated fat and stuff that comes with eating meat.

And most of those supplements come from animals.

A vegan diet is NOT healthy. Any diet that you can survive on only by eating several hand fulls of pills alongside it is NOT a balanced diet.

Human beings are omnivores and need animal protein and fat in their diet. We're no different in that from say bears.

Yet when a bear knocks down a moose and eats its intestines while the animal is still alive people like you call it "quaint, true animal behaviour", yet when a human humanely kills an animal, then eats the meat, you call it cruel...

[lajoswinkler]

Not necessarily true. I know it's wiki, but it's extensively referenced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian_diet#Health_effects

Vegetarians are statistically more likely to live longer, healthier lives than meat-eaters.

I was talking about babies, growing kids and sick people. Vegetarian diet is not recommended for them, and vegan diet is downright dangerous.

The same applies to eating meat. Meat is not magic, it contains nutrients. Nutrients that can be obtained from non-meat sources, without major effort or planning.

Well that's not correct. If you rely on dietary supplements, I call that an elevated, and for poor people, a major effort. It's easier to make a regular healthy meal.

Do you have a source for that? Everything I've found suggests the opposite, with high fat intake and childhood obesity affecting development far more. The one study I found says childhood anaemia results in lower IQ, but vegetarianism != anaemia.

Again with the strawman arguments...

You do realize there is a huge space between having a healthy diet which includes animal tissue products, and diet that ends in obesity? I know a ton of people who have had meat in their diets and never ever got obese. To become obese, you need to eat like a pig or you need a hormonal disbalance of some sort. I can't afford to forklift a ton of food into my mouth every day. My diet consists of various foods, including meat (which does not make up the major part of each meal), and my blood tests are perfectly fine. No elevated cholesterol and triglycerides.

Do I have a source on that? It's a fact - if you take away meat from the population, they will eat plants only, and because having a balanced diet is tougher in that case, you end up with elevated number of malnutritioned children. Statistically, that will come up as lower IQ of the population in the future. It's been documented with many countries of the third world. When an increase in protein and total calorie content has been elevated, IQ started climbing.

Of course, your answer is dietary supplements. Those are expensive. If a family of four manages to get hold of the money to buy a handful of pills, any sane physician and nutritionist will recommend them to buy a variety of foods instead.

And you can get them from all sorts of places besides meat. 99% of the population is not short of saturated fat in their diet.

But you just called saturated fats nasty. Well are they nasty or not? They aren't. We need them to stay alive. We need cholesterol, too. Without cholesterol, we die in agony.

It's all about the measured ammount of everything. A balanced diet is the best.

Strangely the same people who scream at the Japs for killing whales and using 99% of the animals think very little of the Chinese killing tigers and using only a few teeth, claws and bits of grease.

I am disgusted by whale hunting and I do have strongly negative opinion about tiger hunting.

And most of those supplements come from animals.

A vegan diet is NOT healthy. Any diet that you can survive on only by eating several hand fulls of pills alongside it is NOT a balanced diet.

Human beings are omnivores and need animal protein and fat in their diet. We're no different in that from say bears.

Yet when a bear knocks down a moose and eats its intestines while the animal is still alive people like you call it "quaint, true animal behaviour", yet when a human humanely kills an animal, then eats the meat, you call it cruel...

Vegan diet is pretty extreme and particularly unhealthy for growing kids, and it is not recommended as an adult diet, either, but we were discussing a vegetarian diet. That one is way less extreme.

[NASAFanboy]

I like meat, I like steak, and I will defend my meat-eating rights with my life.

I don't care if I live to 100 years, I simply want to make the biggest impact I can and make the most pleasure out of my life.

So yeah, I'll probably never go vegan.

[mrfox]

did you even read the sources? the fossil record clearly shows a change in dental structure to better accommodate meat followed by an increase in size of the cranial cavity.

You are confusing evolution with intelligent design.

[Klingon Admiral]

You are confusing evolution with intelligent design.

*Insert flat "What" here*

[peadar1987]

And most of those supplements come from animals.

Yeah, not any ones vegetarians will be taking.

A vegan diet is NOT healthy. Any diet that you can survive on only by eating several hand fulls of pills alongside it is NOT a balanced diet.

The fact that vegetarians and vegans live longer than meat-eaters would seem to disagree with you.

Human beings are omnivores and need animal protein and fat in their diet. We're no different in that from say bears.

Yet when a bear knocks down a moose and eats its intestines while the animal is still alive people like you call it "quaint, true animal behaviour", yet when a human humanely kills an animal, then eats the meat, you call it cruel...

You probably need to rethink your moral code if you're taking ethical advice from a bear.

You also probably need to look a little closer at my post and find the part where I say that humanely killing animals for food is cruel.

the increased eating of meat is directly tied to the evolution of the human brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_e...ncephalization

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...-14-1999a.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Meat+i...ve-a0169311689

im going to have a ribeye steak, an inch thick, and i want it rare.

There's a lot more to it than "meat makes you smart, broccoli makes you dumb". The change to a meat-eating diet came as a change from foraging for plants, and isn't particularly relevant to today's society. Farming is a wonderful invention.

I was talking about babies, growing kids and sick people. Vegetarian diet is not recommended for them, and vegan diet is downright dangerous.

Depends on the sickness. I'd be interested to see a study that links childhood vegetarianism to lowered IQ and shortened healthy lifespan.

Well that's not correct. If you rely on dietary supplements, I call that an elevated, and for poor people, a major effort. It's easier to make a regular healthy meal.

It's not a huge effort to take a single iron pill every morning, which is the most I've ever had to do. And it still works out far cheaper than eating meat. That stuff's expensive!

Again with the strawman arguments...

You do realize there is a huge space between having a healthy diet which includes animal tissue products, and diet that ends in obesity? I know a ton of people who have had meat in their diets and never ever got obese. To become obese, you need to eat like a pig or you need a hormonal disbalance of some sort. I can't afford to forklift a ton of food into my mouth every day. My diet consists of various foods, including meat (which does not make up the major part of each meal), and my blood tests are perfectly fine. No elevated cholesterol and triglycerides.

Do I have a source on that? It's a fact - if you take away meat from the population, they will eat plants only, and because having a balanced diet is tougher in that case, you end up with elevated number of malnutritioned children. Statistically, that will come up as lower IQ of the population in the future. It's been documented with many countries of the third world. When an increase in protein and total calorie content has been elevated, IQ started climbing.

Of course, your answer is dietary supplements. Those are expensive. If a family of four manages to get hold of the money to buy a handful of pills, any sane physician and nutritionist will recommend them to buy a variety of foods instead.

To a certain level. Bring someone out of malnutrition, and you get better IQ and health. Increase calories and protein further, you don't see a benefit. It's perfectly possible to avoid being malnourished on a vegetarian diet, even one that's not augmented with masses of supplements. I do it with pretty much zero effort, apart from a period a few years ago when I needed extra dietary iron.

Anyway, sorry if you thought I made a strawman argument, I wasn't trying to draw a false dichotomy there, perhaps I just didn't express myself well enough. Of course it's not a choice between obesity and vegetarianism.

But you just called saturated fats nasty. Well are they nasty or not? They aren't. We need them to stay alive. We need cholesterol, too. Without cholesterol, we die in agony.

It's all about the measured ammount of everything. A balanced diet is the best.

And you can have a balanced vegetarian diet. I take back what I said about saturated fats. They're not nasty in small quantities, but the majority of the population would see health benefits from cutting back on them, which is why vegetarians are generally healthier than meat-eaters. It doesn't make you a superman, but statistically, it does improve your health.

[Holo]

*Insert flat "What" here*

You and me both.