If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I totally agree with this. There are plenty of evolutionary traits that humans possess that helped us survive in the past but are not seen as acceptable in modern society, e.g. jealousy, anger and greed.
Evolution is a crap excuse for behaviour, in the case of eating meat - yes our ancestors ate meat to survive, and I'm pretty sure most vegetarians would eat meat if faced with a situation where their own wellbeing would be harmed if they refused.
I will add that vegetarians rarely bring up debate of whether humans are supposed to eat meat, in my experience* it is usually meat eaters who feel they need to defend themselves against...not quite sure really as I have certainly never questioned anyone's choices to eat meat, but have often been subject to the 'humans are supposed to eat meat' viewpoint being rammed down my throat while I'm trying to enjoy my raw lettuce leaf and stick of celery.
*Disclaimer: this is not a generalisation about people who eat meat, as the vast majority are very tolerent of veggies, however there is always the select few who like to have a dig. Also I can understand how annoying it is for meat eaters when certain vegetarians take the moral high ground and start preaching, however it is wrong of people to assume that all veggies are like this and try and immidiately prove them wrong before they've even said anything.
I suspect the reason certain meat-eaters flare-up when confronted with a vegetarian is because they recognise inherent in a vegetarian's (especially a vegetarian for ethical reasons) position is a criticism and/or disagreement with their own. I think when you couple that with something as fundamental as what we choose to eat - an area which we very much have control over, and is also so essential to our day-to-day lives - then you've a contentious issue.
I think it's a fascinating area to debate and, although morally I should be vegetarian, I'm currently a meat-eater. I am acutely aware of my hypocrisy.
EDIT: I'd also like to reiterate that the evolutionary argument for the consumption of meat, sucks balls.
What do you mean by 'confronted'? I personally would never pass comment on other people's choice to eat meat unless they brought up the subject, I don't mention that I don't eat meat unless asked (or if there is a need, e.g. being invited to a dinner party), yet as soon as people find out that I don't eat meat my views are challanged and I have to explain myself, as well as listen to why eating meat is so great.
I can't speak for other vegetarians, but I have never 'confronted' anybody over their diet choices, and there is absolutley no reason for meat eaters to 'flare up' because they might as well be arguing with themselves, I don't give a rats ass what they have for dinner, nor am I going to change either my diet or my views in response to their pathetic ranting. It's even more ridiculous in my case, because I actually agree with eating meat, I just choose not to.
I know this sounds like I'm having a go at all meat eaters - honestly I'm not - but you wouldn't believe how often I am subject to a completely unprovoked attack on my eating habits for absolutley no reason whatsoever. And it really fucks me off.
Sorry, bad choice of word. I meant confronted, as in: if one was placed in front of them.
I suspect if I were a practising vegetarian then we'd have arrived at being one for differing reasons. I wouldn't go out of my way to bash meat-eaters, but if I was ever put in the situations that you describe, then I'd wouldn't be meek about vocalising precisely why I disagreed with their food choices.
You knew what I meant.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21153898/
(although I read it on the BBC site)
Interesting.
It doesn't matter how many arguments there are on each side, it's the strength of the evidence that matters. And the fact is that we've been eating meat for at least 2.5 million years, it hasn't killed us yet, and it has resulted in significant adaptions in our digestive system to deal with it, which I've pointed out. You might as well argue that whales are supposed to live on land because some long-lost ancestor happened to, and much of its current physiology still points to a land animal. All that matters is what we are now. How long does an animal have to be doing something without consequence before it is considered natural?
Teaghan said he would zip it (even if he disagrees)!
So what?
Who cares whether it's natural?
I totally agree with your point here - we've been eating meat all this time, and it doesn't kill us, therefore, the evolutionary facts show we have adapted to eat meat as well as vegetables.
But what moral weight does that have? It strikes me, it doesn't have any.
Well those of us having the debate actually. If you read the thread properly this was a seperate discussion on whether or not we have evolved to eat meat. Shboy hasn't been using it as an argument for eating of meat - infact he stated as much.
A point that has been said plenty of time in this thread with being contested.
I don't find death morally wrong or something to be screamishg about, I make a distinction between fellow humans and the rest of the animal world and I think I'm a better person for it. All life is not equal, not to me.
Thats why I eat meat (I almost certainly eat more than I should or need to) but I'm also very picky about the source.
I've probably only come across one vegetarian who has had a dig at me for eating meat. Generally, the vegetarians I know say "please don't force your views upon me and I won't do the same".
They're not. I posted after drinking last night, I know I don't come across well afterwards. Sorry.
Yeason seasonally their diet changes. Having watched the incredible human journey recently on the BBC, it would seem we did discover the joys of eating shellfish, fish and meat as we moved out of africa as a species. The Evenki people eat almost entirely raindeer and bread whilst living seasonally as nomads. The innuit gain over 90% of their calories from meat. How many other herbivores can survive on such a diet. Without question we have physically evolved to cope with such diets, and it has to be said cope well.
Whilst not the only factor in life expectancy I don't think it's any coincidence that the longest living people on the planet are the Japs, who consume vast quanities of fish.
There's a theory with some convincing arguements that mankind was once far more aquatic than he is now.
It's not just me. Most of the people that I know that live near me are the same. Meat raffles up the local are 50% offal. People love it.
I don't like the fact that people are happy too eat meat as long as they can forget where it came from. They should know where it came from, else they shouldn't eat it. We shouldn't be treating animals like every other product on the shelves, we should recognise where it came from anfd that is was once living and breathing. I see a big difference in urban and rurual attitudes to be honest. Those that look after, manage and deal with the countryside and the animals within it see to be far more comfortable with the fact that all things die and it's nothing to get worked up over.
Well as you can see there are different opinions on whether we evolved to eat meat or not. Different opinions often result in discussion and with this place being the debate forum on a discussion board...
If you have no interest in that discussion ignore it. Others are interested it would seem.
Death, in and of itself, isn't morally wrong; the means which bring about, and the reasons for, death, do have moral weight.
Eating meat because all life isn't equal, and/or because you've chosen to eat meat which has been brought up in accordance with certain standards, is a non sequitur; you haven't established why it's morally permissable to bring about the death of an animal for the pleasure of consumption - which is certainly the environment which you and I eat meat. Also, all humans aren't equal, but that isn't an argument for canabilism.
I'm not saying that an argument can't be made, on moral grounds, for the consumption of meat. I do think, however, that a cogent, pro-meat-eating arguement has yet to be made in this thread.
I do recognise that I have a burden of proof when it comes to my position of not eating meat, and that I haven't necesarily put it forward yet. I'm off out for a beer soon, so nah nah nah nah pfffffffft - it'll have to wait until tomorrow.
Yes, believe it or not, I'm not a total idiot, and I understand what debate is.
But my point is: there is nothing to debate about whether humans have adapted to eat meat, because we clearly have. We eat it all the time, and don't get violently ill, or drop dead, and are able to get some nutrition from it. But equally, we can clearly live without it too, because people do all the time, and vegetarians don't get violently ill or drop dead either.
So my point is that there isn't really a huge amount to debate about the evolutionary processes that have led to us being omnivores. And people who emphasise it usually do so not because they find the question academically interesting, but because they think it's some kind of knock down argument about the ethical question of meat eating, which it isn't.
Brilliant
Totally agree. More than that, I've read a lot about it and debated the question with many, many people, and I've never yet heard one convincing moral defence of eating meat. You may be right that the burden of proof is on those who claim we shouldn't, but I'm not sure - why is the burden of proof on those who say we shouldn't kill and eat living creatures, just because that is the non-status quo position?
Incidentally I am like you - I eat meat while believing it's morally indefensible to do so. I have thought about it a lot and think there are no good arguments for eating meat, but on the other hand, I'm lazy, weak willed and just not as moral a person as I would like to be. But hopefully I'll manage to make the switch one day.
Well recent posts by Teagan would suggest otherwise.
I don't see the difference in me going out catchin a fish and eating it, and that same fish being eaten by another fish, or dying from disease etc.
Except of couse I get a nice tasty healthy bit of fish.
This empathy is the basis for many people's decisions not to eat meat, and so I could say it is also natural for humans to specifically choose not to eat meat. This empathy is not as ubiquitous as are our canines and the ability to eat meat, and not all humans empathise with an animal enough to not eat it or want to cause it suffering. Where empathy is natural, morality however is a human characteristic generated partly by evolved biological traits causing consciousness, and partly by external influences like culture and society. This means morality is inconsistent and it is harder to say our particular morals are natural, since they are much more transient than empathy alone.
So in this sense it is natural for humans to eat meat and also to choose not to eat meat. It is not however necessarily natural, by this definition at least, for humans to choose not to eat meat on the basis of deeming it morally wrong. This is of course a simplistic view, but it at least treats every side with the same logic. Anyone could therefore say their actions are natural, but this justification cannot be used to extrapolate personal opinions on meat eating to others (i.e. from aggressive meat-eaters or vegetarians), since that requires a moral judgement.
The difference is that you're a moral being. You have an understanding of the consequences of your actions, and know that your interactions with the world have moral weight. A fish acts simply on innate impulses. You're an entity capable of rational thought, and your higher-thought capabilities mean that you're not simply a vessel controlled exclusively by baser urges.
:yes: If Skive wants to compare his mental capacity to that of a fish then that's fine, but think we'd all agree that our mental reasoning is slightly higher than our scaly friends.
Quite true. :yes:
Many fish (and other animals) eat their own kind as well as eat their babies. So cannibalism must okay as well as eating our children? Morals say 'no'. But it's okay to take the life of another creature just because they have no defence against us and we are 'top of the tree'?
That being said the argument as to whether we have evolved to eat meat is quite simple, just looking at the amount of time it takes for it (esp red meat) to go through the digestive tract vs raw and vegetarian food tells you how bioavailable it really is. The fact that the human jawbone has been steadily shrinking for the last 1000s of years also suggests that we are not carnivorous by design....we can eat and live on almost anything even fast food and coke, but the optimal diet is whatever your body can use best without causing havoc on your health, immune system and homeostasis. Meat causes a huge amount of stress on the body to digest (and what the body can't eliminate ends up blocking your colon), and in fact over time the free radicals created in the process contributes quite significantly to a lot of the degenerative illnesses common in today's society.
Fine in moderation I say and sure it tastes good, but eat beef 7 days a week and I guarantee you will shorten your lifespan. I won't even go into what's actually in the meat on supermarket shelves today...
I understand that the consequence of my hunting/fishing results in a dead animal. That is all. My fishing or hunting doesn't damage the enviroment, cause any unnecessary suffering or damage my health. At the same time I get a tasty meal, often one that's very good for me in the case of fish. It's a no brainer to me.
Is that what I was doing? Get fucked.
Again I don't see all life as equal, I make no apolgies for it either. To be honest I slightly wary of those that do.
A lot of farming practice do cause suffering, and eating a lot of red meat isn't great for your health but the simple act of killing and animal or eating meat I don't find morally wrong.
Why is wrong?
And eat fish 7 days a week and increase your lifespan.