My main point was that debate regarding the scientific cause/effect relationship of nitrates to headaches was tangential to the point that Mriana seemed to me to be working toward with her example. Namely, that eating animal flesh can have undesirable side effects just as can eating peanuts. One can poke holes in the example, but the point still stands.
This point is along similar lines to my earlier point about nutritional deficiency not being a particular vegetarian problem.
Here are some meaningful conclusions, of key importance to our thread.
1. There are no good nutritional arguments against vegetarianism.
2. The decision to eat animals is an entirely aesthetic decision.
Not that aesthetics are not a very important part of life. I think that they are. But a large percentage of the animal eating population either doesn’t understand that their choice is entirely aesthetic, or they are in denial about it.
I should add that I do very much admire artistry in food, as I regard food as one of the great pleasures in life.
So I have great respect for cgallaga for being a chef.
It is entirely possible that I am not a good chef, so your respect, while appreciated is as yet unearned.
I would say that your point 1 should have the word known somewhere in there. Fact is there is very little data to support any conclusion in that regard. And it seems a bit of the opposite side of the coin from Atkin’s type proponents. More and more data is showing confounding results from the classical line and causes us to rethink many of our presuppositions on nutrition. So I am skeptical that a vegetarian diet is as healthy as we want to think, and really there is no good evidence to support the supposition.
Nutritional science is very good at molecular level. For example on a molecular scale we are fairly clear on what acids are beneficial, but fish oil supplements show poor results while eating fish high in those acids show health benefits. There is a complexity that confounds the line between micro and macro.
As to healthiness of “vegetarian” as a basket term, during most of the agricultural age most humans consumed very little meat. Using agriculture to grow meat is very inefficient compared to eating the agriculture so most people except for the elite few survived on a diet of grain gruel in agricultural societies. There actually there was a lot of loss in bone density and increase in ill health in humans during most of the past 10,000 years (agricultural age). Oddly the early hunters who had a diet rich in meats were comparatively very strong, robust and lived long lives. From hunter gatherers to present is an upside down bell curve in health and nutrition, which has only largely recovered in the past century due in no small part to the availability of meat, calcium and protein of modern industrial economics. We have only now, through science, technology, and a much improved supply of animal products begun to again reach that level of strength and longevity. Of course medicine and hygiene have played a great role, but one can not discount the nutritional role of animal products.
I would also argue that there is more than aesthetics to the meat eating drive. I would bet there is significant biology in there as well. One example of this is that raw meat, due to the fragility of the meat cells, triggers all areas of the taste buds while most plant leaf and seed cells have very tough outer walls that keep most of their content from being freed by chewing and their nutrients are locked up in dense storage granules. Therefore meat is mouth filling in a way few plant foods are.
Further is is well noted that it was the nutritional density of meat that allowed for the development of our very large and calorie hungry brains which made us into a species that can think about what we eat in such an abstract way. Not that we can not use those brains along with technology, to overcome our instinct, but rather that it is more than an aesthetic choice, but rather seems to be a biological trait to desire and enjoy eating meat.
For source of all above read more about it in Harold Mcgees On Food and Cooking (highly recommended) as well as works of Jared Diamond.
I would say that your point 1 should have the word known somewhere in there. Fact is there is very little data to support any conclusion in that regard
We only know what we know. Not what we don’t. Unless you are willing to introduce speculation to our discussion, my point number one should not need such prefacing. Additionally, if we were to include the word “known” for vegetarian diets then we would also have to preface it in for diets that involve eating animals.
In fact, an excess of animal products is “known” to cause many common health problems and a removal of animals from one’s diet is not.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 09:16 PM
one can not discount the nutritional role of animal products.
I do not discount that animal products can have a nutritional role. I only say that they are not necessary.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 09:16 PM
I would also argue that there is more than aesthetics to the meat eating drive. I would bet there is significant biology in there as well.
It is not always desirable to succumb to our biological drives. Biological drives also play a role in opium and heroin addiction. In the extreme, uncontrolled responses to biological drives could lead to cannibalism, rape or other socially abhorrent behaviors.
In the case of food, we may crave things but we have choices. That makes it aesthetic.
We only know what we know. Not what we don’t. Unless you are willing to introduce speculation to our discussion, my point number one should not need such prefacing. Additionally, if we were to include the word “known” for vegetarian diets then we would also have to preface it in for diets that involve eating animals.
Thats a kind of vegan of the gaps argument. You are promoting that since we don’t already know any possible threats there must be none worth considering. I’m saying lack of data on safety and good health is not the same as actual safety and good health. So I disagree that here are no good nutritional arguments against, we have a lot of long term data that suggest that in both periods when humans were not restricting meat consumption we had significantly improved health, longevity, and brain growth. Thats not aesthetic its actual positive biological benefits. Its not a formal study so I can’t claim it is cause and effect. But what can clearly be noted is that before any claims to the long term nutritional viability of vegetarian diet can be made, further study is needed. You have kind of turned it on its head and said essentially that Vegetarian diets are nutritionally sound (making a positive claim) now prove me wrong (asking us to prove a negative).
erasmusinfinity - 15 June 2008 10:33 PM
In fact, an excess of animal products is “known” to cause many common health problems and a removal of animals from one’s diet is not.
An excess of many plants has been shown to do the same. So What. There is a difference between cutting down and cutting out no?
There is no study that I am aware of where animal products being totally removed from a human diet have proven healthier than a diet balanced in all food groups. On a macro scale, it can be reasonably demonstrated that the opposite appears to be true - the “American” (and it largely is) fascination with low fat low protein high starch diets is directly coincidental with the rise in obesity and morbidity. Diets such as the mediterranean focus quite a bit on and animal products (they in no way exclude it) and are believed to be some of the healthiest diets known. Further there is significant evidence that animal products promote satiety while many plant foods do not do so and often actually promote cravings and severe blood sugar swings (sugar is a stellar examples of this).
erasmusinfinity - 15 June 2008 10:33 PM
I do not discount that animal products can have a nutritional role. I only say that they are not necessary.
And that claim is where you need to provide strong evidence.
erasmusinfinity - 15 June 2008 10:33 PM
In the case of food, we may crave things but we have choices. That makes it aesthetic.
I disagree. We also have the choice to eat only lab made organic matter and supplements, to eliminate all natural food, to go soilent green as it were and harm nothing including plants and insects, but not doing so is not based on an aesthetic decision. It is based on a subjective moral choice I and I think the evidence that it would be a good, healthy choice, is very lacking, and that the evidence that we need and should have a balanced diet including some animal products is very strong.
On the morals I ask you to ponder which is the more moral outcome.
1. Bovine is born naturally in the wild lives a meagre and ruthless natural life, always on the brink of starvation, as it ages and becomes feeble it dies in one of the many horrible natural ways (predator, accident, disease) and is consumed by carrion living the same meagre and brutal life.
2. Bovine is born domesticated. It needs not want for food and is protected from disease and predation. It lives a long life of significant comfort and largess, it makes milk on its natural cycle, and once it ages (having outlived any natural average) is humanely killed and consumed by humans before it can suffer.
Which is the more humane and ethical treatment of animals?
I submit that domesticating animals for food and treating them humanely in their keep and final butchery, will bring about significantly more good for both man and beast, than allow nature to run its course.
I have to say I find your argument about nutrition specious. Erasmus is correct in that we only know what we know, and who has the burden of proof depends on the statement made. To say there is no nutrional argument against vegetarianism is correct, in the absence of evidence to the contrary (i.e. a nutritionl argument against vegetarianism). Thus the burden of proof is on those who would provide such an argument. You really haven’t, apart from some vague historical claim that populations were healthier in times when meat was a substantial part of the diet. We can argue about this claim, though we’d both have to find some research to provide actual evidence for our differing senses of the dietary composition and general health of various popultions in history (I doubt, for example, that the average individual in agrarian societies eats less meat than the average individual in hunter gatherer societies, since the former have access to domestic livestock and the latter subsist primarily on foraging for plant material, with meat a less common and highly prized addition to the diet). In any case, if you disagree with erasmus’ Statement 1, you need to provide evidence it is incorrect, not merely argue that the incompleteness of human knowledge makes it weak, which same claim could be made for any positive assertion and which is frequently the argument of pseduo and anti-science forces against scientific assertions (namely that since there is much we don’t know we could always be wrong, which is technically true but meaningless for many common assertions). The burden of proof here is, I submit, on you.
Now, if the satement is “vegetarian diets are healthier than diets which include meat,” I agree that shifts the burden of proof to the maker of the statement. And I happen to think it is not broadly speaking correct, but the devil is in the details. Limited quantities of lean meat or low-fat dairy products do have nutritional advantages, though it is perfectly possible to live a normal and healthy life without them. The question for me is whether the other disadvantages to eating meat (environmental and ethical) outweight the advantages (convenience, esthetics). Not something one can make general rules about, but rather a question for each individual to answer thoughtfully.
As for the ethical argument you present, sorry but it’s pure fiction. The issue of welfare and quality of life, which I’ve studied professionally for many years, is complex. But the general image of life in the wild as “brutish and short” that you present is a stereotype and not accurate. Sure, there is much suffering for many wild animals, but there is also the fullfiment of species typical drives and there are often periods of abundance in which individuals and the species thrive. On the other hand, dometicated cattle do not live anything like the life you suggest. Though they are fed, often it is with large amounts of grain rather than the high fiber grasses they evolved to eat, leading to rumen acidosis and many other medical problems that cause suffering. They are generally bred with significant medical problems (for example, mastitis is tremendously common since their udders (for milk cows, obviously) are so large they drag on the ground and get stepped on often). They are confined, which leads to hoof problems. They are denied many species typical activities wild bovids can engage in (roaming, breeding (many are bred by AI instead of natural mating), rearing of young (they calves must be taken away and hand-reared so we can have the milk), socialization (social groups are often small and of unnatural composition), etc. And generally they are sent to slaughter at 3-5 years of age, far earlier than the 8-10 years or longer they can live naturally.
It is possible to keep domestic animals humanely, but it is difficult and not nearly as economically efficient as industrial agriculture. The suffering results from the economic exigencies to produce ever increasing quantities of food and relatively stable prices. Perfectly understandable from the farmer’s and consumer’s points of view, but unquestionably not the idyllic life you suggest compared to that in the wild.
Thats a kind of vegan of the gaps argument. You are promoting that since we don’t already know any possible threats there must be none worth considering. I’m saying lack of data on safety and good health is not the same as actual safety and good health.
There very well may emerge a new piece of evidence against the nutritional safety of a non-animal diet that contradicts the evidence of millions of healthy vegetarians having lived over thousands of years… many, many persons. Regardless, you have not shown any of it. You are speculating and that is something that you were very critical of Mriana for doing.
Consider the following two statements, along the lines of your thinking.
A) There are no good known nutritional arguments against vegetarianism.
B) There are no good known nutritional arguments against eating animal flesh.
(By the way, this is a thought experiment. I am not conceding that this is the case. There are many solid such arguments, related to excess as I said before).
Applying the “known” term even-handedly we are left with two choices. Hypothetically, neither of them can be justly assumed to be factual until there is new evidence discovered. One involves the absence of animal from ons’e diet and one includes animals. If we are to apply Occam’s Razor, the simplest choice is to refrain from eating animals. The animal eater is filling the gaps by asserting the addition of an extra “unknown” ingredient into their diet.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 11:48 PM
We also have the choice to eat only lab made organic matter and supplements, to eliminate all natural food, to go soilent green as it were and harm nothing including plants and insects, but not doing so is not based on an aesthetic decision.
Sure it is. As you said, we have the choice. I personally wouldn’t go so far as to condemn the eating of plants and insects. I see no ethical problem with killing and eating something that does not suffer.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 11:48 PM
It is based on a subjective moral choice I and I think the evidence that it would be a good, healthy choice, is very lacking, and that the evidence that we need and should have a balanced diet including some animal products is very strong.
As well as being based on an aesthetic choice you are correct in stating that it is also based on a moral choice. Although it is by no means a subjective one. Hurting and killing others is morally straight forward, with animals just as it is with humans. Particularly when it is entirely unnecessary from a nutritional standpoint and functions entirely as a form of aesthetic decadence.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 11:48 PM
1. Bovine is born naturally in the wild lives a meagre and ruthless natural life, always on the brink of starvation, as it ages and becomes feeble it dies in one of the many horrible natural ways (predator, accident, disease) and is consumed by carrion living the same meagre and brutal life.
We are not to blame for things which lay beyond our control. We are to blame for decadent choices that cause unnecessary pain and suffering in others.
If the other kids are already picking on someone in the playground, that doesn’t make it OK for us to pick on him as well.
cgallaga - 15 June 2008 11:48 PM
2. Bovine is born domesticated. It needs not want for food and is protected from disease and predation. It lives a long life of significant comfort and largess, it makes milk on its natural cycle, and once it ages (having outlived any natural average) is humanely killed and consumed by humans before it can suffer.
It is better to kill the animal more humanely, as such, then to be more so inhumane. It is better not to kill it at all. There would have been nothing inhumane whatsoever involved in not having instigated the animals birth to begin with.
I see Erasmus and Miriana as making essentially the same point.
They both assert that vegetarian isn’t just not proven to be bad (an odd statement) but rather that it is as good as or (and this is more their assertion really almost verbatim) more healthy than any other diet.
That is the assertion that is unproven and that Mriana was using anecdote to support. It also flies in the face of current nutritional recommendations which stress a diet balanced in vegetables, fruits, legumes, dairy, meats, seafood and so on. In fact basic nutrition study warns of the difficulty and risk of poor nutrition following vegetarian and vegan diets as much as diets high in saturated fat. No nutritional study warns off animal products, but rather all dietary recommendations urge moderate consumption of them.
Our broad consensus of nutritional sciences support a diet that contains animal products. To my knowledge no such support exists for vegetarian or vegan diets.
Erasmus then goes on to suggest that therefore the only reason to consume animal products is from personal taste. This also flies in the face of nutrition and good sense.
Those are my two bones to pick in this thread.
The fact of the matter is nutritional science supports a diet of moderation of all food groups. And almost always dissuades people from exclusionary eating practices. There is ample nutritional information for this.
As to the anthropology. I provided two excellent references to my claims, indeed these two points (meat built bigger brains & bodies and the diet of agrarian peoples) are also based on a broad consensus of foods scientists, food historians and anthropologists. Just as I will invest time in trying to prove relativity or evolution I’m not going to invest time in trying to prove to you these sound and basic nutritional facts.
As to the ethical question, of course Brennen you easily defeated the straw man of my thought experiment, but then I didn’t mention anything about any standard of treatment as is practiced today, other than to say in my opening thread that we needed to change that.
And yes perhaps some animals live very happy lives in the wild, but on average I think not so much. At any rate intentionally bringing an animal into being and caring for it in the way I described, the humane way, would still be even more better than the best wild condition.
And Erasmus bringing a healthy and contented life into being and carrying it through to its end would certainly add to not subtract from the beneficial life quantity of the universe. So adding the life doesn’t automatically make it unethical.
For example if we brought an endangered panda into being and after its natural death we gave the meat to a starving man, there would be nothing unethical about it (IMHO).
The reason I still think your ethics is arbitrary is that you draw the line at a certain level of animalia. You are not concerned with the deaths of insects the death of microbes the death of plants. You have set a bar in an arbitrary position, where you (and many vegetarians) feel comfortable, not really an empirical measure of life.
I will add that I misstated my ethical thought back there, it should have been a question of which brings the greatest good to the greatest number into being, the humaneness just serves that end.
As far as ethics of vegetarianism, I don’t agree that it is arbitrary in the sense you suggest (as a moral relativist, I think all ethics are somewhat arbitrary, of course, but that’s another discussion). I think the line drawn has been very clearly and logically delineated by lookig at the question of suffering. What capacity do different creatures have for it, what constitutes it, how do we create or ameliorate it. Peter Singer has written well and extensively on this, and there is a broad animal welfare literature (the subject of my master’s thesis) on the topic of how to determine well-being in animals. So I think the distinction between say an oyster and a cow is a reaosnable one. I dont’ personally avoid eating meat because I abhor taking life. I take life regularly, as a consumer of organic matter, as a vet, etc. I abhor the infliction of unecessary and gratuitous suffering, which I think is inevitable in an industrial, economically efficient system of animal poduct production. So while I think any set of values has some ultimate arbitrariness to it, you seemed to suggest there wasn’t a sound rationale behind the distinctions of what to eat and what not to eat, and I disagree.
As for the nutritional question, in general I agree with you. A varied diet is least likely to be deficient in any nutrients. I would make the point (which I think is not all that different from erasmus’ point) that it is not all that difficult in our society to get a balanced, healthy diet without meat, and only a bit more work to get an optimal diet from a vegan diet or a vegetarian diet for people with special nutrional needs (children, pregnant women, the elderly, etc). I also think that the majority of Americans consume animal products far in excess of the healthy, moderate levels that would be optimal, and that this is responsible for a lot of health problems. So erasmus is somewhat correct in suggesting that, given current cultural norms, reducing or eliminating meat consumption might very well be healthier than the excessive meat consumption currently popular. The only reason these arguments matter is that people often argue against a vegetarian diet by claiming it is very difficult or impossible to be healthy eating one, and I think that is untrue. I consider the nutritional arguments against vegetarianism pretty weak, and I happen to find the ethical and environmental arguments stronger and more compelling. But I’m not really interested in prosyletizing the idea to others. The rest of my family eats meat, and I even cook it for them without any real problem. I am a believer in providing a perspective and information and letting people make their own decisions.
The historical arguments are one I am still skeptical of, but I haven’t the time to research it so I’ll let that point go for now.
They both assert that vegetarian isn’t just not proven to be bad (an odd statement) but rather that it is as good as or (and this is more their assertion really almost verbatim) more healthy than any other diet.
You are twisting words. A diet without animals is not avante-garde. It has been around for millenia. It is not a novel theory that needs to be proven any more your assertion about a need for animal consumption needs to be proven. Flip it back around to how it should be.
You assert that a diet including animal flesh isn’t just not proven to be bad (an odd statement) but rather that it is as good as or (and this is more your assertion really almost verbatim) more healthy than any other diet.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
That is the assertion that is unproven and that Mriana was using anecdote to support.
You have only used anecdote to support your argument.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
Our broad consensus of nutritional sciences support a diet that contains animal products.
No it doesn’t. Again, you have only used anecdote to support your argument.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
At any rate intentionally bringing an animal into being and caring for it in the way I described, the humane way, would still be even more better than the best wild condition.
Bringing an animal into being and caring for it in a humane way and then slaughtering it and eating it?!
Sure, that’s better then bringing it into the world in an inhumane way and not caring for it before you slaughter and eat it, but obviously not as good as not slaughtering and eating it.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
For example if we brought an endangered panda into being and after its natural death we gave the meat to a starving man, there would be nothing unethical about it (IMHO).
There would be nothing unethical about not having brought the panda into the world to begin with. But once we bring it into the world, it is our ethical responsibility to treat it humanely. Ultimately, that includes the points that we should not slaughter and eat it. Unless you are prepared to wait until it dies of natural causes before eating its carcass. I’d be quite fine with that, assuming that pandas can’t project on their futures to the degree that we need to respect certain wishes of their wanting to be buried or cremated. I am only assuming that they can’t. Maybe McKenzie will correct me.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
The reason I still think your ethics is arbitrary is that you draw the line at a certain level of animalia. You are not concerned with the deaths of insects the death of microbes the death of plants. You have set a bar in an arbitrary position, where you (and many vegetarians) feel comfortable, not really an empirical measure of life.
What is wrong with that. Why should I be concerned with creatures or plant life that does not suffer in any way? Unless it effects the conditions of our environment adversely, it seems to me that is the most essential point in which ethics enters our discussion.
cgallaga - 17 June 2008 05:01 AM
I will add that I misstated my ethical thought back there, it should have been a question of which brings the greatest good to the greatest number into being, the humaneness just serves that end.
Hmmm… I’m not quite sure if I agree or disagree there. I do think that we should try to do what will have the best consequences for all of those who are effected by our actions. And if we are talking about poor people living in a region with an abundance of animals and little or no plant matter, such as persons living in certain remote parts of African plains, then it would seem ethically justifiable to me for a person to slaughter and eat an animal in order to survive. But I have trouble picturing this sort of scenario anywhere in the West or in Hong Kong. What I see is hedonistic pleasure being judged as more important than a basic right to live free of inflicted suffering.
But then again, I also don’t find your speculation about a nutritional need for animal flesh to be the least bit compelling. If I did then I would certainly have a different view of the ethics of the matter.
Do any of you have any thoughts on being vegetarian, whether it’s good, bad or indifferent and whether it is morally supportable when one becomes a vegetarian on principle? I have no issue with eating meat (I certainly love a good steak) but my diet is increasingly moving away from a traditional meat centred one towards fish, white meats, dairy and vegetarian products so I’m just curious.
Kyu
Hi Kyu,
I didn’t eat meat for years because it bothered me as a small child to learn where it came from. I was always pushing the meat to the side of my plate, avoiding it. It worried my mother, and she would make whey-protein shakes with raw eggs added - gross. The protein shakes were more disgusting than meat, so I would sometimes back down and have a bite of chicken if it meant avoiding the “healthy shake” at all costs. As a teen, we compromised, I would take a vitamin each day and eat a “soy protein bar” if she would stop chasing me around with various deli cuts, complaining I was a skinny girl.
Then a funny thing happened a few years ago, when I was pregnant. My husband and I were in a restaurant, and I could smell the steak from the table next to me and had an intense craving for it. I ordered it right away, and was so happy. I felt kind of “dirty” for eating it, yet enjoyed it immensely, and we got a good laugh out of it. I ate steak twice more during the pregnancy, and haven’t had a craving for it since.
Interestingly enough, later bloodwork showed I was a bit anemic (which is not uncommon in pregnancy, even with prenatal vitamins) and I always wondered if I craved steak for the iron. Can the body know when it’s missing something, or was it just a strange pregnancy craving? We’re planning our second child, and I often wonder if, in addition to my prenatal vitamins and my checkup, I should make some reservations at Morton’s Steakhouse!
Interestingly enough, later bloodwork showed I was a bit anemic (which is not uncommon in pregnancy, even with prenatal vitamins) and I always wondered if I craved steak for the iron. Can the body know when it’s missing something, or was it just a strange pregnancy craving? We’re planning our second child, and I often wonder if, in addition to my prenatal vitamins and my checkup, I should make some reservations at Morton’s Steakhouse!
Iron deficiency can be an issue when meat is absent from a diet. Adding meat is one way to take care of it. But spinach or broccoli will also do. It is true that larger quantities are needed in order to obtain similar levels of iron from vegetable sources than from meat. One can also supplement. And if you are really anemic, and not just generically iron deficient, then you should probably be supplementing anyway.
Ask your doctor about the many possibilities. If you don’t like pills (which usually utilize iron obtained from mineral sources) there is a wonderful product called Floradix Iron + Herbs, which derives its iron exclusively from plant sources.
Iron deficiency can be an issue when meat is absent from a diet. Adding meat is one way to take care of it. But spinach or broccoli will also do. It is true that larger quantities are needed in order to obtain similar levels of iron from vegetable sources than from meat. One can also supplement. And if you are really anemic, and not just generically iron deficient, then you should probably be supplementing anyway.
Ask your doctor about the many possibilities. If you don’t like pills (which usually utilize iron obtained from mineral sources) there is a wonderful product called Floradix Iron + Herbs, which derives its iron exclusively from plant sources.
My doctor gave me some giant, horse-sized iron pills, but also recommended spinach and broccoli with a twist - she said taking vitamin C at the same time as the greens helps the body to absorb iron. I thought this was interesting.
I didn’t discover any problems with my iron level until I was about four months pregnant. All bloodwork before then was normal, and my iron has been normal since the baby was born. I guess I only need “extra” iron during pregnancy. This time around, my doctor will be keeping an eye on the iron from the beginning, knowing it was an issue last time.
Thanks for the tip on Floradix. I will definately ask my doctor about that when we discuss supplements. It sounds much more pleasant than the giant iron pills, which cause upset stomach.
On the morals I ask you to ponder which is the more moral outcome.
1. Bovine is born naturally in the wild lives a meagre and ruthless natural life, always on the brink of starvation, as it ages and becomes feeble it dies in one of the many horrible natural ways (predator, accident, disease) and is consumed by carrion living the same meagre and brutal life.
2. Bovine is born domesticated. It needs not want for food and is protected from disease and predation. It lives a long life of significant comfort and largess, it makes milk on its natural cycle, and once it ages (having outlived any natural average) is humanely killed and consumed by humans before it can suffer.
Which is the more humane and ethical treatment of animals?
I submit that domesticating animals for food and treating them humanely in their keep and final butchery, will bring about significantly more good for both man and beast, than allow nature to run its course.
Which is why I reject the argument of PETA 1 (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and prefer the policy of PETA 2 (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals).
Most all animals are born, live, die and are promptly consumed (with a few exceptions). The lucky ones are already dead before the eating process begins. ISTM that all of the animals I consume are in the latter group. Therefore they are lucky.
What is regrettable is that more than a few wind up as half eaten food in fast food places. Waste is a crime.
It seems to me that you are attempting to legitimize your own chosen misdeeds on the basis that nature behaves even more cruelly than yourself. From this line of reasoning would you also justify a genocide on the basis of a natural disaster? I hope that you will consider that your level of personal responsibility is significantly different when you take part in the pain and suffering of others then it is when it operates outside your circle of influence.
And what makes you think that animals live better lives being raised for food than they do in the wild? It seems to me that the opposite is quite obviously the case. Have you seen how animals are treated in factory farms?
