Meat-eating Vs. vegetarianism

[GentleArtillery]

- Read through all of this post before posting yourself. -

I think this subject concerns all of you. But to make this debate a good one, without flaming and unnecessary suffering (< exaggeration), I want you to follow these guidelines:

1. It's a debate. Debate. Not a discussion. So it's good if you follow the subject of the latest posts.
2. Be polite. This debate can be perfectly fine without vegetarians shouting that meat-eaters are stupid murderers, and meat-eaters yelling that it's dumb to force your belief onto someone else.
3. Don't use religion as an argument. People have different beliefs, and it's just annoying with someone claiming that it's "all right to eat meat because God made animals for us to rule over/absolutely not right to eat meat, because all living beings are sacred". I don't want this to turn into a religious debate.

I want you to consider these three questions:

* As people can survive without meat with the right diet, is it ethically right to kill animals when you don't need it?
* Animals who people breed for meat eat much food (mostly grains) during their life (for instance, 70% of the US grain production is fed to livestock). The meat they provide after death can't weigh up against this mass. Is it better to turn these resources into a lesser amount of food, or use the food to people directly, as more people wouldn't go hungry then (theoretically)?
* Is it okay to eat meat even though it is bad for the environment?

And, some links if you are interested or want to know more about the subject before you start debating:

http://users.erols.com/epastore/veg/
This site has a lot of information about vegetarianism.
http://users.erols.com/epastore/veg/environment.html
Some information about differences in the amount of resources needed for meat and vegetables respectively, along with some more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it's always interesting.

 

[Profesco]

Well. Those are some very good points. This is certainly an era of learning to become more environmentally responsible, and the reasons for environmental vegetarianism are sound, it seems.

I'm all for efficiency, especially if it staves off the impending disasters of overpopulation and resource depletion.

Besides, last time I ate a veggieburger, I wasn't immediately aware of the difference from meat. I'll go ahead and say I'm pro-veggie, a "meat-in-moderation" kind of guy.

 

[Dimbat]

Before I decide if I'm going to respond to this thread with my views or not, I'd like some clarification.

Is it okay to eat meat even though it is bad for the environment?

How is eating meat bad for the environment? In which way do you mean? Do you have any statistics?

 

[??????]

Don't we have quite a few debates on this matter already?

My opinion on this matter is keep things simple. Why would you further complicate your life with artificial vitamins and such when you can have a simpler, easier diet? We as humans are made to eat meat. Going against our natural anatomy can have disastrous effects on those who with to be vegetarian, but not well informed.

 

[Divine_Light]

As teenagers do I've been considering vegetarianisms and veganism. The most animal friendly of coarse is vegetarianism. But in my honest opinion a balenced diet of vegetables and meat is healthier.

 

[PDL]

To be technical, the human diet is flexible enough to be able to survive on a huge variety of foods. Weither that diet consists of lentils and rice, or one that consists of hamburgers.

I'm all for vegitarianism, but you need to do your research into getting all the nutrients you need. This includes choosing the correct types of vegatables in the correct amounts.

It's also important not to shove your belief system down another's throat, as people are not usually willing to change their habits as easily as you may want them to.

 

[GentleArtillery]

Well. Those are some very good points. This is certainly an era of learning to become more environmentally responsible, and the reasons for environmental vegetarianism are sound, it seems.

I'm all for efficiency, especially if it staves off the impending disasters of overpopulation and resource depletion.

Besides, last time I ate a veggieburger, I wasn't immediately aware of the difference from meat. I'll go ahead and say I'm pro-veggie, a "meat-in-moderation" kind of guy.

Well, as I agree I don't have much to say.

Before I decide if I'm going to respond to this thread with my views or not, I'd like some clarification.



How is eating meat bad for the environment? In which way do you mean? Do you have any statistics?

Check those links in the end of my post for statistics; but I'll write down a summary here.
Livestock eats a lot of food. The amount of meat they give after slaughter hardly weighs up against all the food they consume during their lives. If we stopped eating meat and used these foods for humans instead, more people would get food - there would be and abundance of food even greater than the one we have now (though it's not properly shared). Naturally, this would mean that we wouldn't have to use as much land for agriculture. Also, the amount of carbon dioxide deriving from cattle flatulence would be decreased.

Don't we have quite a few debates on this matter already?

My opinion on this matter is keep things simple. Why would you further complicate your life with artificial vitamins and such when you can have a simpler, easier diet? We as humans are made to eat meat. Going against our natural anatomy can have disastrous effects on those who with to be vegetarian, but not well informed.

Artificial? Last time I looked, legumes, grains and dairy products were completely natural. Simpler, easier diet? Those cows and pigs consume quite a lot, it would actually be a lot easier, and much more ethical, to abstain from meat. And of course, we must find substitutes for meat (nutrition-wise) before we act: we all have it, so it would be rather easy for people to find out.

As teenagers do I've been considering vegetarianisms and veganism. The most animal friendly of coarse is vegetarianism. But in my honest opinion a balenced diet of vegetables and meat is healthier.

Actually, vegetarians in average live a longer and healthier life. Eating meat increases risks for diseases such as lung cancer, and also contain a lot more unhealthy fats than vegetables.

Vegetarian diets have been found to satisfy the nutritional needs for all stages of life, and large-scale studies have shown vegetarianism to increase longevity, improve health, and significantly lower risks of cancer and other diseases.

Vegetarian Diets Meat can raise lung cancer risk, too - Cancer - MSNBC.com < sources.

To be technical, the human diet is flexible enough to be able to survive on a huge variety of foods. Weither that diet consists of lentils and rice, or one that consists of hamburgers.

I'm all for vegitarianism, but you need to do your research into getting all the nutrients you need. This includes choosing the correct types of vegatables in the correct amounts.

It's also important not to shove your belief system down another's throat, as people are not usually willing to change their habits as easily as you may want them to.

Well, I started this debate in order to explain why people should "convert" into vegetarianism in a way that didn't feel too shove-down. After all, I'm not going here saying "omg you are filthy idiotic murderers and you shouldn't eat meat because it's the poor animals that suffer!!"

 

[??????]

Artificial? Last time I looked, legumes, grains and dairy products were completely natural.

Artificial vitamin pills is what I meant.

Simpler, easier diet? Those cows and pigs consume quite a lot, it would actually be a lot easier, and much more ethical, to abstain from meat.

It is easier to eat meat then to take about 10 pills of the nutrition you would lack from lack of meat. Ethics have little area in this debate, as human anatomy has designed us to eat meat.

And of course, we must find substitutes for meat (nutrition-wise) before we act: we all have it, so it would be rather easy for people to find out.

It is easier to eat the already natural meat we are intended to consume that to find artificial substitutes.

 

[Dilano]

Well, I guess I'll start by saying that I'm not against vegetarianism, and actually I think that it is a really noble and great thing to do with your life. However, I am not against meat-eaters (I am also one) either.

Basically, all life comes from the sun (unless you live in a very, very extreme environment, which no humans do live in). Plants convert light into energy and grow. Vegetarians choose to stop at this point in the line; they eat fruits, vegetables, and grains (which are a type of plant). Also, many animals stop at this point too, like cows, goats, many birds, and many fish. Other humans and animals, however, choose to stop at a point further down the line; they eat the animals that eat the plants. So, they are indirectly eating plants... I think.

On the subject of whether or not killing animals is right... I don't necessarily think that it is wrong. I mean, there are all kinds of wild animals that kill other animals for food; does that make them bad? I don't believe so. We can't make lions, or sharks, or carnivores like them eat only fruits or vegetables, because they would all die out. Humans, however, are different; they have evolved to the point where they can culture animals and raise them specifically for the purpose of killing and eating them. On the one hand, this is a huge and wonderful advantage that took a lot of thinking to be able to do. But on the other hand, it has led to humans mistreating animals. I think that mistreating animals, especially with the intelligence humans have, is wrong.

But I don't think that killing animals to eat them is wrong. I mean, unless humans learn how to photosynthesize, or can artificially produce all of their own food, they need to kill something to eat. When you eat a fruit or vegetable, I believe that most times you are killing the plant. I did read the link where an argument similar to this was countered, but I mean, fruits and nuts are the offspring of plants; by eating them, you are killing a plant that hasn't begun to grow yet. It can be compared to killing the offspring of a cow, or pig.

And yes, I know, plants don't have "feelings"... but they are still alive. If a person was, I don't know, paralyzed or in a vegetable state and they couldn't feel anything, killing them for food would still be considered wrong... and yet the exact same thing happens with plants, but nobody cares.

One last thing I do want to say, is that I am all for animal cruelty prevention and I think that brutally slaughtering animals is a bad, bad thing to do. But, if an animal were to die from natural causes, or was killed humanely in a relatively painless way, I think eating it would be perfectly acceptable and even somewhat natural... after all, it's what any carnivore would do.

Meh, that's my two cents... o_o I shall stop ranting now.

 

[BarryL]

Ethics have little area in this debate, as human anatomy has designed us to eat meat.

On the contrary, ethics has everything to do with one becoming a vegetarian.

But one flaw with being a vegetarian that it is not necessarily a guilt-free lifestyle. Many animals die while harvesting machines go about their business taking crops, and animals are also killed by human harvesters who pick the crops and maintain them. And as far as vitamin supplements go, they were tested on animals initially. No matter what route you choose, you cannot avoid animal deaths - either directly or indirectly.

That said, humans have canine teeth for a reason although I respect their decision to go by a meat-free lifestyle. Just as long as they don't force their opinions on me like a PETA member, or not showing any hypocrisy (eg. not eating meat but eating seafood).

 

[The_Panda]

From my perspective by far the best and easiest way for us as people to maintain healthy is to have a balanced diet. And this would also include light exercise (for example a one hour walk per day). You don't have to take vitamins or supplements either. I guess this would say you are a meat eater, but it lends more towards the omnivorous lifestyle of what we have evolved to - that is, energy and fibre primarily from carbohydrates, a small amount of meat for protein, and a variety of other things such as fruit, vegetables, dairy products etc to provide for the remainder of the nutrients. All this with daily exercise and some sweets for the sake of consumer culture. Honestly, achieving a good balanced diet like this is the best way to lose weight and live healthily, and it's much easier than it looks. I would think that if greater awareness was put out and such a better diet was advocated, we would see great improvements in the health of the populace.

As for vegetarianism in particular, it's possible to live healthily as a vegetarian, albeit difficult. To maintain a balanced diet, you do require large amounts of supplements, as there are a few things that are hard to get as a vegetarian (with Omega 3, only found in fish, being the worst), and many more where it is extremely difficult to acquire in the right amounts. And please don't say a vegetarian diet is more healthy than an omnivorous one because on average vegetarians are healthier. The reason vegetarians are, on average, more healthy is not because they are vegetarian - but because they are more health conscious. The majority of vegetarians are more health conscious, primarily because many become vegetarian due to health concerns (even though much of their reasons are wrong), and most are aware they have to be careful with their diet.

And for the environment, in general I think consumer society has to have a good hard look at our environmental practices and how we view ourselves and our relationship with the Earth. For the vast majority of the Earth's population, meat is absolutely necessary to supplement the diet. And for the rest of the world with access to vitamins, artificial supplements and a wider variety of foods, having meat for the diet helps keep the diet balanced very easily. For those people who think the whole world should give up meat, seriously: get real. Not everyone is a hypochondriac self-obsessed upper-middle-class person living in a westernised industrialised state where they are absolutely spoilt for choice. For the vast majority of the world, meat is the only way to get protein - without it expect major starvation problems. That been said, the West consumes a diet that is far too meat heavy and would be better off going for a more natural diet where meats take up a small percentage of the whole. THAT is what would be environmentally best, by keeping it in sustainable levels.

On a sidenote GentleArtillery, I notice that your non-wikipedia source (wikipedia is actually banned here) makes no attempt to source or justify many of its claims and statistics, and carries great misinterpretations of the statistics as well. The page on environmental impacts is particularly bad in this respect. If sites like that are going to try convince people of vegetarianism, they should at least try find some sort of support for their claims. Statistics in particular should always be cited. In future check your source before you use them in a debate to support your point.

 

[GentleArtillery]

Artificial vitamin pills is what I meant.


It is easier to eat meat then to take about 10 pills of the nutrition you would lack from lack of meat. Ethics have little area in this debate, as human anatomy has designed us to eat meat. Ethics have a large area in this debate, as we are fully capable of surviving without directly killing animals. And about the nutrition you would lack from meat: combining certain pulses with certain grains will form complete protein, so albeit you have to eat it in a larger quantity, it can still compensate for meat.


It is easier to eat the already natural meat we are intended to consume that to find artificial substitutes.We don't need any artificial substitutes, except for maybe vitamin B-12 and vitamin A and D. It's not that hard.

Well, I guess I'll start by saying that I'm not against vegetarianism, and actually I think that it is a really noble and great thing to do with your life. However, I am not against meat-eaters (I am also one) either.

Basically, all life comes from the sun (unless you live in a very, very extreme environment, which no humans do live in). Plants convert light into energy and grow. Vegetarians choose to stop at this point in the line; they eat fruits, vegetables, and grains (which are a type of plant). Also, many animals stop at this point too, like cows, goats, many birds, and many fish. Other humans and animals, however, choose to stop at a point further down the line; they eat the animals that eat the plants. So, they are indirectly eating plants... I think.

On the subject of whether or not killing animals is right... I don't necessarily think that it is wrong. I mean, there are all kinds of wild animals that kill other animals for food; does that make them bad? I don't believe so. We can't make lions, or sharks, or carnivores like them eat only fruits or vegetables, because they would all die out. Humans, however, are different; they have evolved to the point where they can culture animals and raise them specifically for the purpose of killing and eating them. On the one hand, this is a huge and wonderful advantage that took a lot of thinking to be able to do. But on the other hand, it has led to humans mistreating animals. I think that mistreating animals, especially with the intelligence humans have, is wrong. I knew the "other animals than humans kill" argument would come up. Anyway, trying to control other species would be to play God. It would lead to the direct deaths of animals, due to humans and not nature, which is exactly what I'm trying to decrease. And domesticated animals used for meat are more environmentally unfriendly than hunting: actually, I think it would be (almost) okay to eat meat if every animal killed was wild, and not bred by humans.

But I don't think that killing animals to eat them is wrong. I mean, unless humans learn how to photosynthesize, or can artificially produce all of their own food, they need to kill something to eat. When you eat a fruit or vegetable, I believe that most times you are killing the plant. I did read the link where an argument similar to this was countered, but I mean, fruits and nuts are the offspring of plants; by eating them, you are killing a plant that hasn't begun to grow yet. It can be compared to killing the offspring of a cow, or pig. We don't need to kill an animal, at least. Meat-eaters eat plants, too. If we became vegetarians, the direct deaths would at least decrease.

And yes, I know, plants don't have "feelings"... but they are still alive. If a person was, I don't know, paralyzed or in a vegetable state and they couldn't feel anything, killing them for food would still be considered wrong... and yet the exact same thing happens with plants, but nobody cares. Well. First, I don't think any sane person would even want to kill humans for food anyway. And then, whilst animals show their pain, vegetables passively "let" us kill them if we make through their potential spines or other "shields". If you are supporting the idea that "humans are created to eat meat, and therefore it's okay", I don't see how you can disagree with animal killing being worse than plant killing.

One last thing I do want to say, is that I am all for animal cruelty prevention and I think that brutally slaughtering animals is a bad, bad thing to do. But, if an animal were to die from natural causes, or was killed humanely in a relatively painless way, I think eating it would be perfectly acceptable and even somewhat natural... after all, it's what any carnivore would do. But we are still shortening their lives.

Meh, that's my two cents... o_o I shall stop ranting now.

On the contrary, ethics has everything to do with one becoming a vegetarian.

But one flaw with being a vegetarian that it is not necessarily a guilt-free lifestyle. Many animals die while harvesting machines go about their business taking crops, and animals are also killed by human harvesters who pick the crops and maintain them. And as far as vitamin supplements go, they were tested on animals initially. No matter what route you choose, you cannot avoid animal deaths - either directly or indirectly. Meat-eaters consume plants too, and indirectly consume vegetables by eating meat. Being a vegetarian would decrease the amount of deaths, which I think is a good thing for one.

That said, humans have canine teeth for a reason although I respect their decision to go by a meat-free lifestyle. Just as long as they don't force their opinions on me like a PETA member, or not showing any hypocrisy (eg. not eating meat but eating seafood).

From my perspective by far the best and easiest way for us as people to maintain healthy is to have a balanced diet. And this would also include light exercise (for example a one hour walk per day). You don't have to take vitamins or supplements either. I guess this would say you are a meat eater, but it lends more towards the omnivorous lifestyle of what we have evolved to - that is, energy and fibre primarily from carbohydrates, a small amount of meat for protein, and a variety of other things such as fruit, vegetables, dairy products etc to provide for the remainder of the nutrients. All this with daily exercise and some sweets for the sake of consumer culture. Honestly, achieving a good balanced diet like this is the best way to lose weight and live healthily, and it's much easier than it looks. I would think that if greater awareness was put out and such a better diet was advocated, we would see great improvements in the health of the populace. I think this is very sensible. If we at least decreased our meat consumption, there would be advantages, especially if we focused on hunting and hunting only.

As for vegetarianism in particular, it's possible to live healthily as a vegetarian, albeit difficult. To maintain a balanced diet, you do require large amounts of supplements, as there are a few things that are hard to get as a vegetarian (with Omega 3, only found in fish, being the worst), and many more where it is extremely difficult to acquire in the right amounts. And please don't say a vegetarian diet is more healthy than an omnivorous one because on average vegetarians are healthier. The reason vegetarians are, on average, more healthy is not because they are vegetarian - but because they are more health conscious. The majority of vegetarians are more health conscious, primarily because many become vegetarian due to health concerns (even though much of their reasons are wrong), and most are aware they have to be careful with their diet. Linseed oil (flax) contain Omega 3. I just used the "vegetarians in average live a healthier life" to prove that you can survive without meat.

And for the environment, in general I think consumer society has to have a good hard look at our environmental practices and how we view ourselves and our relationship with the Earth. For the vast majority of the Earth's population, meat is absolutely necessary to supplement the diet. And for the rest of the world with access to vitamins, artificial supplements and a wider variety of foods, having meat for the diet helps keep the diet balanced very easily. For those people who think the whole world should give up meat, seriously: get real. Not everyone is a hypochondriac self-obsessed upper-middle-class person living in a westernised industrialised state where they are absolutely spoilt for choice. For the vast majority of the world, meat is the only way to get protein - without it expect major starvation problems. That been said, the West consumes a diet that is far too meat heavy and would be better off going for a more natural diet where meats take up a small percentage of the whole. THAT is what would be environmentally best, by keeping it in sustainable levels. Therefore, the change has do be gradual, so that "in development" countries can catch up.

On a sidenote GentleArtillery, I notice that your non-wikipedia source (wikipedia is actually banned here) makes no attempt to source or justify many of its claims and statistics, and carries great misinterpretations of the statistics as well. The page on environmental impacts is particularly bad in this respect. If sites like that are going to try convince people of vegetarianism, they should at least try find some sort of support for their claims. Statistics in particular should always be cited. In future check your source before you use them in a debate to support your point. Well, the Wikipedia thing was more of an interest link.

Comments in bold.

 

[Death dealer]

On the contrary, ethics has everything to do with one becoming a vegetarian.

But one flaw with being a vegetarian that it is not necessarily a guilt-free lifestyle. Many animals die while harvesting machines go about their business taking crops, and animals are also killed by human harvesters who pick the crops and maintain them. And as far as vitamin supplements go, they were tested on animals initially. No matter what route you choose, you cannot avoid animal deaths - either directly or indirectly.

That said, humans have canine teeth for a reason although I respect their decision to go by a meat-free lifestyle. Just as long as they don't force their opinions on me like a PETA member, or not showing any hypocrisy (eg. not eating meat but eating seafood).

I think I am going to make a prediction. That is that at least half of the posts in this whole thread contain the is/ought fallacy. Though I hope this dosn't come true, I feel any thread on this subject will inevitably devolve into using it.

http://www.nocturne.org/~jason/fallacies.html

Is-Ought Fallacy -- Assuming that because something is now the practice, it ought to be the practice. Conversely, it consists in assuming that because something is not the practice, it ought not to be the practice.

"Other animals eat each other, and we cannot force them not to eat each other, therefore it is moral for them to eat each other". The same argument could be made to try and point out that killing other humans on a whim is moral, since it will always be present in human society.

My position is that yes, it is immoral for animals to kill each other. Unfortunately we cannot change that in any way without comitting a greater immorality and thwarting the desires of even more creatures than would happen if they were left to kill each other as they already do.
I think that if you believe that humans have magical spirits/aliens inside of us, and that that is what makes us have moral value, and that animals don't, then fine. But someone who accepts modern ideas on evolution, and that humans are no longer a special creation, simply an animal with above normal intelligence, then I cannot see hwo you could believe that humans should be considered in ethical systems and not other animals.
Note that I do not believe that a human or elephant has the same moral value as a shrimp, and anyone who attemps to set up a straw man of my ideas will be shown no mercy.

-EDIT-
I humor the "eating meat is wrong because it is taking lives" argument. Animals, including humans, take lives every time they reproduce, eat plants and fungi, and a whole lot of other situations. Animals need to be considered in morality because they have desires, attitudes to bring about states of affairs, such as the desire to live, eat, breed or play. Plants, fungi etc, do not have this, and so even if they show alturism, this is little more than an evolutionary adaption, and is not the product of actual desires, and therefore they have moral value only in relation to beings which can have desires. Animals such as corals are included in this category as well.

I will also not try and convince people of vegetarianism through saying that it is more healthy or better for the enviroment. The actual reson I, and probably a lot of people, became vegetarian for moral reasons other than those, and trying to convince people of being vegetarian through means other than that is unnecessary and dishonest. As Panda has pointed out, it is more difficult for a vegetarian to maintain a healthy diet, and it can be just as enviromentally damaging as an omnivorous diet.

 

[GentleArtillery]

As Panda has pointed out, it is more difficult for a vegetarian to maintain a healthy diet, and it can be just as enviromentally damaging as an omnivorous diet.

Can be. Does not have to. Your post is really sensible, but this part is disputable. But I really do need valid information and statistics before I actually can judge what's better for the environment - vegetarianism or meat-eating.

 

[mewfan1]

- Read through all of this post before posting yourself. -

I think this subject concerns all of you. But to make this debate a good one, without flaming and unnecessary suffering (< exaggeration), I want you to follow these guidelines:

1. It's a debate. Debate. Not a discussion. So it's good if you follow the subject of the latest posts.
2. Be polite. This debate can be perfectly fine without vegetarians shouting that meat-eaters are stupid murderers, and meat-eaters yelling that it's dumb to force your belief onto someone else.
3. Don't use religion as an argument. People have different beliefs, and it's just annoying with someone claiming that it's "all right to eat meat because God made animals for us to rule over/absolutely not right to eat meat, because all living beings are sacred". I don't want this to turn into a religious debate.

I want you to consider these three questions:

* As people can survive without meat with the right diet, is it ethically right to kill animals when you don't need it?
* Animals who people breed for meat eat much food (mostly grains) during their life (for instance, 70% of the US grain production is fed to livestock). The meat they provide after death can't weigh up against this mass. Is it better to turn these resources into a lesser amount of food, or use the food to people directly, as more people wouldn't go hungry then (theoretically)?
* Is it okay to eat meat even though it is bad for the environment?

And, some links if you are interested or want to know more about the subject before you start debating:

http://users.erols.com/epastore/veg/
This site has a lot of information about vegetarianism.
http://users.erols.com/epastore/veg/environment.html
Some information about differences in the amount of resources needed for meat and vegetables respectively, along with some more information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_vegetarianism
Wikipedia isn't the best source, but it's always interesting.

Interesting points. I for one am not against vegetarians, as I have some family members who eat only veggies, fruits and grains. And by the looks of it, they are living healthy lives.

But, as for me I tend to live on a balanced diet (meats, vegetables, fruits, grains). I have no real reason why, that's just the way I have been eating all my life. And I haven't had any health problems.

The main things I don't like about animals being used for food are:

1. Yes, they are being bred just to be killed for food. But, even if you hunt or breed animals for food, you're still killing them for food. So, I don't see any difference.
2. I don't like how they sometimes inject growth hormones into animals (like cows). How healthy is that? (For the animal, and us?)

 

[GentleArtillery]

Interesting points. I for one am not against vegetarians, as I have some family members who eat only veggies, fruits and grains. And by the looks of it, they are living healthy lives.

But, as for me I tend to live on a balanced diet (meats, vegetables, fruits, grains). I have no real reason why, that's just the way I have been eating all my life. And I haven't had any health problems.

The main things I don't like about animals being used for food are:

1. Yes, they are being bred just to be killed for food. But, even if you hunt or breed animals for food, you're still killing them for food. So, I don't see any difference.
2. I don't like how they sometimes inject growth hormones into animals (like cows). How healthy is that? (For the animal, and us?)

For the animals, certainly not healthy: many broiler chickens are fed genetically manipulated fodder that make their bodies too heavy for their legs and internal organs to support.

Indeed, most people who eat meat really don't think of what they're doing. But knowledge is the first step in a process that hopefully leads to action.

 

[Josiah]

And domesticated animals used for meat are more environmentally unfriendly than hunting: actually, I think it would be (almost) okay to eat meat if every animal killed was wild, and not bred by humans.

Some places actually need hunting to keep the population of certain species down. There is a large park in Omaha Nebraska where hunting isn't allowed, and most of the deer there are thin and very weak from overpopulation.

As for an increased chance of lung cancer, it could be because most vegetarians wouldn't smoke a cigarette as they are more health conscious than the average meat eater.

 

[GhostAnime]

* Is it okay to eat meat even though it is bad for the environment?

how is it bad for the environment? other animals already eat meat as it is.

like someone said earlier, this argument is nothing but ethics. if we don't eat meat, the other animals will. I'm definitely not going to go against my natural instinct.

 

[Ugobama]

In health class I learned that if you are a vegetarian than you are missing out on some of the nutrients you need for everyday life. So...meat-eating pwns.

 

[Dilano]

Well firstly, plants do not "let" us kill them at all... they have no choice, as they cannot think. If plants could think, I'm positive that they would mind us killing them. You could make the same argument with a person who cannot think, i.e. one who is mentally ill or cannot think I (going back to a vegetable state). You could apply the exact same logic that they are "letting" us kill them, when the fact is they have no choice, because they cannot think. And yes, I know, almost no human would actually kill a person like that... but it's the exact same logic that works. I do not think humans were "created" to eat meat either... then again I do not believe that they were created at all, but they did evolve from other species that did eat meat. Thus, eating meat is almost like an instinct.

I do agree with you, however, in saying that animals are mistreated greatly and I believe that the mass farming of animals should stop. Animals should be treated well, and I think that animals should be either hunted in the wild, or raised humanely on farms with a natural death. This, of course, would mean that a lot less meat would be eaten... but I think that is a good thing also. I mean, I hardly eat any meat as it is right now. But when I do eat meat, I do not feel bad about the fact that I am eating an animal, but rather feel bad about the way that animal was potentially killed.

Now, I don't know a lot about diets, and I guess I could look it up, but from what I understand many experts say that meat is a part of a balanced diet... after all, it's been a part of the food pyramid since it was created. And, I don't think anybody could survive solely on fruits, vegetables and dairy products; there almost always has to be a meat substitute, right? Isn't that what tofu is? I mean, yeah I guess people could survive without eating any actual meat... but I don't see the purpose if meat were to become available from animals that were hunted or raised humanely.