Gyroscopic Investing

The NY Times is running a contest to see if someone can take on the challenge to provide an ethical argument for eating meat.

The central question: is it right to eat animals when human survival is not at stake?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/magaz ... ntest.html

Anyone willing to take a stab at this?

Because it's both nutritious and delicious!

Is it ethical for predators to eat their prey?

They are feeding themselves based upon their instincts and the ecological systems in which they live.

If it's ethical for a predator to eat its prey, why would it not be ethical for us, who are the ultimate predators, to eat the various creatures that we view as our prey?

If someone chooses not to eat meat, that is a perfectly valid personal choice.  If, however, that person begins to imagine that his personal standards should be universally adhered to, that's really not a matter of animal rights, but rather just a good old fashioned case of one group of people behaving in a coercive manner toward another group based upon some urgent wrong in the world that they believe they can correct.

Every coercive act begins with a stated desire to improve the world in some way.

A good question to ask animal rights activists is whether they would be willing to injure an animal in order to protect a human being with whom they disagreed on the issue of animal rights.  The next question to ask them is whether they would be willing to injure a human being with whom they disagreed on the issue of animal rights in order to protect an animal.  The answers to these questions will normally raise many more ethical issues than whether it is proper for humans to eat meat.

One thing I wonder about is whether an animal rights activist who is opposed to eating meat should incroporate the meat of predators into his own diet.  The reasoning would be that in order to protect animals against violence imposed on them from others, it might be necessary to kill predators such as wolves, coyotes, bobcats and similar predators.  Once they have been killed, though, it would be necessary to eat the meat of the predator in order to avoid the ehtical issue of wasting food.

I always wonder what solution animal rights activists would offer to exploding populations of prey animals when their predators are wiped out.

Another question to ponder is whether humans owe a duty to other predators to try to convince them to stop eating meat, perhaps by capturing them in the wild and sending them to "re-education" facilities where they could be taught about the ethics of following their instincts.  Humans have a pretty long track record of doing this to other humans, so to see it tried on another species would be an interesting change of pace.  There is something comically absurd about the idea of a concentration camp for predators with a bunch of tree hugger hippie types torturing the animals to bring them to a vegan state of enlightenment, all done under the banner of "animal rights".  If that sounds stupid, consider the things humans have done to other humans throughout history based upon the same basic rationale.

Who's to say that vegetables don't have some form of consciousness or can feel pain?



Those vegetarians are MONSTERS!! 

It has been a good while siince I read it, but Samuel Butler's book Erewhon (anagram for Nowhere) has a discussion of the dietary history of the fictitious country described in the book.  First the philosophers decided that killing and eating animals was wrong, so they mandated that vegetarianism was the only appropriate diet.  Then, someone pointed out that vegetables were living things too, so the philosophers decided that it was OK to eat vegetables, but only those vegetables that had died of natural causes.

As I recall the final word from a more practical philosopher on the whole Erewhon diet thing:  "You must eat, or be eaten".

We are biologically built to eat meat, so denying that fact runs contrary to our fundamental nature.

MediumTex's point about predator/prey relationships is a good one.  Imagine trying to convince lions to forgo eating antelopes for the good of the mammals!

I was poking around Wikipedia and came across this article on the "Is-Ought Problem".  Basically it can be summed up with this quote from David Hume:

Given knowledge of the way the universe is, in what sense can we say it ought to be different?

I have not studied Philosophy, so I cannot even begin to get into the details nor understand them, but this does seem to be an age old problem.

Since life consumes life, and animals consume animals, who are we to say that that is wrong?

Personally, I think we should have a greater respect for the food we consume, but I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

Gosso wrote: I was poking around Wikipedia and came across this article on the "Is-Ought Problem".  Basically it can be summed up with this quote from David Hume:

Given knowledge of the way the universe is, in what sense can we say it ought to be different?

I have not studied Philosophy, so I cannot even begin to get into the details nor understand them, but this does seem to be an age old problem.

Since life consumes life, and animals consume animals, who are we to say that that is wrong?

Personally, I think we should have a greater respect for the food we consume, but I'm not going to feel guilty about it.

What we are normally talking about with these things is one group wanting to impose its idea of an ideal society on others who may have their own beliefs about what an ideal society looks like.

If people want to eat a meat-free diet, they are certainly free to do so.  What the OP seems to be getting at, IMHO, is more along the lines of trying to make people who choose to eat meat feel badly about it and/or change their behavior to match what a non-meat eater views as an ideal society.

Has anyone here ever read the reports about how many animals are killed by the threshers? Ok, they're mostly rodents, but they're still living things. The vegans and vegetarians have their retort, of course.

I'm "flexitarian" for now and while I don't have a great argument for eating meat save the fact that we're built to be omnivores (mentioned above),  my strategy is this:

- make fish a large part of the meat allocation. (I do feel guilty eating octopus. They're very intelligent).

- When buying meat, buy from farms when possible, as opposed to factory meat in a can. This will cut down on the brutality seen in those gruesome PETA videos.

- look forward to the advent of lab-grown meat. Not imitation meat, but the real stuff.

MT,

What the OP seems to be getting at, IMHO, is more along the lines of trying to make people who choose to eat meat feel badly about it and/or change their behavior to match what a non-meat eater views as an ideal society.

I wasn't making an argument either way. I was just posing the question. But, I guess I will get involved. I should preface this by saying that I do eat meat, albeit in small quantities.

While the act of eating meat itself might be difficult to ethically condemn, I think it is much easier to make an ethical argument against the way in which animals are raised and slaughtered for meat consumption. It would be very difficult in my opinion to defend the ethics of how animals are treated on a modern industrial farm. The conditions in many cases are deplorable, and the majority of the public would be appalled to see the manner in which these animals are treated. The truth however is carefully hidden from the public's eyes behind a facade of misleading packaging and advertising.

There is also the ethical issue on how meat consumption by 7 billion people impacts the health of the wider environment....air quality, water depletion, waste runoff etc. etc.

Overall, I think meat consumption will eventually become a non issue as I believe science will shortly figure out how to grow meat without having to first raise and feed an animal. When one thinks about it, there is a huge opportunity to reduce the cost and increase efficiency of creating meat if one can eliminate the need to birth, raise and slaughter an animal. In fact, I am surprised that with the level of technology today we aren't already growing steaks and chicken breasts in a lab sans animal.

doodle,

I fully agree with you that industrial pig, chicken and cattle operations seem cruel in many ways.

I don't know how to fix this, other than through individuals voting with their dollars to purchase meat that was raised under more humane conditions.

I still can't tell if this is a parody or not...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDvSPQ7megQ

I imagine you would need a lot of ketchup on that burger!

Doodle wrote:There is also the ethical issue on how meat consumption by 7 billion people impacts the health of the wider environment....air quality, water depletion, waste runoff etc. etc.

Agriculture in general is guilty of all of those sins.  Ultimately life on earth is a zero sum game.  If you have an acre of wheat, rice, corn, organic lettuce, etc. you don't have an acre of prairie, forest, meadow, etc.

There is pretty good evidence that the onset of human agriculture profoundly changed human health (initially and for quite a while for the worse), led to the rise of cities/governments/armies/wars, etc.  The trade-off was that larger populations could be sustained, humans found they liked leisure/power/knowledge, and the rest, as they say, is history.

There are more "humane" ways of raising animals for food, and I certainly don't object to supporting producers who use such methods.  But is a free-range chicken "happier" than a cage-raised bird?  I don't know.  But I do know that is is easy to project human feelings/emotions on to other species.

But is a free-range chicken "happier" than a cage-raised bird?  I don't know.  But I do know that is is easy to project human feelings/emotions on to other species.

A free range chicken is undoubtedly happier. Would you be happier in a cramped cage for 24 hours a day with 20 other sweaty humans knawing and pecking at you, or strolling around Central Park?  Animals do have feelings. They feel fear, stress, pain, happiness and sadness. I don't think Charlotte's Web is that much of a stretch of the truth....To deny them a reasonable standard of living is unjustifiable ethically. As I said before I think most people would be appalled to see the condition and treatment that animals receive on behalf of the industrial food complex.  

Agriculture in general is guilty of all of those sins.  Ultimately life on earth is a zero sum game.  If you have an acre of wheat, rice, corn, organic lettuce, etc. you don't have an acre of prairie, forest, meadow, etc.

Raising 1 calorie of meat is much more resource intensive than raising 1 calorie of crop...

MT,

I fully agree with you that industrial pig, chicken and cattle operations seem cruel in many ways.

I don't know how to fix this, other than through individuals voting with their dollars to purchase meat that was raised under more humane conditions.

I think the easiest way to fix this is to give consumers the information that they deserve. Governments could mandate that certain information is conveyed on food packaging that represents how this animal was raised. What type of food was this animal eating, what type of conditions did it live under, how was it slaughtered etc.

Access to accurate information is the linchpin that holds together the free market system. Right now,  the consumer is not able to make a distinction between products because they are kept in the dark by manipulative and misleading advertising.

doodle wrote: MT,

I fully agree with you that industrial pig, chicken and cattle operations seem cruel in many ways.

I don't know how to fix this, other than through individuals voting with their dollars to purchase meat that was raised under more humane conditions.

I think the easiest way to fix this is to give consumers the information that they deserve. Governments could mandate that certain information is conveyed on food packaging that represents how this animal was raised. What type of food was this animal eating, what type of conditions did it live under, how was it slaughtered etc.

Access to accurate information is the linchpin that holds together the free market system. Right now,  the consumer is not able to make a distinction between products because they are kept in the dark by manipulative and misleading advertising.

Are you saying that you are against the slander laws that make it illegal to talk negatively about industrial agriculture?

As I recall, this is what Oprah was sued for in Texas a few years ago.

MT,

Are you saying that you are against the slander laws that make it illegal to talk negatively about industrial agriculture?

As I recall, this is what Oprah was sued for in Texas a few years ago.

I wasn't aware of the existence of such laws....but I'm not surprised in the least that big business would try to shut down people's first amendment rights. I find it a big stretch to define accurate reporting (in many cases video of farm conditions) as slander.

The documentary Food Inc. I think does a pretty good job as well describing how big Agri-business companies like Monsanto strangle the ability of independent farmers to compete.

Why would it be a stretch to demand greater consumer information on packaging? I'm aware that issues exist, or course. There is funny business that goes on with companies to receive the "organic" labeling. But, that is a ridiculously broad way to label food anyways.

What would be better is to have perhaps a series of information printed on every package of meat...that described:

1. What was this animal fed
2. What sorts of antibiotics or hormones was animal given
3. What type of environment was animal raised in (cage, pen, field etc.)
4. Perhaps a link to a website with pictures of the farm where the animal was raised as well as a brief background on the farmer

This information, again, is essential for a functioning free market. Collusion by big business to limit consumer information is antithetical to the functioning of a free market.

doodle wrote: What would be better is to have perhaps a series of information printed on every package of meat...that described:

1. What was this animal fed
2. What sorts of antibiotics or hormones was animal given
3. What type of environment was animal raised in (cage, pen, field etc.)
4. Perhaps a link to a website with pictures of the farm where the animal was raised as well as a brief background on the farmer

This information, again, is essential for a functioning free market. Collusion by big business to limit consumer information is antithetical to the functioning of a free market.

How about a pic of the animal itself?

I think we should aim for Restaurant at the End of the Universe -style meat, where the animal comes out to your table, introduces itself, and invites you to partake of this or that cut.

is anyone else tired of elitist organizations like NY Times attempting to impose their "morality" on us?

Murphy,

Let's remove the NY Times from the issue at hand here. Are you against having more information about the food that you consume? Do you like being kept in the dark about the products you put into your and your family's bodies? If you do, please elaborate why.

Why is demanding open and accurate information about the product you are consuming an affront to business? I don't understand that attitude....

Well, the only reason we're talking about this at all is because the NY Times brought it up.  Why this is part of "all the news that's fit to print" is unknown.  Certainly there are more important issues, and certainly the NY Times is, in general, trying to impose its skewed worldview on all of us.

By the way, the question of demanding accurate information from business is wider than just the food industry. How many people here would honestly feel comfortable with a  couple hundred fracking operations going on under your source of drinking water...especially when the company refuses to disclose what exactly it is that they are putting into the ground?

This particular mindset is completely non-intelligible to me. Could someone please explain why demanding less information from business is something that is good for citizens and consumers?

Xan,

Certainly there are more important issues, and certainly the NY Times is, in general, trying to impose its skewed worldview on all of us.

1. The New York Times simply issued a challenge. You can refer to the original article if you wish. Is there something negative about debating the ethics of ingrained cultural practices?

2. Please name a media outlet that is not trying to impose its "worldview"?

3. How is the food that you put into your body everyday not an important issue?

4. Please address how having less information in a free market is better for citizens and consumers?  

A reminder to everyone, maybe calling into question your ingrained cultural practices is just inherently uncomfortable and offensive. Nevertheless, I believe it is an essential step in the slow march of progress. Depending on ones culture and vantage point, debating a practice such as female circumcision could be seen as "imposing" ones morality on others. I'm sure you could find quite a number of people throughout Africa that would support this practice and condemn any "liberal" westerner who saw the practice as unfit for a modern society.


A contest to our readers!

Long standing cultural practices like female circumcision have come under heavy fire by western elites. They make the argument that slicing and dicing female genitalia is a barbaric practice that has no place in the modern world. We issue a challenge to all cultural traditionalists to defend this practice. Why is it ethical to cut off a young woman's clitoris?

doodle wrote:A free range chicken is undoubtedly happier. Would you be happier in a cramped cage for 24 hours a day with 20 other sweaty humans knawing and pecking at you, or strolling around Central Park?  Animals do have feelings. They feel fear, stress, pain, happiness and sadness.

Not too many years ago being in a cage with 20 other sweaty humans was safer than being in Central Park.

There is no way to know whether a chicken is "happy", a decidedly human construct.  Are "free-range" chickens happier if they are subject to regular visits from foxes?  Is a lion crushing the windpipe of an antelope "happy"?  Is a free-range amoeba "happier" than a Petri dish amoeba?

The "moral" argument for humans eating meat is that we evolved as meat eaters.  It is in our nature, in our genetic heritage.  We also eat lots of other stuff and likely have the most diverse diet (as a species) of any species on the planet.  I have no problem with anyone arranging their diet to suit whatever they choose (cannibalism aside), but I do have a problem with those who argue from the position that veganism/vegetarianism, et al. is on a more enlightened plane.

So go ahead, if you want.  Eat plant embryos (corn, beans, etc.) and plant ovaries (apples, oranges, etc.).