Technology, while it has resulted in the suffering of untold millions of living beings, has also freed us from the necessity to "consume other living things" to survive. We can use our position as the most advanced species on the planet to find ways of living that minimize our horrendous impact on the world around us. You say we are just another living creature, and I agree -- we're no more important than the birds or the fish. So, why do we continue to rape the planet as if we were the ONLY things here?

I'm not saying that the predator/prey relationship is wrong or unnatural. Certain leaders of my group have stated in the past that they would eventually like to see all predators find alternate ways of feeding themselves, but that's not immediately feasible.

What is immediately feasible is for each of us to make the decision that we are not going to contribute to the suffering of other animals for our own pleasure. You might like hamburgers, but Dahmer liked cutting off boy's heads. It's an exact parallel. Your addiction to meat and leather causes mass murder every day, and it's about time someone stopped it. As long as the government is run by special interest murder groups like the beef industry, it won't happen on a large scale. But it can happen on an individual level, and I reserve the right to point out your complicity in murder in whatever form I see fit.

Finding all predators other means of feeding themselves beside consuming other animals, would mean to completely alter our ecosystem and create a planet of over populated herbivores with no natural enemies to keep the population levels in balance. This kind of thing happens a fair amount here in Ohio, there are few natural predators for the deer around here, so the population explodes and alot of them end up starving to death, etc.

Like I said, my body was designed to live off a diet of meat AND plants, so I do not see what is wrong with that since that is how God intended me to be, or I evolved through nature. If PETA is so concerned with the well being of all animals and protecting their habitats, etc. why would they endorse the drastic change of animals' way of life? It makes no sense.

That being said, I do agree that the suffering of animals for our pleasure, or research (cosmetics, etc.) is outright wrong. Hunting in the form of Native Americans is fine, that's how they survived, but hunting for a 12 point buck just so you can mount its head on your wall is not right. Nor are the horrible conditions under which many farm animals live before slaughter. I think that if any drastic change needs to be made, it is to our current agriculture system which puts food supply first, animals' pain second. Not a change in our natural eating habits.

Don't try to change life, change how we affect it.

Noodle, I think the time has come to stop your little thought excercise. You're scaring me.

* note to self ... if ever in need of Devil's Advocate, call mrnoodle.

You don't need a damn burger any more than you need the head of your conquest on your wall. Or the latest hairspray. Our desires are counterproductive to our survival, and that of fellow species.

You're not hunting for your own sustenance. You're blithely driving to the grocer's and buying the flesh of an animal that died under horrible circumstances. They keep killing, because you keep buying. On your way to the display of edible body parts reaped from the innocent, you probably passed 100 items that would've equally filled your belly without causing death. Well, not directly, anyway.

wolf -- don't worry, as soon as I close this window I'm going to get a burger. It's easy to argue from a completely emotional standpoint. Five uses of terms like "murder" and "innocent" to put the reader on the defensive, bolstered by one logical point (there are alternatives to meat), all based on the sacred cow of "good intentions". It's easy to be a lib. :P

phew.

And, incidentally, I want the head on my wall as well as the burger. Nice skin on the floor would work with my decor too.

I intend to have a lovely mountain lion skin on my floor soon.

I still just don't get why people think eating meat is wrong. It is how we are designed. Get over the fact that something has to suffer for any animal to live. It's part of life. I already said that I don't agree with the way livestock is treated, that needs to be changed no doubt. The problem is not what we eat, it is how we get it.
And even if the entire human race went vegan, animals would still get killed through pesticide runoff, combines harvesting grain, and extermination because of threat to crops.

I'm no vegetarian, but "It is how we are designed" doesn't hold much moral weight. There are any number of things in our animal nature that are looked down on in civilized society.

And it is possible to get by without eating meat.

But I don't want to.

The only real moral issue is how animals are treated on the farm. The moral issue of just killing something for food is rediculous. It's called the circle of life/food chain, get used to it cause that's its always been and always will be.

And of course it is possible to get by without eating meat, its healthier for people with high cholesterol problems for example. But to use the justification for veganism that it is morally wrong to eat another living thing just doesn't fly.

It should also be pointed out (although I'm not exactly sure why) that virtually all of the cattle that we consume are conceived and raised specifically for that purpose. In other words, left to their own devices, there wouldn't be nearly as many cows in the world. The unchecked mountain lion population would see to that.

I am also no vegetarian, but to be fair, vegetarianism is the logical choice.

Meat is an inefficient nutritional delivery device compared to grains and vegetables. Meat is wasteful. If you eat meat, YOU are wasteful. (Incidentally, so am I.)

From a veggie site:
I forget the exact numbers, but I think you can feed ten times the people with a vegetarian diet than you can with a meat based diet, given a certain amount of land or the crop harvest that comes from that land.

Growing all that animal feed requires a tremendous amount of fresh water. Fresh water that could be used for humans. It takes 100 times more water to grow a pound of beef than a pound of soybeans.

Growing all that feed wastes fossil fuels. We could significantly reduce our dependence of mideast oil if everyone in the US became a vegetarian.

Too much meat is not terribly healthy for you. Look at the food pyramid. You're not supposed to eat much meat at all, and don't actually need any.

I'm just listing a couple of reasons that come to mind. If you look at the logic behind the meat question. The answer is clearly to be a vegetarian.

The only reason to not become a vegetarian is if you like meat enough that you don't care about that other stuff. It's a purely selfish decision, something Americans are good at.

But again, to be clear, I eat meat as well. I'll be having pork chops for dinner tonight, with couscous and corn on the cob.

You are absolutely right. I'm just trying to show that the whole "moral dillema" of eating meat is a moot point. And apologies if I have come off aggressive or disrespectful, my short temper has kind of made a come back these days, don't know why, so I get irritated easily. So again I apologize.

There are many threads to follow in these arguments. We're about to put some goats on here. Goats can turn brush and other undigestible plant matter into food I can eat. We really should think about how our food is produced. It'd be good for us and for producers if we demanded as consumers a safer less centralized and unfortunately more expensive food supply. I'm as guilty as anyone when it comes to cheap chicken and should really look into less intensive alternatives.

But it isn't. Plenty of moral issues involve overcoming instinct and not behaving like animals. The facts that we are omnivorous and other animals eat animals is essentially irrelevant to the question of the morality of eating meat.

Last I checked, we are animals.