![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 0:25:36
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2005, at 13:59:28
I agree with you except that:
> In nature there is a food chain, and we are just part of that food chain. When we are done living, our remains go to feed the lower parts of the chain and the process goes on.Firstly just because that is the way things have been doesn't mean that we are morally entitled to go on in the same way 'just because that is the way we have lived in the past'.
I have done some checking around. You can obtain all the nutrients you need to be healthy (incl protein etc) from non animal and non-dairy (though need to take a synthetic form of B12 if you forgo dairy altogether). It might be tricky to work out what sorts of things to eat to get them all though. But the fact is that we simply do not need to eat meat anymore to live healthily.
I can chase down the sources for this if people would like..
The production of animals for food is actually very inefficient. More pounds of vegetables can be produced per acre of fertile land than pounds of meat. Animals are also fed lots of grain - grain that could have been eaten by us directly.
I agree with you about the leather products. That is something that was only brought to my attention recently. But yeah, that makes sense.
With respect to practicing operations on animals I guess I would ask myself 'would we do the same thing to an orphaned human infant?'. Yeah vets have to give surgery to pets one day, but likewise doctors have to give surgery to people. What do we do in the latter case? We practice on the dead, and we practice on those who need it - with appropriate supervision. Why should it be different in the case of animals? Would it be morally acceptable to perform an opperation on a human being (with appropriate anasthetic etc) 'just to practice'???
IMO no.
Not morally justified.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:17:45
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on February 27, 2005, at 13:59:28
This is a good link to making sure you get a balanced diet.
Also talks about the health benefits of a vegan / vegetarian lifestyle.http://www.veganhealth.org/shv/
This addresses some interesting point.
http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm
And here are some replies to the most common arguments as to why it is that eating meat is ethically acceptable:
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 0:25:36
Sorry, I read what you had to say about the animal experiments again...
Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?
Posted by Damos on February 28, 2005, at 15:27:08
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
That'd be a big "NO" to that idea.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 15:33:11
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on February 28, 2005, at 15:27:08
Unless we would be prepared to do the same thing to people. I actually don't see why the hell not. But I don't think many people would like it...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:10:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 15:33:11
Singer maintains that if pain matters morally then it matters wherever it occurs. Therefore any sentient creature who has an interest in avoiding such pain should have its interest taken into account. He then discounts such properties as intelligence, moral capacity, race, gender etc as being relevant and he maintains that sentience is the only defensible boundary for having ones interests taken into account.
Sentient beings of differing degrees of intelligence should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Sentient beings of differing races should thus have their equal interests considered equally.
Likewise, he considers that sentient beings regardless of species should have their equal interests considered equallyTo discriminate on the basis of intelligence, race, etc is wrong because these differences are irrelevant to whether something has interests or not.
To discriminate on the basis of species is wrong because this difference is irrelevant to whether something has interests. To disregard the interests of animals simply because they are of a different species is morally unjustifiable (speciest). It is comparable to racism, sexism, etc.He considers that speciesism may be the last form of discrimination that we routinely practice without being aware of it.
To change our lifestyles so that we do not condone the exploitation of animals is hard. But we should consider how hard it would have been for slave owners to change their lifestyles so as not to condone the exploitation of people.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 20:05:40
In reply to Re: Racism and Speciesm., posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:10:38
But he writes very well indeed.
http://ar.vegnews.org/Questions.html
He also has links to other articles on objective morality and why children should rebel...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:45:40
In reply to Re:Don't know who this guy is..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 20:05:40
... philosophy is hopeless because you just argue round and round in circles all the time... that no clear answer emerges... but they do... quite often... it is just that oftentimes we don't like what they say... that is why socrates was forced to drink hemlock... philosophers typically aren't popular people... but then many philosophers devote their lives to justifications imo... i don't want to do that... i don't want to ever do that... it isn't that i believe i am always right... but i do think that in this case there is a very clear rational answer... and for all those with allergies etc i don't know... i guess it is about doing what one can... hell, it is always a matter of that...
thanks for listening.
Posted by Damos on March 1, 2005, at 23:02:53
In reply to Re: People often think that..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:45:40
I absolutely agree. I think it was Einstien who said
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
Thanks for the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:11:29
In reply to Re: People often think that... » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on March 1, 2005, at 23:02:53
> I absolutely agree. I think it was Einstien who said
>
> "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
>
> Thanks for the thread.:-)
Did he say that???
I suppose he would have been a reductionist...
But it makes sense on other levels too...
Thanks for that.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 12:18:42
In reply to Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on February 21, 2005, at 19:56:04
> There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products.
Sorry, I'm rather slow to join this discussion, but I hope the following is food for thought:
It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet. Not only has that never been demonstrated, it is factually impossible, based on some other assumptions.
The United States Department of Agriculture has published extensive analyses of food nutrient content, both for pure foods, and for processed foods. Employing those data, and assuming a caloric intake appropriate to maintain a stable weight, it is not possible to select *any* diet which simultaneously meets all RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for nutrients for which an RDA is established. Although the belief that a "balanced diet" will provide all required nutrients is widespread, I have never found any evidence that supports that belief. I would be glad to be proven wrong on this, but, as I said, the evidence is lacking.
It's important to understand what is meant by terms like RDA (and related measures such as DRI (daily recommended intake)).
The core determination is the EAR, the Estimated Average Requirement. That's the 50th percentile of overt deficiency risk, based on the seven-day averaged intake of a nutrient. At the EAR, there are equal numbers of individuals showing overt deficiency symptoms, and equal numbers not. The RDA is two standard deviations above the EAR. By definition (normal distribution), that captures all individuals up to the 97.5th percentile. At the RDA level of intake, 1 in 40 *healthy and normal* subjects is still exhibiting overt deficiency symptoms. There is no consideration for adverse health states, nor for optimal intake. Nor are "normal" or "healthy" defined.
For a visual representation, see the graph at:
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309071836/html/24.html#pagetopYou'll note that adverse health effects are still expected if someone meets the RDA for that given nutrient (i.e. risk of inadequacy is non-zero). And way off to the right is the Upper Limit, that point where intake is so high that the risk of toxic effects starts to rise from zero. Just from looking at the graph, you can see that it's better to exceed the RDA for nutrient intakes, so long as you stay below the UL.
For some nutrients, there is no known Upper Limit. In other words, you'd have to really go out of your way to obtain any toxic effects from them. For others, the Upper Limit is set with some very conservative safety factors in mind. For example, the safety factor for vitamin E is 36. That means you'd have to take 36 times the recommended Upper Limit for there to be any real risk of toxic effects. (And, it so happens, the toxic effects that do arise from excess vitamin E are likely due to vitamin K deficiency, which really has nothing to do with vitamin E in the first place).
There are other curves (all based on what is called the "normal curve" of statistical distribution) which have been used to show the various aspects of nutrient deficiency and excess.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1563S/FIG2There are three aspects of deficiency. The most obvious are overt syptoms of deficiency, labelled here as "clinical effects". This is the same curve I referenced above, with respect to RDA. To its right (higher intakes) are curves representing measurable biochemical effects of subclinical intensity, and measurable biochemical effects of no clinical relevancy. The dotted curves showing AROI "acceptable range (of daily) oral intake", lie completely to the right of the intake defined by RDA. In other words, 100% of all subjects would show no signs of overt or covert deficiency or toxic effects within the AROI range. Optimization of health is the limiting character of AROI, whereas RDA is wholly inadequate. Despite that *defined* inadequacy, a balanced diet cannot even meet that threshold.
Here are the only published analyses of diet adequacy that I have ever found. They demonstrate that when calories are appropriately limited, even a balanced diet is inadequate.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703646
Ann Nutr Metab. 1984;28(1):11-23.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=3654115
Int J Vitam Nutr Res. 1987;57(2):225-30.So what? People have surviving to ripe old ages, nothwithstanding dietary analysis. What's the big deal?
Cancer.
Bruce Ames (the same Ames of the Ames Test for mutagenicity) has laid it all out.
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1544S
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11295149
Mutat Res. 2001 Apr 18;475(1-2):7-20.What is striking is that a significant number of these key anti-cancer nutrients are also generally deficient in vegetarian (expecially vegan) diets. That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
The United States government has funded major investigations into the relationship between typical diet and health parameters, under the name NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), now in its third data collection cycle. From those surveys, we obtain the following data:
Iron and zinc table:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/131/8/2177/T5Even with fortification of foods, more than half of adults fail to meet the RDA for iron or zinc.
Zinc table:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/130/5/1367S/T4In this table, "Adequate Intake" (which has no scientific basis; it is an estimate based on an estimate) is defined as only 77% of RDA, yet only 54% of the population meets even that target (despite overconsumption of meat, a major source). In the full-text of that article, it is suggested that only 2% of the population meet or exceed the RDA for zinc, and every one of those uses a supplement.
I repeat. Only 2% of Americans meet or exceed zinc RDAs, and only if taking a supplement. Moreover, there is an unexamined confound, bioavailability. Plant-based mineral uptake is substantially inhibited by constituents of the plants themselves. Direct competition due to binding by oxalic acid or phytic acid is exacerbated by physical compartmentalization within soluble fiber or adhesion to insoluble fiber. Uptake of minerals can be as little as 1% of the amount determined by elemental analysis of the plant mineral content.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1910521
Estimating adequacy of zinc intake:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/5/1563SA diet analysis only provides you with crude intake information, in any case. It is fallacious to equate intake with uptake. Consider, for zinc alone, the effect of a single dietary variable, phytate intake. From the text above: "The WHO committee set three levels of zinc absorption based on the P:Z of three diet types: P:Z < 5 (representing refined diets or semipurified formulas), 50% absorption; P:Z 5-15 (representing mixed diets or refined vegetarian diets), 30% absorption; P:Z > 15 (unrefined diets, negligible animal protein), 15% absorption. The data used were derived from studies measuring zinc absorption from single test meals, as well as from total diets, although the availability of the latter study types were limited at the time the estimates were made."
Bioavailability is what sets animal flesh apart from plant-source foods. All biota are bioaccumulators. Plants bioaccumulate from soil (with the help of microbes). If that was not the case, would we not just eat soil? Animals are even better nutrient bioaccumulators than are plants. Moreover, the form (particularly with respect to minerals and B-vitamins) of those nutrients are generally more bioavailable (as percent uptake/utilization) than are the identical plant-based nutrients. Whether an individual can survive solely on plant-based nutrient intake is not determinable from any of the data available to us. The normal curves of nutrient requirement have high inter-personal variability. Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs. However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
For someone contemplating a vegetarian diet, there are some specific considerations to bear in mind. The most problematic micronutrients to obtain are calcium, iodine, iron, zinc, selenium (in some countries, based on soil content), vitamin B12 (cobalamin), vitamin B2 (riboflavin, which itself is essential for zinc and iron uptake from the gut), vitamin B6 (pyridoxine), and vitamin D. Evidence is accumulating that the macronutrient long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids DHA and EPA are also conditionally essential. Here are some abstracts which detail the magnitude of those problems.
B-vitamins generally:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1797957
Vitamin B12:
vitamin D
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8237875
Iron
Selenium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8546880
Iodine
General nutrition of vegetarian diet:
Nutritional importance of animal source foods:
http://www.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/133/11/3932SOn mineral bioavailability:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/633SOn vegetarian diet and long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturates:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/640Shttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7609607
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9637947
To your health,
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 16:16:59
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 12:18:42
> It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
It is but one consideration.
The main assumptions in the argument go:
Sentient beings need to have their interests taken into account.
Animals are sentient beings.
Breeding animals for food and killing them to eat them is severely disregarding their interests
Therefore it is wrong to breed animals for food and kill them to eat them.If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
>Not only has that never been demonstrated, it is factually impossible, based on some other assumptions.
The assumption being what counts as 'adequate nutrition'.
> it is not possible to select *any* diet which simultaneously meets all RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for nutrients for which an RDA is established.> Despite that *defined* inadequacy, a balanced diet cannot even meet that threshold.
> So what? People have surviving to ripe old ages, nothwithstanding dietary analysis. What's the big deal?
Ha! I would take that to be a reductio ad absurdum of the RDA. What I mean by that is that if people we typically consider 'healthy' are found to be labelled 'deficient' then clearly there is something wrong with the RDA. If it is impossible to be 'healthy' without suppliments then I would say that something is severely wrong with that measure of 'health'.
Office mate says that that is why the American RDA is ignored by most of the rest of the world. Instead the British one seems a little more realistic...
> What is striking is that a significant number of these key anti-cancer nutrients are also generally deficient in vegetarian (expecially vegan) diets.
Sure, people often do not eat a balanced diet. Both meat eaters and vegetarians / vegans. The issue is not how people *do* eat, though, it is how they *could* eat if they chose.
>That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
Right. See the point above. Americans tend to eat badly, we all know that ;-)
> Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
>However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
Based on what you are saying no balanced diet is an adequate source of nutrition. I would say that there is something severely wrong with the notion of an 'adequate source of nutrition' as laid out. But I shall revise my claim if you like. There isn't anything you get from meat / dairy that you can't get from an alternative source. Is that ok???
Consider a society of cannibals - we tell them that 'eating human flesh is unnecessary as adequate nutrition is available from a non person eating diet'.
They then use all of your arguments to justify continuing to eat human flesh. 'You people who don't eat human flesh don't meet RDA'. Is that supposed to justify a continuation of the practice???
You say that even people eating a balanced diet with meat need suppliments.
Well, I suppose that a vegetarian / vegan would also need suppliments then. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
I am not talking about whether the majority of vegetarians / vegans actually do eat a balanced diet and likewise I am not talking about whether the majority of non vegetarians / vegans actuallly do eat a balanced diet. I am just saying that it is possible to eat a balanced diet being vegetarian / vegan as it is possible to eat a balanced diet being non-vegetarian / vegan.
What evidence is there that you can be healthy being a vegetarian / vegan???
How about the number of people who are vegetarian / vegan and who seem healthy???
With respect to individual variation... Well, as you say, there are always suppliments.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 16:16:59
> > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
>
> It is but one consideration.It seems to be a core assumption.
> If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
As you say, that is the pivotal "if".
> > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.
>
> Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.
> >However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
>
> There isn't anything you get from meat / dairy that you can't get from an alternative source. Is that ok???I'm too brain-dead to address that just now.
> >That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
>Right. See the point above. Americans tend to eat badly, we all know that ;-)
In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
> You say that even people eating a balanced diet with meat need suppliments.
>
> Well, I suppose that a vegetarian / vegan would also need suppliments then. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 20:13:43
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
Larry - You went to a LOT of trouble simply to justify eating those braised pig knuckles you so love!! ;-)
TOFUemmy
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 20:19:10
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 16:55:23
> > > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
> > It is but one consideration.
> It seems to be a core assumption.Suppose adequate nutrition was not available without us eating human flesh. Does that mean that breeding humans to eat is ethical?
If it is impossible for both vegetarians / vegans and meat eaters to eat a healthy diet and it is possible for both groups to eat a healthy diet with the addition of suppliments then it follows that there is no requirement or necessity for us to eat meat. That is all I need.
> > If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
> As you say, that is the pivotal "if".But it is a fact that we do not need to eat animal products to survive. Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..
> > > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.> > Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
> No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.It shows that what the stats say we 'need' is not what we actually do need.
> In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
> I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.
I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
And I am still not at all convinced that those RDA stats are an accurate measure of what we 'need' in order to be healthy.
Posted by Damos on March 2, 2005, at 20:28:50
In reply to Re: People often think that..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:45:40
> ... philosophy is hopeless because you just argue round and round in circles all the time... that no clear answer emerges... but they do... quite often... it is just that oftentimes we don't like what they say... that is why socrates was forced to drink hemlock... philosophers typically aren't popular people... but then many philosophers devote their lives to justifications imo... i don't want to do that... i don't want to ever do that... it isn't that i believe i am always right... but i do think that in this case there is a very clear rational answer... and for all those with allergies etc i don't know... i guess it is about doing what one can... hell, it is always a matter of that...
>
> thanks for listening.Enter professor emeritus David Bohm (physicist and philosopher). Finally I found some links that you might find interesting. I had an all to short correspondence with Donald Factor one of the co-authors of Dialogue - A Proposal and I think he would have loved what you do here, encouraged you to keep going and probably joined in.
A short quote from Dialogue - A Proposal:
"The spirit of Dialogue is one of free play, a sort of collective dance of the mind that, nevertheless, has immense power and reveals coherent purpose. Once begun it becomes a continuing adventure that can open the way to significant and creative change."
Dialogue - A Proposal
http://www.infed.org/archives/e-texts/bohm_dialogue.htmDavid Bohm on Meaning, Purpose & Exploration in Dialogue
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/dialogue/dialogue_exploration.htmlThe Flow of Meaning
http://www.muc.de/~heuvel/papers/flow_of_meaning.htmlLifework of David Bohm
http://www.vision.net.au/~apaterson/science/david_bohm.htmDon't worry I'm pretty confident you'll never be one of 'those' philosophers.
Damos :-)
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:29:49
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 20:19:10
> > > > It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
>
> > > It is but one consideration.
>
> > It seems to be a core assumption.
>
> Suppose adequate nutrition was not available without us eating human flesh. Does that mean that breeding humans to eat is ethical?I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues. I deal with local farmers, and I am on a first name basis with my butcher (who does his own killing). I take responsibility for my meat intake, and I am happy to provide others with raw materials for leather goods, shampoos, and soap.
> If it is impossible for both vegetarians / vegans and meat eaters to eat a healthy diet and it is possible for both groups to eat a healthy diet with the addition of suppliments then it follows that there is no requirement or necessity for us to eat meat. That is all I need.
I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.
> > > If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
>
> > As you say, that is the pivotal "if".
>
> But it is a fact that we do not need to eat animal products to survive. Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive.....in a manner of speaking.
> > > > Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.
>
> > > Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
>
> > No, not at all. It requires that the reader understands the nature and limitations of stats.
>
> It shows that what the stats say we 'need' is not what we actually do need.It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all. Just as you cannot apply statistics to an individual, you cannot generate statistics from an individual. Some people may get along nicely on a vegetarian diet. I truly believe I would not. The low outliers are not representative of the group, just as the high outliers are not. That's where the standard deviations come into play. Someone two standard deviations below the statistical mean intake to avoid deficiencey symptoms would be very much below the upper outlier group. Perhaps one tenth the intake, but adequate for them. Someone with that genetic luck might well declare that their statistically inadequate diet was adequate for all others, as *it works for them*. I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
> > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
>
> I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.
What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.
> > I was hoping that you, personally, would conclude that a vegan/vegetarian diet ought to include supplements.
>
> I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.You shan't be taking my advice, then?
> I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
Yellow pee is proof enough.
> And I am still not at all convinced that those RDA stats are an accurate measure of what we 'need' in order to be healthy.In truth, the correlations between intake and blood parameters are anything but robust, but they're the best estimates yet. Increasing incidence rates of supposedly vanquished nutritional disorders (e.g. frank scurvy and rickets, as examples) in first world countries, with fortified food supplies, speak for themselves.
When I was on the land, I grew great quantities and varieties of organic veggies. I do miss the dirt under my nails, and the fruit of the land. I had over thirty kinds of apples. Plums. Grapes. Kiwis. 12 kinds of raspberries. Lots of stuff. But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
Lar
P.S. I should go to bed before I say anything more.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:36:44
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 20:13:43
> Larry - You went to a LOT of trouble simply to justify eating those braised pig knuckles you so love!! ;-)
>
> TOFUemmyI don't need to justify. I just do it. I'm actually worried for those who try vegetarianism without considering the pitfalls. There are many. Some deficiencies take years to really become overt (B2, B6, B12, zinc, selenium, iodine, calcium, vitamin D). I did that research for y'all, not for me. I already knowed it all. ;-) Oh, solving these nutrient issues is easy.....seafood. It doesn't have to be meat.
BTW, I've never ever had pig knuckles. Oxtails, yes. Hocks, yes. Knuckles, non.
Lar
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 22:59:08
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:36:44
Oh...right oxtails! How could I forget?? Don't ever tell me tofu is disgusting!!
I take supplements...Puritan's Pride! I'm WAY healthier than any of my meat eating pals. And, ya know what? Even if you offered me irrefutable proof that I will die earlier because of not eating "face food"......I'll die knowing I lived authentically to my nature. The veg life is the only way I could possibly live.
emmy
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 2, 2005, at 23:29:58
In reply to Re: Animal Rights, posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 22:59:08
Emmy.. he eats THE FACE.. literally.
Pig Face
And yeah.. I'm way healthier than any of the meat eaters I know too, by far. Except perhaps the one's who stick to chicken and fish. I'm not to sure about this..
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:29:49
> I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I deal with local farmers, and I am on a first name basis with my butcher (who does his own killing). I take responsibility for my meat intake, and I am happy to provide others with raw materials for leather goods, shampoos, and soap.
Right. And so my question for you is 'would you be on a first name basis with a butcher (who does his own killing) of human beings. Do you believe it is wrong to breed and kill human beings to eat them? And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
> I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.Ah. And by the same logic you would not believe how many grotesquely overweight meat eaters I have seen. Even with suppliments. I am still not convinced of the healthiness of a meat eating diet.
Like I said, I agree with you that most people do not eat a balanced diet. But that doesn't just apply to vegetarians / vegans. And that doesn't just apply to meat eaters. You don't have to be convinced that you can remain healthy. All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
> Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..
> ...in a manner of speaking.
I can say the same about meat eaters.
> It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all.It falsifies the stats as showing us what we 'need' to be healthy. There are living counter-examples. The stats don't tell us that we need to eat meat anyway...
>I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
Ah. So *some* may need suppliments... whereas others may not... This still doesn't tell us that we have to eat meat...
> > > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.But *enough* may actually be a lot lower than FDA requirement for many... So they may actually be getting as much as they need
> > I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
> I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.Hmm. What about the British FDA requirements then??? How is their methodology? Apparantly it is possible to eat a balanced diet and meet that FDA standard of health... That is the system nutritionists study over here.
> What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.Indeed...
> > I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.
> You shan't be taking my advice, then?No. I struggle with money as it is. I won't 'gamble' with what I have.
> > I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
> Yellow pee is proof enough.Proof that some of the colouring goes straight through us...
> ... but they're the best estimates yet.What about the English system???
> When I was on the land, I grew great quantities and varieties of organic veggies. I do miss the dirt under my nails, and the fruit of the land. I had over thirty kinds of apples. Plums. Grapes. Kiwis. 12 kinds of raspberries. Lots of stuff.
Yum.
> But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
I don't know what to say.
You don't mind that animals suffer.
There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
But if you think animals have interests
That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified. But I don't know. You didn't want to talk about the ethics of it I suppose.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:28:24
In reply to Re: People often think that...(sideways step) » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on March 2, 2005, at 20:28:50
Thanks for the links :-)
They are interesting.A little continental for my tastes, perhaps ;-)
But interesting nevertheless
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:10:52
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
"Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?"
That is, obviously, not the same question. If the human euthanasia were voluntary they would have the ability to answer that question first.
If it were involuntary then there are so many other immoral(amoral) things going on (we usually call it murder) and the people doing the killing aren't likely to think twice.
It is a bit more grey when it comes to animals. Or at least it will be until pet owners become more responsible about unfettered reproduction.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:55:40
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
> > I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
>
> But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.
So you do seem to at least acknowledge that there are nutrients that humans need that aren't (in a practical manner) available in a veg diet.
So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?
> And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
Does everything have to be either/or? Does eating people *always* have to be wrong? Should the Donners have just starved because of morality? Who defines morality?
>
> I don't know what to say.
> You don't mind that animals suffer.
> There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
> But if you think animals have interests
> That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
> Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified.Again - whose morality? The logical problem in your argument that I see is the assumption of the suffering of the animals is being used to say that eating meat if bad.
Are you worried (morally) about their pain? Or are you (as it looks to me) projecting the human desire for 'life liberty and happiness' onto animals? Does the same concern go for the killing of all living things (like cockatoos in Australia that are considered pests) or does it only go for those raised in captivity? Or only those eaten?
The western world is fairly humane in meat harvesting. Are we 'more moral' than, say, the Chinese who believe that more suffering makes the meat taste better?
My belief is that there is nothing, no action at all, that is 'moral' or 'immoral.' All is situational. And that we are merely discussing which shade of grey this is.
Mel, the happy carnivore
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:38:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:10:52
> "Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?"
> That is, obviously, not the same question. If the human euthanasia were voluntary they would have the ability to answer that question first.Ah, so because animals can't talk we should just assume that they give their consent???
(PS I think the answer to your question and the answer to the above question is the same. Thats why I included it)
> If it were involuntary then there are so many other immoral(amoral) things going on (we usually call it murder) and the people doing the killing aren't likely to think twice.Yes. Though I am sure the animals have an interest in living too???
> It is a bit more grey when it comes to animals. Or at least it will be until pet owners become more responsible about unfettered reproduction.Well...
Is it fair to disadvantage animals because they are unable to explicitly say that they would prefer not to be killed to be eaten? Or killed at all really?
One thing Singer argued for (in the above posts) is that if something is sentient then it should have its interests taken into account. Sentient beings have interests such as the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Is it too anthropomorphic to assume that animals have an interest in those things?
He maintains that something with comperable sentience should be considered to have comperable interests. These should be taken into account comperably.
It is surely safe to assume that a monkey or a dog or a cat or a pig or a cow or a sheep is sentient in a comperable way to a retarded human infant.
Singer thinks that because there is a comperable degree of sentience they should be taken into account in a comperable manner.
Sure, some of the experiments on animals are worthwhile. But to 'pick on' animals by disregarding their interests to use them in comparatively trivial experiments and eating them etc JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN is speciest.
When considering whether the experiment is justified we should ask ourselves 'would it be acceptable to perform the experiment on a retarded human being'. If it is justified in this case then it would be justified to use animals.
If we actually did this the research that would be performed on animals would be a fraction of what it is today...
It is clearer here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461882.html
And here I try to argue that he isn't just calling people names when he calls the majority of people 'speciest'.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461535.html
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.