I'm not saying people couldn't or wouldn't, but I think we'd all end up eating a lot less meat products as a result.

I doubt I'd have had that chicken sandwich for lunch given the effort it would entail. Likely I'd still be having a roast dinner though!

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

This is a topic that I'm pretty interested in, so sorry if I bore on for a second...

Animals have, and have had, tremendous rights in history. Egyptians worshipped cats whilst enslaving huge populations of humans, Hindus worship cows whilst having a caste system. What this shows, to me, is there is no 'natural' hierarchy really, its normally just the perspective we're born with that we take on. Interestingly, very few societies think it appropriate to show kids the killing of animals, particularly in developed countries, and this is a very human thing. Again, does this challenge the idea that its biologically wired in to us to kill other animals? Possibly...

What we do know is that humans don't need meat. The correct levels of protein, zinc, iron, vitamin d, vitamin b12, are available outside meat and dairy. We now eat a s*** load more meat than we ever have, and this is only on the rise as the industrial development of the world increases. People go on about hunter gatherer days, well take a hunter gatherer down Croydon high street and he would probably see more meat than he'd eat in his entire life. Animals are actually b******s to catch if you haven't got a fence and a bolt gun.

And so the real question is, have we got it right now? How do we treat animals, and what effect does it have on us? Well I'd say we're wrong in every way. We eat twice as much meat in this country as we did 50 years ago, and the health impact is there for all to see. Obesity's through the roof, people are getting heart disease in their 40s.

Meanwhile, the environment's going to f*** and animal agriculture's the main cause. It contirbutes more CO2 than all transport combined, then you factor in water usage, nitrous oxide and methane emissions, deforestation, decoralisation and some reckon is as much as half the reason climate change is happening.

For me whats the most f***ed up is the amount of food we give to domesticated animals. About 40% of the grain in the world is given to animals. Meanwhile, half a billion people go to sleep hungry at night. We have countries running outa water yet we produce enough water for billions of domesticated cows, chickens etc etc. Like I say, that's f***ed up whichever way you look at it.

And obviously the animals are getting a worse and worse deal. The demand for meat and dairy is leading to a need for greater supply, so the animals are given shorter lives, higher body protein levels, less and less room to grow, and less freedoms. At the minute, the rights of the average chicken include a tiny bit of sunlight, and that's about it. People don't really know how s*** farm conditions are unfortunately, partly cause most wouldnt wanna know, partly because if they did there would be a huge backlash imo. But there has been some great research done by animal rights charities on the matter.

One last point, to the fella who said about overpopulaton of humans. For me, it aint about trimming down, the whole universe involves expansion and contraction, but what keeps growing is what can keep itself stable, and not blow itself up. We have enough land to grow enough food for a lot more people than we have at the moment, and enough water etc etc. But we're being f***ing stupid by creating societies where some people get it all and others get f*** all, and instead of eating food which is easy quick and cheap to grow, were dinin out on the hardest f***ing food of all to produce, meat.

I'm not really that fussed about preaching a particular agenda here, people are smart enough to make their own minds up, I just wanted to give a different side of the argument you dont normally get because like i say this is a topic close to my heart. Knowledge is power as they say and I think we should all be clued up on what effect our life has on the world around us, and on where what we get is coming from.

Overpopulation is a species who's expansion outstrips the sustainability. Human expansion on the planet is entirely driven by petro-chemical extraction. Realistically, whilst resource production on the planet is limited, human expansion is outstripping this and the only compensating factor is technology.

Sooner or later that bubble bursts, and the longer it goes unchecked the more devastating the consequences become. The moral and ethical thing to do, is to act to reduce birth rates across the board, as it involves the least amount of suffering.

Because starvation, war and disease aren't particularly nice ways to die, and not being born isn't actually a big deal.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Which is maladaptive, given that the need for high calorie in take is unnecessary.

The first is correct, that's exactly how all other omnvirores consume meat, as a supplement, rather than a primary source of food. Reducing us to a brain mechanism response is reductive. The same response applies to sugar, but we temper our in take of sugar.

That is no longer evolutionary benefical. In fact, given the reality is the amount of meat we consume is medically unhealthy, its a maladaptive evolutionary development (something that was benefical but no longer is).

Which is irrelivent as we exist in a society, and as far is demonstrated by anthropology, all societies construct ethics. The basis of ethics and morality is the constructive argument, logic and the construction of validity and reliability.

Its true. You don't need to eat meat, which means it has no biological imperative (in fact our ancestors and even grand parents ate no where near as much meat as we do now).

Were talking in a topic on Animal Rights. You cannot discuss rights without ethics. I don't think its immoral per se, but as there is no philosophical argument that its ethical to eat animals. It is therefore unethical. Irrespective of biology. Its biologically possible to rape someone, that doesn't make it ethical.

Setting aside the idea that nature intends anything, I quite agree. Its a personal choice. I make that choice, even though I know its unethical to do so. I see no problem. People are not ethical constructs, we judge ethical issues on a scale of importance, of which this isn't a particularly important issue (although we'd judge it as a crime to kill and eat certain animals).

Yes there is, on the basis of your argument. Biologically we are also primed towards pleasure. We don't require meat for nutrition either. We generally prepare and consume it in forms that give us greater pleasure.

I wouldn't say its flimsy. Its correlational, and the correlational point is pretty high. There is a relationship, it may not be causal, but the correlation is interesting given that low red meat populations and vegetarians show a significantly lower incidence of bowel cancers, and vegans even lower.

But then its a correlation between smoking and lung cancer, not a proven fact.

They would have rarely eaten meat, given the productive requirement of hunting, as opposed to gathering - Most primitive tribes tend to consume small ratios of meat to vegetables/fruit.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Only rights animal have are to be on the right of my plate next to my vegetables.
Hate dogs,cats and most animals that are kept as pets. Should all be in the food chain or not exist.

You do realise that humans are not the top of the food chain?

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]