Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[decius]

Aside from intolerance, are there any reasons you listed cannot be considered as groundless belief?

EVERYTHING can be properly considered a "groundless belief". "God told me not to eat of animals unless they had cloven hooves and chew their cud." is just as valid as "Animals have a right to not be killed on my behalf." or "It is important that I procreate efficiently." or even "All people are equal in rights."

[lordnincompoop]

A meat-only (or I should say animal-product-only, since you aren't surviving on muscle tissue alone at all) diet is possible; there's just no reason to do it.

What's the reason behind vegetarianism then? It's possible.

Religious reasons, such as Hinduism or Buddhism (excepting some sects). Ethical reasons, such as animal cruelty. Physical reasons, such as intolerance.

Aside from intolerance, are there any reasons you listed cannot be considered as groundless belief?

Going off of this definition:

    ground·less: Adjective   /ˈground-lis/
    Synonyms:
        adjective: unfounded, baseless, ungrounded, causeless, idle, gratuitous, ill-founded
        Not based on any good reason
            your fears are quite groundless

I'd say all of the above are good reasons. You are not likely to find any better ones, either. If you consider actions such as these groundless, then a large number of other actions will be considered groundless.
Elaborate on this argument, so that I can argue properly.

[rephikul]

In short, it's not that we were 'designed' for anything. There have been times where humans have been 'selected' for some characteristic, but that doesn't mean that being an omnivore (or storing fat) is prosurvival now, much less that it is in any manner imperative.

From wikipedia: On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)

I'm pretty sure if we are only carnivore or herbivore this number would have risen because that simply mean we have less access to food. YOU who can afford an internet connection may not feel the need for it, but many does.

I'd make a less extreme example: outdoor survival. Many have had to endure days or months in the wild and had to secure food for themselves. And according to military procedures, it's takes less time to procure surely non-poisonous animal-derived food while plant-derived chows are more abundant. Each has its own strength and having 1 more option is always better.

Aside from intolerance, are there any reasons you listed cannot be considered as groundless belief?

EVERYTHING can be properly considered a "groundless belief". "God told me not to eat of animals unless they had cloven hooves and chew their cud." is just as valid as "Animals have a right to not be killed on my behalf." or "It is important that I procreate efficiently." or even "All people are equal in rights."

As I have mentioned above, if anything can be why-traced back to proven factual science then it's not groundless. Many are not easy to boil down that way of course, that's why we have debates. It's also depending on the scope of the conversation. In example, "all people are equal in rights"is debatable. It is a good thing in small communities where it's possible to assume everyone are more or less equal in knowledge. When you have things like idiots voting one big idiot to be their president then it's probably not a good thing for the community to survive. However things such as "It is important that I procreate efficiently" is not groundless. Without efficient procreation, human race will have no future.

EDIT: I need sleep. Basic need > self-actualization.

[decius]

In short, it's not that we were 'designed' for anything. There have been times where humans have been 'selected' for some characteristic, but that doesn't mean that being an omnivore (or storing fat) is prosurvival now, much less that it is in any manner imperative.

From wikipedia: On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)

I'm pretty sure if we are only carnivore or herbivore this number would have risen because that simply mean we have less access to food. YOU who can afford an internet connection may not feel the need for it, but many does.

I'd make a less extreme example: outdoor survival. Many have had to endure days or months in the wild and had to secure food for themselves. And according to military procedures, it's takes less time to procure surely non-poisonous animal-derived food while plant-derived chows are more abundant. Each has its own strength and having 1 more option is always better.

Endemic hunger is not due to natural scarcity of food, nor due to prohibitive costs of transportation, nor due to dietary restriction. The fact that my chicken consumes more in corn than it produces in meat does not mean that if that corn were shipped to, say, Somalia in 1991, it would feed any of the people who starved there and then. It's a political/military thing, not an economic thing.

Aside from intolerance, are there any reasons you listed cannot be considered as groundless belief?

EVERYTHING can be properly considered a "groundless belief". "God told me not to eat of animals unless they had cloven hooves and chew their cud." is just as valid as "Animals have a right to not be killed on my behalf." or "It is important that I procreate efficiently." or even "All people are equal in rights."

As I have mentioned above, if anything can be why-traced back to proven factual science then it's not groundless. Many are not easy to boil down that way of course, that's why we have debates. It's also depending on the scope of the conversation. In example, "all people are equal in rights"is debatable. It is a good thing in small communities where it's possible to assume everyone are more or less equal in knowledge. When you have things like idiots voting one big idiot to be their president then it's probably not a good thing for the community to survive. However things such as "It is important that I procreate efficiently" is not groundless. Without efficient procreation, human race will have no future.

EDIT: I need sleep. Basic need > self-actualization.

Why is it important that the human race not have no future? Why is it not a good thing for a community of idiots to survive? Science consists mostly of if-then statements, while ethics develops since-then form. "If we do not procreate efficiently, the human race will have no future." is science, while "Since the human race will have no future if we refrain, we should procreate efficiently." is a moral imperative based on the premise "We should act in such a manner as to ensure the human race has a future." I cannot find simpler premises on which to base the 'survival is good' premise. EVERY ethical position must come down to a point which cannot be answered by science- since science cannot prove that one result is 'better' than another. Survival is not an option, but you can affect the manner of your death.

And literature (in the scientific and literary senses) is full of cases where 'heroes' undergo voluntary deprivation of basic needs in order to attain a higher goal.

[G-Flex]

From wikipedia: On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)

I'm pretty sure if we are only carnivore or herbivore this number would have risen because that simply mean we have less access to food. YOU who can afford an internet connection may not feel the need for it, but many does.

I'd make a less extreme example: outdoor survival. Many have had to endure days or months in the wild and had to secure food for themselves. And according to military procedures, it's takes less time to procure surely non-poisonous animal-derived food while plant-derived chows are more abundant. Each has its own strength and having 1 more option is always better.

This, quite simply, is irrelevant. No sane veg(etari)an is going to tell you that humans, as a whole, should give up eating meat right now, nor will they tell you that people in survival scenarios shouldn't eat whatever they can.

The fact of the matter is that we're not talking about people in starvation scenarios, or wilderness survival situations. We're talking about situations where restricting one's diet is a feasible option that does not significantly harm their quality of life. You're talking about scenarios that quite simply aren't relevant.

[Leonard DeVir]

As a med.stud. I always have to shake my head at those plant vs. meat discussions. One of my profs once said: "We are not omnivores, but anyvores." (pardon the translation) which means that we can basically eat everything and metabolize it in some way, even toxines and inert substances. Discussing the best diet is moot, because there is none. Its all a question of ethics, lifestyle, preferences and "Dosis sola venenum facit" (The dose makes the poison).

[lordnincompoop]

As a med.stud. I always have to shake my head at those plant vs. meat discussions. One of my profs once said: "We are not omnivores, but anyvores." (pardon the translation) which means that we can basically eat everything and metabolize it in some way, even toxines and inert substances. Discussing the best diet is moot, because there is none. Its all a question of ethics, lifestyle, preferences and "Dosis sola venenum facit" (The dose makes the poison).

Explain to me how one would metabolise, say, gold.

Also, I notice that this is your first post. So it is my pleasure to say "Welcome to Bay 12". We try at least to be a good bunch, though you probably already know this.
Any advice for a prospective med student, by the way?

[decius]

This, quite simply, is irrelevant. No sane veg(etari)an is going to tell you that humans, as a whole, should give up eating meat right now, nor will they tell you that people in survival scenarios shouldn't eat whatever they can.

I suspect that some sane people would claim that being in a 'survival situation' doesn't change dietary ethics. I agree with them: It is not immoral for me to eat animals, even if I kill them, and it is not immoral for animals to defend themselves against being eaten by me, even if they kill me. The converse is also true. If it were immoral for me to kill and eat animals, it would remain so even if the alternative were death. In short, "Don't kill animals" seems to me to be a deontological rule, based around prohibiting killing.

More commonly, I've seen the moral position: Harvesting live trees for firewood should not be done in a recreational setting, but harvesting live trees is acceptable in a survival situation. This isn't based on the rights of trees, but rather on the sustainability of recreational camping.  "Don't harvest live trees" is more of a telelogical rule, based on reducing harm due to environmental damage.

[Shrike]

Incidentally, the 'all meat' diet of an Inuit also included kelp, berries, and fermented meat products (inuit Diet). Fermentation (or zymurgy) has been used throughout history to catalyze and preserve important nutrients.

Also, the person who said "look at the greater number of plant sources than animal" (on the wikipedia page) was discounting the rather huge number of other creatures with edible components that have vitamin C... And what about insects?

[decius]

As a med.stud. I always have to shake my head at those plant vs. meat discussions. One of my profs once said: "We are not omnivores, but anyvores." (pardon the translation) which means that we can basically eat everything and metabolize it in some way, even toxines and inert substances. Discussing the best diet is moot, because there is none. Its all a question of ethics, lifestyle, preferences and "Dosis sola venenum facit" (The dose makes the poison).

I'd limit what can me metabolized in significant quantities to water, salts, organic compounds and ammonia derivatives (yeah, there's a lot of overlap). CO, H₂S, H₂O₂, and lots of other poisons are more 'survived' than 'metabolized'.

Welcome to B12. Now drown in MAGMA. (More often we say "Congratulations! You drowned in MAGMA for your first time, Welcome to B12.)

[lordnincompoop]

You know, why don't we move this over to GD? I think this has been derailed quite long enough. I'd make the thread but I'm on my phone right now.

[ElthMysterius]

How does a topic that started as somebody's inability to type in "sweetbread" in Google turn into a giant arguement about whose eating habits and arguementative skills are better?

Back somewhat on-topic... I was amazed at first when I saw my dwarves were fine with eating brains, lungs, intestines and other miscellaneous organs. At that time, my forts were usually filled with meat, so it felt weird that my dwarves were okay with eating offal when plain old meat was available.

Now, when your survival depends on the few animals you can butcher, then wasting no part of the animal suddenly makes a LOT of sense.

[Alastar]

Hmm, sweetbreads. It never ceases to astonish me how many people are squeamish when they can see where the meat comes from but uncritical when they're fed the same or lesser things when processed beyond recognition (probbaly with too much salt, sugar, saturated fats and dodgy flavourings).

Or how many countries have laws against eating perfectly tasty animals for sentimental reasons... that just doesn't fit with how horrifically other intelligent and lovable animals can be raised for a modest decrease in price. I'm willing to eat just about anything, but want both the animals themselves and food treated with care.

[Lagslayer]

Hmm, sweetbreads. It never ceases to astonish me how many people are squeamish when they can see where the meat comes from but uncritical when they're fed the same or lesser things when processed beyond recognition (probbaly with too much salt, sugar, saturated fats and dodgy flavourings).

Or how many countries have laws against eating perfectly tasty animals for sentimental reasons... that just doesn't fit with how horrifically other intelligent and lovable animals can be raised for a modest decrease in price. I'm willing to eat just about anything, but want both the animals themselves and food treated with care.

Presentation is important.

[lordnincompoop]

How does a topic that started as somebody's inability to type in "sweetbread" in Google turn into a giant arguement about whose eating habits and arguementative skills are better?

Back somewhat on-topic... I was amazed at first when I saw my dwarves were fine with eating brains, lungs, intestines and other miscellaneous organs. At that time, my forts were usually filled with meat, so it felt weird that my dwarves were okay with eating offal when plain old meat was available.

Now, when your survival depends on the few animals you can butcher, then wasting no part of the animal suddenly makes a LOT of sense.

I find that derails happen quite often here.

As for DF I think it's rather too cluttered with all those organs. I get piles more meat that I know what to do with. I swear, those cows are packed so full of it you could just poke 'em and have them explode in a bloody mess.