Would humanity be better off if more people were ascetics?

Post Reply New Topic

Whole cultures have done without meat for millennia! I take DHA EPA and ALA. We all take supplements in one way or another. We do not need to intentionally kill animals to live. We need not kill animals who feed on our grains. We can make it hard for them to reach, but anything they eat is an acceptable loss. This will simply lead to slightly higher prices. We can live with that. It isn't what actually happens, but it is what should happen.

Veganism saves 200 animals a year of extreme torment in factory farms. These are lives which can be saved. Even if it is impossible to prevent all harm we should prevent as much as possible. Whereas I may unintentionally step on an insect, I do not intentionally pay for torture and murder. It is different to run someone over intentionally and different to lose control of your car and run someone over. The environmental impact of veganism is greater than not using a car. More animals will die in farming if you consume animal products! Every unit of nutrition from animal products requires ten units of nutrition form plants. So veganism implies I am causing as little harm as possible. It is not currently possible to cause no harm but we should try to minimize harm. To me, sparing 200 animals a year is huge impact. How can you say it does not make a difference? Do you realize what it means to spare 200 animals a year of torture and death. Imagine someone torturing 200 dogs a year and then killing them. Suppose they are willing to stop if you gave up certain foods while still having a healthy diet. You see that pointless? To me animals are precious and giving up animals products to spare 200 animals per year of hell is a no-brainier. I love them.
A vegan is making a very big impact. If others adopted it, it would mean that tens of billions of animals would not need to be tutored and die in concentration camps every year. The horrors these animals face are worse than what people faced in Nazi concentration camps. They suffer just like humans. Ending this disgrace would be a the biggest moral victory in human history.

No you don't, many of us have proved that! The proof is right before your eyes.

I did not like it at the start either but considering the alternative it is a sacrifice well worth the discomfort. Try it the recommended way, maybe even gradually. Considering how much is at stake it requires maximal effort.

Morality comes before comfort and pleasure. It should be done even if one does not like it.

You could get complete protein from plants. Unless you are different form humans it can work for you. Even if it didn't do it would take a long time for the effects to show. How long did you try it for in order to determine it does not do?

Hindus have gone without meat for centuries but I don't have Hindu genes. My genes scream MUST HAVE MEAT!

Besides, who calls themselves hyena then brags about not eating meat

Sikhs, Hindus, and many Buddhists do not eat meat.

We have gone for centuries without pesticides, and from what I hear they are very harmful. How many birds and rodents can you shoot? Many will still get in. What about farmers who do not have a gun?

I take only vegan supplements. Competing for resources in order to survive is morally very different from enslaving an animal and torturing her when it is unnecessary. I oppose animal testing. How do vermin suffer more than factory farm animals? That seems impossible.

How many other animals have I killed? How much acid rain could my processor contribute to? How much paper and traveling does my processor save? Living a life free of technology and basic needs would make life impossible. But it would also make it extremely uncomfortable in the extreme. We cannot live decent lives without harming animals indirectly but we can live decent lives without enslaving animals and torturing them. To contribute as little as possible to harming animals indirectly I would have to give up knowledge, warmth, traveling, cooked food etc. In order to end death camps all you have to give up is certain tastes.

It is impossible for me to live a lifestyle free of harm to animals. I will save as many as I can. Especially ones that live in death camps. If you wish to bring specific examples you will have to give me numbers and sources for those numbers.

Modern life is possible without death camps. It isn't possible without resources. Yes we must compete for resources, we need not enslave animals in order to live decent lives.

Besides vegans are doing much more than the rest of you. If you can come up with ways I can harm less animals while still living a decent life I am all ears.

We can be better than nature. Nature has no morality. Killing other humans is also natural. Do you think we should be killing each other for mates and for resources? Do you think you know better than nature? There are many more examples where we part with nature in order to be more moral.

And one more thing, factory farms are not natural:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiFXlNkdRMc[/youtube]

I am willing to part with some flavours in order to end death camps! I am unwilling to part with shelter, knowledge, clothing, and technology to save more indirect harm to animals. I am doing much more than you though. I am sparing much more suffering. As you well know taste is much easier to give up than shelter, clothing and technology. Do you think better taste is worth torturing 200 animals annually? If I am asked: do I think some indirect deaths are worth our technology? I would answer yes. Technology at the cost of incidental humans and animals deaths is a must. Although we should be more responsible. Ideally we can work to reduce our population and use less resources. It it impossible to live without resources. Taste is not worth death camps. That is the difference.

Let me pose this question to you. We would be killing (indirectly) fewer humans if we gave up our technology and lived the primitive lifestyle you have in mind. Suppose you loved the taste of human flesh. Would you eat human flesh? Why not, if you do not live a primitive lifestyle? You too would be much more willing to part with taste than with technology. This shows that the principle I use is a general one that applies to humans as much as animals. We are unwilling to use another being for our own ends but we can indirectly harm other beings to get certain important things. Ask yourself the question I posed! Why would you be willing to not eat humans but would be willing to use technology which leads to human deaths. Why would you condemn a culture that enslaves, tortures, and kills and eats humans, while you yourself contribute to human deaths by using technology and other comforts? How do you answer?

For one thing, I hardly ever eat cattle. Just when they are made into delicious hot dogs and I don't have them too often. Mostly what I eat are turkey and chicken with fish from time to time. Maybe bacon once a week or every two weeks on a club sandwich.
I agree, free the cattle for chrissakes it wouldn't bother me. I am not dependent on hamburgers and can get by on poultry. Besides, cattle feedlots are nasty and disgusting, especially that one right outside Amarillo. It leaves a stink-filled haze across the interstate. It's right by the high way. At night it's filled with cattle and has these halogen lights everywhere.