Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic;49787 wrote:

Here we go again, dumbing-down the composition for your clarification.

Rather arrogant and rude ad-hom; ego, rather than rational logic, diminishes credibility and communication.

Quote:

Objective Analysis= Empirically based measurements without bias.

Quantum theory has refuted this paradox ridden fallacy... and provived the necessary 'critical update' for 'classical' physics, and all other branches of scientific/logical investigation.

@nameless,

Ruthless, I would appreciate the clarifications you provide a great deal more if you actually responded to my arguments: namely, that you have neglected to present any arguments to support your assertions.

@Didymos Thomas,

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

The virtue of a vegetarian diet annoys many of those who have the vice of killing animals and eating their flesh. I hope eveyone even though it is not easy will quit someday; its more equally healthy that Way.
All One can or will do is try.

=
MJA

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

The problem with people who have no vices is that generally you can be pretty sure they're going to have some pretty annoying virtues. Liz Taylor

The virtue of a vegetarian diet annoys many of those who have the vice of killing animals and eating their flesh. I hope eveyone even though it is not easy will quit someday; its more equally healthy that Way.
All One can or will do is try.

=
MJA

Don't worry, I eat equal amounts of chicken, beef, and pork daily. :a-ok:

@MJA,

Funny, if we do not kill deer in Texas, they over populate and thus eat too much and thus starve. Seems more brutal to let them starve then it does to kill and eat them.

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Funny, if we do not kill deer in Texas, they over populate and thus eat too much and thus starve. Seems more brutal to let them starve then it does to kill and eat them.

And there are equally many over-populated starving people in the world, and would you do the same for them?
I don't understand!
In Nevada they capture horses because someone has counted them and deemed them to many and then put them in concentration camps, brand them, segragate them, sell them to off to servatude, and others to dog food, and are seriously debating killing the rest, (Hmmm, sound familiar?) but there's evidence to the contrary that the horses captured are healthy and not starving at all.

=
MJA

@MJA,

So what if I am suggesting that we prune back mankind a bit?

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Funny, if we do not kill deer in Texas, they over populate and thus eat too much and thus starve. Seems more brutal to let them starve then it does to kill and eat them.

What's even funnier (not really) is that humans are to blame for this situation: we've run off and killed off the natural predators of deer. Humans are also natural predators of deer, but we've taken to grocery stores and left the forest behind, except for sport, of course.

@MJA,

In southern New England, where I grew up, both deer populations and their predators were hunted down many many generations ago. But in recent decades, farmland has been replaced by forest (since farming and food imports have become much less regional). This has led to an explosion of the deer population. One side effect has been an explosion of the population of deer ticks, who like to mate on the backs of deer. This has been directly associated with a rise in the rates of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and human babesiosis, which are diseases spread by deer ticks.

@Aedes,

Funny how deer and vegetatianism have been cross-threaded on this thread.
Not so funny if your a deer though.
Are we looking for an excuse to kill?
Justice, is that it?

=
MJA

@MJA,

Land management and hunting are not the same thing, of course.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Land management and hunting are not the same thing, of course.

Land management on a vegetarian thread?
OK!

In wildness is the preservation of nature. Henery David Thoreau

=
MJA

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

In southern New England, where I grew up, both deer populations and their predators were hunted down many many generations ago. But in recent decades, farmland has been replaced by forest (since farming and food imports have become much less regional). This has led to an explosion of the deer population. One side effect has been an explosion of the population of deer ticks, who like to mate on the backs of deer. This has been directly associated with a rise in the rates of Lyme disease, human granulocytic anaplasmosis, and human babesiosis, which are diseases spread by deer ticks.

It's all cause and effect. Each of our actions on this planet have consequence, so killing off herds of animals for whatever reason shouldn't bear no consequence. I'd say we deserve the granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and lymes disease. It's nothing compared to what we've already done.

And from a different perspective -- we're a part of nature, too. So, getting diseases from interaction with the environment is, well, natural. I see nothing inherently *wrong* with this.

@Zetherin,

We are part of nature, Zetherin. I think that's the point: we, as a species, set ourselves up as higher than, as lords over, the rest of the natural world to such a sick degree that we have begun to erode the sustainability of the natural world; in particular, the ability of the natural world to sustain a sizable human population.

When gorillas begin to defecate in their nests, you know the beasts are ill. Humans are busy defiling this global nest - I'd argue we're sick.

"Ever been karmicly bit*h-slapped by a six armed goddess?" I agree with you, Zetherin, there is nothing inherently wrong with suffering due to our defiling of the natural world; there is something remarkably natural about it. More importantly, it is necessary.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;50237 wrote:

It's all cause and effect. Each of our actions on this planet have consequence, so killing off herds of animals for whatever reason shouldn't bear no consequence. I'd say we deserve the granulocytic anaplasmosis, babesiosis, and lymes disease. It's nothing compared to what we've already done.

We don't "deserve" anything. Why should some little kid deserve Lyme meningitis, or some old man deserve severe babesiosis, just because of the pecadillos of humanity?

Zetherin wrote:

And from a different perspective -- we're a part of nature, too. So, getting diseases from interaction with the environment is, well, natural. I see nothing inherently *wrong* with this.

It may not be wrong in a cosmic sense. But there is such a thing as preventable suffering. If you zoom in the big lens in your brain, and look at individuals instead of humanity, you'll acknowledge that humanity is sometimes too abstract and distant a concept when it comes to disease. There are examples of worse diseases out there than the deer tick-borne ones that are a consequence of human actions. I mean the black death was in part a product of urbanization, as has been epidemic yellow fever, dengue, etc.

But either way, the REAL take home message is that the world is far too complex for us to be able to predict the consequences of major changes in demographics and land use. They eat civets in China -- who would have ever predicted SARS?

http://civet.berkeley.edu/~dstrubbe/civet-Q.jpg

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

We don't "deserve" anything. Why should some little kid deserve Lyme meningitis, or some old man deserve severe babesiosis, just because of the pecadillos of humanity?

Well, "deserve" is not the best word here as that implies some sort of morality structure or 'worthiness', however, this was what I was intending to articulate: Human devastation is not any more profound than for any other species. We could extrapolate your question to a multitude of species, many of which we've murdered in the process of constructing our known societies. What significance does this hold? It's a cycle of life and death. Let us not pick out a little kid from our species and uphold him as the epitome of innocence; We could say the same for many other creatures.

Quote:

It may not be wrong in a cosmic sense. But there is such a thing as preventable suffering. If you zoom in the big lens in your brain, and look at individuals instead of humanity, you'll acknowledge that humanity is sometimes too abstract and distant a concept when it comes to disease. There are examples of worse diseases out there than the deer tick-borne ones that are a consequence of human actions. I mean the black death was in part a product of urbanization, as has been epidemic yellow fever, dengue, etc.

Yes, and there is preventable suffering for many creatures, not just humans. If you're wondering about my feelings concerning human empathy, I tend not to have any more than for any other creature. Often, actually, I have less for humanity.

Quote:

But either way, the REAL take home message is that the world is far too complex for us to be able to predict the consequences of major changes in demographics and land use. They eat civets in China -- who would have ever predicted SARS?

Indeed, it is. So, we can choose which things we have a passion for saving, and accept that other things may die. Again, it's a cycle of life and death, and we cannot punish ourselves for everything.

@MJA,

You make valid points. But when we move out of the abstract, it's probably not authentically in our nature to be truly equimonious about all this. The problem is that the world is constantly changing in a way that's beyond anyone's conscious agency, and priorities will always be put against one another. Many things we do are good from one perspective and bad from another. That said, this should not devalue the importance of disease and suffering among humans, which in the case of Lyme disease is partly a consequence of conditions good for deer and for deer ticks and for Borrelia burgdorferi (the spirochete that causes the disease).

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You make valid points. But when we move out of the abstract, it's probably not authentically in our nature to be truly equimonious about all this. The problem is that the world is constantly changing in a way that's beyond anyone's conscious agency, and priorities will always be put against one another. Many things we do are good from one perspective and bad from another. That said, this should not devalue the importance of disease and suffering among humans, which in the case of Lyme disease is partly a consequence of conditions good for deer and for deer ticks and for Borrelia burgdorferi (the spirochete that causes the disease).

I think you're right, I don't think it is in our nature to be equimonious (I'm assuming you mean equally harmonious?), nor is this the case with any creature. A sparrow mother will not choose to neglect it's nest filled with young just because it decides to direct it's love elsewhere, just as a human would feel compelled to nurture it's young. And though you could argue the sparrow has less of a choice than we do because of instinctual patterns, I feel we also have this instinct, even though we can choose to defy it -- We're one of the few species that can defy nature's intentions for our own emotions. But while we can defy these emotions and channel them elsewhere (particularly on other creatures), generally the decisions will come down to the benefit of our species, those closest to us. So, no, I wouldn't say this is a *bad* thing at all; it's natural, and evident amongst many species.

You illustrate a very good point with the case of Lymes disease, and being a physician, I'm sure you could cite many other examples, disease-wise. To be honest, I don't really know how I feel about all this. While I understand that it makes sense, and is even natural, to direct all of our resources towards disease and suffering among humans, I cannot get my mind off of the tick and other creatures that may be suffering in our stead. It is a life and death cycle, there are undeniable consequences, and yet I still feel a small pain inside me. My reasonableness cannot overcome my unreasonableness for some reason! :Not-Impressed:

@Aedes,

Deer have just as much a right to be here as we do in the sense that we`d want their existence to be as natural as possible. They cannot be hindered by us and whatever the outcome is of their ability to persevere is great.

See we humans can adapt. Deer can't. Let them flourish. If we want to build great cities and sewers and walls or make health care expensive as heck, then it should be in adaptation to the unhindered existence of the deer, not the controlling of such. If we want to start controlling demographics of other mammals then there's no use in being a vegetarian, or at least, it would seem oxymoronic.

@Holiday20310401,

Zetherin;50311 wrote:

I feel we also have this instinct, even though we can choose to defy it.

Oh do we ever. Let me tell you that as a new parent, there is nothing stronger. It's not rational. There is no love, no pull that is that strong.

Zetherin wrote:

While I understand that it makes sense, and is even natural, to direct all of our resources towards disease and suffering among humans, I cannot get my mind off of the tick and other creatures that may be suffering in our stead. It is a life and death cycle, there are undeniable consequences, and yet I still feel a small pain inside me.

This ain't easy stuff. The ideal situation is to do our best to anticipate problems rather than being reactionary to them.

Holiday20310401 wrote:

Deer have just as much a right to be here as we do in the sense that we`d want their existence to be as natural as possible. They cannot be hindered by us and whatever the outcome is of their ability to persevere is great.

See we humans can adapt. Deer can't. Let them flourish.

Deer CAN adapt -- that's why they DO flourish, including living in New York City. Sparrows can adapt. Pigeons can adapt. Cockroaches can adapt. Squirrels can adapt. Rats can adapt. Vultures and hawks and crows and black bears and raccoons can adapt. Get it? The peridomestic fauna are the adaptable ones. The ones who can't adapt are the ones that disappear from areas of human development. In other words, human development does not exert an equal selective pressure on all animals. That's why our existence is LESS of a hindrance to deer than it is to animals that prey on deer, like wild cats and wolves.

Holiday20310401;50312 wrote:

If we want to build great cities and sewers and walls or make health care expensive as heck, then it should be in adaptation to the unhindered existence of the deer, not the controlling of such.

Deer aren't the problem with Lyme disease. The disease is caused by a spirochete (a kind of bacterium) Borrelia burgdorferi, it's spread to humans by the tick Ixodes scapularis, and part of the bacteria's life cycle takes place in the white footed mouse, Peromyscus leucopus.

All these things are alive. Is our obligation to the bacterium the same as it is to the deer? Is our obligation to the tick the same as it is to the mouse and the deer? If you had to put a rank order of our custodial priorities, most humans would put humans first, then deer, then mice, then ticks, then bacteria. How would you do it?

Philosophy Forum

Vegetarianism is a Higher level View

Quick Links

My Account

able2know