Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Come on now, we didn't kill animals out of self-defense. We fled animals that tried to kill us, we killed animals that we were stronger or smarter than. This topic does relate to our need to eat less meat - the hunt used to be nature's control so that we didn't go overboard on meat - but we definitely didn't eat meat simply because "oops, had to kill that poor animal, I guess we'll eat it." Meat was a luxury to be sure (and it should return to being a luxury), but it had nothing to do with self-defense.
|
I wasn't referring to self-defense at all. I was referring to food only. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.
Quote:
|
No disagreement there, but it doesn't change that we generally have a taste for meat. That some people have less taste for meat and can successfully become vegans doesn't negate the overall general taste for at least occasional meat that exists in the species as a whole.
|
I have a taste for scotch, but I don't need to drink it. I absolutely love the taste of meat of all kinds. Of the reasons why I still eat it, most of them are emotional ones. For the years when I was a vegetarian (practically vegan incidentally), I didn't crave meat. I was too busy eating other delicious food.
Quote:
|
But you did oversimplify it, because there's c) reform our food production system so that animals are treated better before being killed - because it's better for them and for us - and allow the monetary price of meat to reflect its true cost so that we naturally reduce meat consumption in our day-to-day diet. It's really very important to include option c, because if the argument is simplified to options a and b... you're going to be disappointed that a ton of your fellow humans would rather pick a, and those people aren't going away any time soon (or ever).
|
Treating the animals kindly before they're put to death would be nice, but not ideal really. It'd be like a death spa. You'd get a nice enough life during your stay before you "check out."
Quote:
|
Case in point: I'm pretty sure I'm more aware and concerned about these issues than your average person and around 50% of my friends are vegetarian or vegan, and I still have no interest in giving up meat completely. If you can't convince me to go vegetarian (let alone vegan), then you're never going to convince Joe Blow in Kansas.
|
I'm not all that concerned about Joe Blow in Kansas, or even Joe Blow from Idaho either. What concerns me the most as it stands is related more to your option C, I suppose.
You're right about the price of meat. I think the price of all food should be fully reflected in the cost of food. The price of meat is way cheaper than it should be and so consumers are actually paying more for it than they think through tax dollars via subsidies. I think the price of most meat would be 30 to 50% higher if it weren't subsidized (the irony here is that vegetarians and vegans pay for up to half of the meat consumed by the typical person in a given year despite choosing not to "support such an industry"). If I'm wrong, I bet it's because it's even higher than that.
The price of meat in North America is a deceptive situation of subconsciously thinking we're "getting something from nothing." The resources that go into meat production aren't accounted for on the price tags in the supermarket.