Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 16:16:59
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 12:18:42
> It would seem that one of the predicate assumptions for the conclusion that eating animal flesh is unethical is that adequate nutrition is available from a vegetarian or vegan diet.
It is but one consideration.
The main assumptions in the argument go:
Sentient beings need to have their interests taken into account.
Animals are sentient beings.
Breeding animals for food and killing them to eat them is severely disregarding their interests
Therefore it is wrong to breed animals for food and kill them to eat them.If we do not need to eat them to survive then I would say that that pretty much fairly conclusively settles that their interests far outweigh our desire to eat them (which would be a 'trivial' interest relative to theirs).
>Not only has that never been demonstrated, it is factually impossible, based on some other assumptions.
The assumption being what counts as 'adequate nutrition'.
> it is not possible to select *any* diet which simultaneously meets all RDA (recommended daily allowance) levels for nutrients for which an RDA is established.> Despite that *defined* inadequacy, a balanced diet cannot even meet that threshold.
> So what? People have surviving to ripe old ages, nothwithstanding dietary analysis. What's the big deal?
Ha! I would take that to be a reductio ad absurdum of the RDA. What I mean by that is that if people we typically consider 'healthy' are found to be labelled 'deficient' then clearly there is something wrong with the RDA. If it is impossible to be 'healthy' without suppliments then I would say that something is severely wrong with that measure of 'health'.
Office mate says that that is why the American RDA is ignored by most of the rest of the world. Instead the British one seems a little more realistic...
> What is striking is that a significant number of these key anti-cancer nutrients are also generally deficient in vegetarian (expecially vegan) diets.
Sure, people often do not eat a balanced diet. Both meat eaters and vegetarians / vegans. The issue is not how people *do* eat, though, it is how they *could* eat if they chose.
>That said, even omnivores (well, American omnivores, for certain) do not obtain anywhere near sufficient iron or zinc from diet.
Right. See the point above. Americans tend to eat badly, we all know that ;-)
> Some people may do quite well on what is statistically an inadequate diet, as it is adequate for their own specific needs.Once again, that makes a mockery of the stats.
>However, it is not possible to generalize from a specific case of adequacy to any other individual. That is the failure of the assumption that vegetarian diets can be adequate sources of nutrition.
Based on what you are saying no balanced diet is an adequate source of nutrition. I would say that there is something severely wrong with the notion of an 'adequate source of nutrition' as laid out. But I shall revise my claim if you like. There isn't anything you get from meat / dairy that you can't get from an alternative source. Is that ok???
Consider a society of cannibals - we tell them that 'eating human flesh is unnecessary as adequate nutrition is available from a non person eating diet'.
They then use all of your arguments to justify continuing to eat human flesh. 'You people who don't eat human flesh don't meet RDA'. Is that supposed to justify a continuation of the practice???
You say that even people eating a balanced diet with meat need suppliments.
Well, I suppose that a vegetarian / vegan would also need suppliments then. Sure, I don't have a problem with that.
I am not talking about whether the majority of vegetarians / vegans actually do eat a balanced diet and likewise I am not talking about whether the majority of non vegetarians / vegans actuallly do eat a balanced diet. I am just saying that it is possible to eat a balanced diet being vegetarian / vegan as it is possible to eat a balanced diet being non-vegetarian / vegan.
What evidence is there that you can be healthy being a vegetarian / vegan???
How about the number of people who are vegetarian / vegan and who seem healthy???
With respect to individual variation... Well, as you say, there are always suppliments.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:461535
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465565.html