![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 55. Go back in thread:
Posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 22:59:08
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » TofuEmmy, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:36:44
Oh...right oxtails! How could I forget?? Don't ever tell me tofu is disgusting!!
I take supplements...Puritan's Pride! I'm WAY healthier than any of my meat eating pals. And, ya know what? Even if you offered me irrefutable proof that I will die earlier because of not eating "face food"......I'll die knowing I lived authentically to my nature. The veg life is the only way I could possibly live.
emmy
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 2, 2005, at 23:29:58
In reply to Re: Animal Rights, posted by TofuEmmy on March 2, 2005, at 22:59:08
Emmy.. he eats THE FACE.. literally.
Pig Face
And yeah.. I'm way healthier than any of the meat eaters I know too, by far. Except perhaps the one's who stick to chicken and fish. I'm not to sure about this..
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 2, 2005, at 22:29:49
> I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I deal with local farmers, and I am on a first name basis with my butcher (who does his own killing). I take responsibility for my meat intake, and I am happy to provide others with raw materials for leather goods, shampoos, and soap.
Right. And so my question for you is 'would you be on a first name basis with a butcher (who does his own killing) of human beings. Do you believe it is wrong to breed and kill human beings to eat them? And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
> I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.Ah. And by the same logic you would not believe how many grotesquely overweight meat eaters I have seen. Even with suppliments. I am still not convinced of the healthiness of a meat eating diet.
Like I said, I agree with you that most people do not eat a balanced diet. But that doesn't just apply to vegetarians / vegans. And that doesn't just apply to meat eaters. You don't have to be convinced that you can remain healthy. All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
> Witness the vegans / vegetarians who are alive..
> ...in a manner of speaking.
I can say the same about meat eaters.
> It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all.It falsifies the stats as showing us what we 'need' to be healthy. There are living counter-examples. The stats don't tell us that we need to eat meat anyway...
>I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
Ah. So *some* may need suppliments... whereas others may not... This still doesn't tell us that we have to eat meat...
> > > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.But *enough* may actually be a lot lower than FDA requirement for many... So they may actually be getting as much as they need
> > I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
> I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.Hmm. What about the British FDA requirements then??? How is their methodology? Apparantly it is possible to eat a balanced diet and meet that FDA standard of health... That is the system nutritionists study over here.
> What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.Indeed...
> > I don't know. Maybe we all would be better off with suppliments. Maybe not. Until the comparisons are made between people on similar diets who get 1) no suppliments 2) placebo suppliments and 3) real suppliments I guess we won't know.
> You shan't be taking my advice, then?No. I struggle with money as it is. I won't 'gamble' with what I have.
> > I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
> Yellow pee is proof enough.Proof that some of the colouring goes straight through us...
> ... but they're the best estimates yet.What about the English system???
> When I was on the land, I grew great quantities and varieties of organic veggies. I do miss the dirt under my nails, and the fruit of the land. I had over thirty kinds of apples. Plums. Grapes. Kiwis. 12 kinds of raspberries. Lots of stuff.
Yum.
> But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
I don't know what to say.
You don't mind that animals suffer.
There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
But if you think animals have interests
That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified. But I don't know. You didn't want to talk about the ethics of it I suppose.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:28:24
In reply to Re: People often think that...(sideways step) » alexandra_k, posted by Damos on March 2, 2005, at 20:28:50
Thanks for the links :-)
They are interesting.A little continental for my tastes, perhaps ;-)
But interesting nevertheless
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:10:52
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 2:22:00
"Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?"
That is, obviously, not the same question. If the human euthanasia were voluntary they would have the ability to answer that question first.
If it were involuntary then there are so many other immoral(amoral) things going on (we usually call it murder) and the people doing the killing aren't likely to think twice.
It is a bit more grey when it comes to animals. Or at least it will be until pet owners become more responsible about unfettered reproduction.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:55:40
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
> > I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
>
> But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!
>I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.
So you do seem to at least acknowledge that there are nutrients that humans need that aren't (in a practical manner) available in a veg diet.
So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?
> And if killing people to eat them is wrong, then why do you think killing animals to eat them is acceptable?
Does everything have to be either/or? Does eating people *always* have to be wrong? Should the Donners have just starved because of morality? Who defines morality?
>
> I don't know what to say.
> You don't mind that animals suffer.
> There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.
> But if you think animals have interests
> That they are capable of feeling pleasure and pain
> Then I do not see how you can not think that it is wrong to condone a practice that denies them their most fundamental interests. That causes them so much pain. I don't understand how you can believe that it is morally justified.Again - whose morality? The logical problem in your argument that I see is the assumption of the suffering of the animals is being used to say that eating meat if bad.
Are you worried (morally) about their pain? Or are you (as it looks to me) projecting the human desire for 'life liberty and happiness' onto animals? Does the same concern go for the killing of all living things (like cockatoos in Australia that are considered pests) or does it only go for those raised in captivity? Or only those eaten?
The western world is fairly humane in meat harvesting. Are we 'more moral' than, say, the Chinese who believe that more suffering makes the meat taste better?
My belief is that there is nothing, no action at all, that is 'moral' or 'immoral.' All is situational. And that we are merely discussing which shade of grey this is.
Mel, the happy carnivore
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:38:38
In reply to Re: Animal Rights - some possible exceptions » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:10:52
> "Would it be okay for someone about to be euthanised to be anesthatised first so some med student could practice on them before putting them to sleep?"
> That is, obviously, not the same question. If the human euthanasia were voluntary they would have the ability to answer that question first.Ah, so because animals can't talk we should just assume that they give their consent???
(PS I think the answer to your question and the answer to the above question is the same. Thats why I included it)
> If it were involuntary then there are so many other immoral(amoral) things going on (we usually call it murder) and the people doing the killing aren't likely to think twice.Yes. Though I am sure the animals have an interest in living too???
> It is a bit more grey when it comes to animals. Or at least it will be until pet owners become more responsible about unfettered reproduction.Well...
Is it fair to disadvantage animals because they are unable to explicitly say that they would prefer not to be killed to be eaten? Or killed at all really?
One thing Singer argued for (in the above posts) is that if something is sentient then it should have its interests taken into account. Sentient beings have interests such as the seeking of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Is it too anthropomorphic to assume that animals have an interest in those things?
He maintains that something with comperable sentience should be considered to have comperable interests. These should be taken into account comperably.
It is surely safe to assume that a monkey or a dog or a cat or a pig or a cow or a sheep is sentient in a comperable way to a retarded human infant.
Singer thinks that because there is a comperable degree of sentience they should be taken into account in a comperable manner.
Sure, some of the experiments on animals are worthwhile. But to 'pick on' animals by disregarding their interests to use them in comparatively trivial experiments and eating them etc JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN is speciest.
When considering whether the experiment is justified we should ask ourselves 'would it be acceptable to perform the experiment on a retarded human being'. If it is justified in this case then it would be justified to use animals.
If we actually did this the research that would be performed on animals would be a fraction of what it is today...
It is clearer here.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461882.html
And here I try to argue that he isn't just calling people names when he calls the majority of people 'speciest'.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050215/msgs/461535.html
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:56:28
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on March 3, 2005, at 9:55:40
> I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
I would argue that we are morally obliged to refrain from eating meat and dairy, yes.
> On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.Oh yes. But that isn't part of my argument. I am not a nutritionist. That bit is just my ignorant opinion! That isn't related to my argument for animals being part of the moral community (which means we are morally obliged to take their interests into account).
> So you do seem to at least acknowledge that there are nutrients that humans need that aren't (in a practical manner) available in a veg diet.Well... It seems that the following is true:
IF you buy into the American RDA as a measure of what nutrients and what amounts of nutrients humans *need* THEN you cannot get all the nutrients you need in either a meat eating or a vegetarian / vegan diet.
If that is so then it would follow that everyone would have to take suppliments to get the nutrients they *need*.My issue is with the American RDA.
I would like to see how the English RDA compares.
Apparantly according to the English RDA it is possible to get all the nutrients one needs from a balanced diet (both vegetarian / vegan and meat eating). So I would like to know why the American RDA is supposed to be superior to the English RDA.
> So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?If we have fairly good reason to suppose that we do in fact need suppliments in order to remain healthy then we would be morally obliged to provide that for dependants yes. (I wonder if members of other species need suppliments in order to remain healthy too... We might be morally obliged to provide them for our pets as well...)
But given the differences between the American and English RDA's the jury still seems to be out...
> Does everything have to be either/or? Does eating people *always* have to be wrong? Should the Donners have just starved because of morality?If you are a Kantian then yes. Things are either morally acceptable or morally unacceptable. Black and White. Utilitarianism allows for there to be exceptions. If we actually needed to eat animal flesh in order to survive (if we actually needed to eat human flesh in order to survive) then it would be senseless to say that it is morally unacceptable. Ought implies can. If we are unable to do something then it is silly to say one should do it.
But our daily practices of experimenting on animals and eating meat and dairy are what I am trying to look at. For us peoples in urban environments who do not need to eat meat or dairy in order to be healthy.
Whether we need suppliments (all of us) is a seperate issue.
>Who defines morality?
Who decided what we should and shouldn't do?
Well. People usually have intuitions as to what is right and wrong. Then the idea is to try to provide reasons - to provide a rational argument for why something is right and wrong. The idea is to develop the best possible argument for something being right, and the best possible argument for something being wrong. To try to show the flaws in the arguments. To counter the points. To fix them up in light of critisism etc.After looking at the best possible arguments from both sides then you can make an informed decision as to what you think. What you believe to be right and wrong. We can only do the best that we can do. Maybe there is an objective morality. Maybe we still get it wrong. But at least we can say with good conscience 'I took it seriously and I did my best to be a good person'.
Quite often people change their mind after looking at the arguments.
Does that help?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 16:35:35
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 0:26:38
> > I hope you've noticed I've tried to steer clear of the ethical issues.
>
> But this thread was supposed to be an ethical discussion!Sorry. I wished only to ensure consistency of argument with empirical evidence.
> > I'm still not convinced of the healthiness of vegetarian diets, even with supplements. I've seen too many "walking ghosts"... errrr....committed vegetarian skeletons, often skulking about in the shadows of health food emporiums.
> Ah. And by the same logic you would not believe how many grotesquely overweight meat eaters I have seen.
Meat eating is not associated with obesity, per se. Overconsumption is. In fact, adipose fat, the stuff that accumulates when we become overweight, is near totally composed of fats that are synthesized in one's own liver from carbohydrate, via a mechanism known as de novo lipogenesis. In fact, alternating intake of complex and simple carbs (starches and sweets, in general) switches that process into high gear. Of all the dietary constituents one might consider *least* a part of homo sapien's natural diet, grains are that constituent. Agriculture is primarily grain farming, and it only goes back perhaps 6000 years. In evolutionary terms, that is too short a period to have observed adaptation. Celiac sprue and the various milk intolerances are evidence against grain and dairy as having been substantial components of our ancient diets.
> All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
I feel even more unwell on a vegetarian diet.
> > It illustrates the variability within a population. What suits one, or a group, does not suit all.
>
> It falsifies the stats as showing us what we 'need' to be healthy. There are living counter-examples. The stats don't tell us that we need to eat meat anyway...It doesn't falsify anything. The normal distribution of required intakes falls across a vast realm of actual intakes. Some individuals are thriftier, or more efficient, or less genetically unstable, and get by on a lesser quality of food. That is not a generalizable characteristic. The range of actual required intakes is probably greater than one order of magnitude in scope.
> >I believe there is a lot of that sort of inappropriate generalization, a true logical fallacy, in nutritional science. Some *can* do it. *All* cannot.
>
> Ah. So *some* may need suppliments... whereas others may not... This still doesn't tell us that we have to eat meat...And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.
> > > > In all America, I should think there are more than a handful of intelligent vegetarians, but only those using supps get enough iron and zinc.
>
> But *enough* may actually be a lot lower than FDA requirement for many... So they may actually be getting as much as they needThose that do, I am certain, loudly proclaim their success to all who will listen. That is no basis to conclude that the particular individual's case is representative or even commonplace.
> > > I don't think the FDA 'requirements' you site are an adequate measure of what 'enough' is.
>
> > I've studied their methodology at some depth, and it really is both rigorous and conservative. That would be the National Institutes of Health, a member of the Academy of Sciences, rather than the FDA.
>
> Hmm. What about the British FDA requirements then??? How is their methodology? Apparantly it is possible to eat a balanced diet and meet that FDA standard of health... That is the system nutritionists study over here.The British measure is called the Reference Nutrient Intake, but it is defined indentically to the US RDA (which is being superceded by the DRI, or Daily Reference Intake). I haven't seen the underlying assumptions which inform the British values.
> > What is astounding, IMHO, is not the setting of the RDAs. It is what we commonly accept as normal and healthy. One if five with active mental illness. One in five with a bowel disorder. One in five with circulatory disease. One in five with blood sugar dysregulation. And so on. I'm starting to wonder just who the "normal healthy" individuals upon whom the RDAs were based actually are.
>
> Indeed...
>
> > > I am not sure about how well we are able to absorb suppliments...
>
> > Yellow pee is proof enough.
>
> Proof that some of the colouring goes straight through us...The "colouring" of which you speak is the flavinoid B-vitamin known as riboflavin. For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver. At that point in time, it is available to all bodily tissues and organs. The kidneys are too unselective to retain most nutrients in the blood, allowing them to spill into the urine. The yellow stain is proof of uptake.
> > ... but they're the best estimates yet.
>
> What about the English system???In a later post.
> > But I've always been drawn to sliced corpse as a central part of my diet. And I've yet to have the urge to change that.
>
> I don't know what to say.
> You don't mind that animals suffer.
> There isn't anything I can say in response to someone who truely doesn't mind.I have no interest in suffering. I kill mice which invade my pantry. I shan't have little beasties pooping in my food. My cat kills mice for its own reasons, and I do not judge it. Not all behaviours lend themselves to being weighed on the ethical balance.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 17:03:35
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 14:56:28
> > I'm confused about one bit of your argument. On one hand you argue that getting the nutrients you don't get from meat by taking supplements is more moral.
>
> I would argue that we are morally obliged to refrain from eating meat and dairy, yes.Dairy? Surely drawing off milk does not pain or injure a cow/goat/camel/whatever. In fact, failing to do so might be rather hurtful.
> > On the other hand you express a distrust of getting anything useful from supplements.
>
> Oh yes. But that isn't part of my argument. I am not a nutritionist. That bit is just my ignorant opinion!Gotta love those ignorant opinions! ;-)
> Well... It seems that the following is true:
> IF you buy into the American RDA as a measure of what nutrients and what amounts of nutrients humans *need* THEN you cannot get all the nutrients you need in either a meat eating or a vegetarian / vegan diet.
> If that is so then it would follow that everyone would have to take suppliments to get the nutrients they *need*.Not all deficiencies lead to death. Most, in fact, lead to lesser quality of life, via e.g. coronary artery disease, or peripheral neuropathy, or cancer (as I showed in my lengthy first post). "Need" is a term quite subject to interpretation.
> My issue is with the American RDA.
> I would like to see how the English RDA compares.I didn't search high and low, but here are some values from two tables I found. The first value is the US Daily Reference Intake (which is replacing the RDA). The second value is the UK Reference Nutrient Intake. Both values refer to a male of the 25-50 year age range. n.e. means "value not established". n.l. means "not listed".
vitamin A 1,000 mcg 700 mcg
" D 5 mcg n.e.
" E 10 mcg n.e.
" K 80 mcg n.l.
" C 60 mg 40 mg
" B6 2.0 mg 1.4
" B12 2.0 mcg 1.5
folate 200 mcg n.l.
niacin 19 mg 17 mg
riboflavin 1.7 mg 1.3 mg
thiamine 1.5 mg 1.0 mg
calcium 1000 mg 700 mg
phosphorus 700 mg n.l.
iodine 150 mcg 140 mcg
iron 10 mg 8.7 mg
magnesium 420 mg 300 mg
zinc 15 mg 9.5 mg
selenium 70 mcg 75 mcg
fluoride 3.8 mcg n.l.
copper 2 mg 1.2 mgNote: I had a lovely formatted table, but the blank spaces were removed by the Babble software. :-(
I don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but one cannot conclude that British men do not need any vitamins E,D,K, folate, phosphorus, or fluoride. There are limitations to all tabulated statistics. Inherent assumptions that limit the utility of the value expressed.
> Apparantly according to the English RDA it is possible to get all the nutrients one needs from a balanced diet (both vegetarian / vegan and meat eating). So I would like to know why the American RDA is supposed to be superior to the English RDA.
If you listen to American authorities, you'd probably hear identical claims. It is my own conclusion that all the nutrient needs expressed in these RDA/DRI/RDI values cannot be met by any diet. Period. I went to the nutrient/food databases, and did the calculations. I have proclaimed my conclusion many places on the net, and I have never found any evidence for any diet that actually meets the RDAs, while simultaneously meeting calorie targets.
The balanced diet is a myth. The food pyramid is a hoax. It is actually a creation of an advertising agency seeking to find markets for excess grains produced on American farms due to government subsidies, circa 1960. Some myths die hard.
> > So, an ethical question. Is it moral to deny that source of needed nutrients to children?
>
> If we have fairly good reason to suppose that we do in fact need suppliments in order to remain healthy then we would be morally obliged to provide that for dependants yes. (I wonder if members of other species need suppliments in order to remain healthy too... We might be morally obliged to provide them for our pets as well...)Ah, but we do. Veterinary food products are under quality control legislation that require them to be supplemented. Human food is under no such regulation. It is far more nutritious to eat the doggy version of beef stew than it is to eat the similar product intended for human consumption.
> But given the differences between the American and English RDA's the jury still seems to be out...
Not to this jury member.
Lar
Posted by Mark H. on March 3, 2005, at 19:19:35
In reply to Re: British/American RDA » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 17:03:35
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 20:07:35
In reply to Re: I love watching you two duke it out! (nm), posted by Mark H. on March 3, 2005, at 19:19:35
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 20:26:03
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 16:35:35
> Meat eating is not associated with obesity, per se.
Indeed. And vegetarianism / veganism is not associated with looking like a skeleton, per se - either ;-)
(That was my point there - that both assumptions are false and are as bad as each other).> > All I am saying is that the ethical considerations mean that we should at least give it a hell of a good try.
> I feel even more unwell on a vegetarian diet.Did you keep up your suppliments ;-)
> Some individuals are thriftier, or more efficient, or less genetically unstable, and get by on a lesser quality of food.Right. So not all people would require suppliments then?
> And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.How much better? There is a lot of variation available within a vegetarian / vegan diet. There are lots of suppliments available. There is a difference between consuming meat every night and once per week. All I am saying is that we should take a sentient animal into account the same way that we take retarded children into account. I would say that we should be extremely reluctant to eat both...
> The British measure is called the Reference Nutrient Intake, but it is defined indentically to the US RDA (which is being superceded by the DRI, or Daily Reference Intake). I haven't seen the underlying assumptions which inform the British values.
Hmm. But they tell us different things. Who to believe...
> The "colouring" of which you speak is the flavinoid B-vitamin known as riboflavin. For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver. At that point in time, it is available to all bodily tissues and organs. The kidneys are too unselective to retain most nutrients in the blood, allowing them to spill into the urine. The yellow stain is proof of uptake.I defer to your expertise there...
So we absorb the riboflavin okay then???
We don't seem to need as much of it as they put in if it is coming out in access ;-)
> I have no interest in suffering. I kill mice which invade my pantry. I shan't have little beasties pooping in my food. My cat kills mice for its own reasons, and I do not judge it. Not all behaviours lend themselves to being weighed on the ethical balance.No. We don't condemn animals hunting. Animals aren't moral agents. Would you think it is okay to squash a retarded human being for pooping in your food?
If not - why not?
What is the difference?
> Sorry. I wished only to ensure consistency of argument with empirical evidence.Thats ok.
It can be hard to figure just how much the empirical evidence affects the argument, though.
My main argument was Singers - that we should consider comperable suffering comperably. That animals have comperable sentience to a human infant, therefore to take greater account of human infants than animals is morally unjustifyable.
If you take greater account of human infants than animals then that is morally unjustifyable.
That was my main point.
Posted by Toph on March 3, 2005, at 21:32:41
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 20:26:03
I really don't want to step between two heavyweights here, but there's two debates going on here simultaneously, the comparative nutritional value of the two diets and the moral argument. I'm intrigued by the moral argument that you posit alex. Is it immoral for Eskimos who have virtually no access (before technology) to plant food to survive off mamalian whale meat? It strikes me as similar to the question if someone has never heard of God can they gain entrance into heaven if entry is conditional on belief in God. Are primitive cultures that are unaware of agricultural technologies immoral because eating meat is the only food source they have learned to harvest?
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:13:20
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 20:26:03
> > Some individuals are thriftier, or more efficient, or less genetically unstable, and get by on a lesser quality of food.
>
> Right. So not all people would require suppliments then?Require, no. But they're not a huge expense, either.
> > And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.
>
> How much better? There is a difference between consuming meat every night and once per week.Was that a concession? :-0
> > The "colouring" of which you speak is the flavinoid B-vitamin known as riboflavin. For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver. At that point in time, it is available to all bodily tissues and organs. The kidneys are too unselective to retain most nutrients in the blood, allowing them to spill into the urine. The yellow stain is proof of uptake.
>
> I defer to your expertise there...
> So we absorb the riboflavin okay then???
> We don't seem to need as much of it as they put in if it is coming out in access ;-)It's not at all that it's an excess, it's a bolus.
The best way to understand how the body handles nutrients (and drugs, for that matter), is to consider the body as being separated into different compartments. Each compartment is totally surrounded by membranes, so the metaphor is apt.
When you swallow something, it remains outside the body. Your entire digestive tract is surrounded by tissue, but the contents are external to the body itself. In geometric terms, mammals are really nothing more than a complex torus. A torus is a blob with a hole through it. A drinking straw is a torus. A donut is a torus. We're rather convoluted, but between our mouth and anus, food remains in that hole up the middle.
In the stomach, duodenum, small and large intestine, membranes are set up to allow the passage of a variety of substances into the body out of the gut, and provides numerous pumps for important stuff to enhance uptake further. Getting nutrients past the gut membranes is uptake. Swallowing is intake, and they're not synonymous.
Once stuff gets past the gut membranes, it quickly transfers to blood, and that's considered to be one of the body compartments. The blood is separated from all the tissues by membranes (blood vessel walls, as an example) and from the tissues themselves by the special membranes of the capillaries. The organs are each considered to be compartments. So is bone. Muscles are really multiple compartments of the same materials, but you get the picture, I'm sure.
The only way the tissue and organ compartments can get anything they require, anything at all, it must first make it into the blood. And then, it must make it across the membrane(s) which are the boundaries of each tissue compartment.
When you swallow a vitamin supplement, you get a concentrated burst of nutrient(s) entering the blood. That sudden concentration increase is called a bolus. It tends to substantially increase the blood concentration of that nutrient, but the instant that happens, the kidneys start to let it go. The kidneys just don't seem to be that "smart", really, or we've evolved to expect fairly frequent intake of most nutrients. In any case, it is quite true that the urine becomes enriched in nutrients. But for the few hours the blood concentration is high, all tissue compartments have an excellent opportunity to take up the nutrients across their own membranes. If the kidneys can "see" the nutrient, so can all the rest of your body. Yellow urine is proof of uptake, and blood enrichment.
> > I have no interest in suffering. I kill mice which invade my pantry. I shan't have little beasties pooping in my food. My cat kills mice for its own reasons, and I do not judge it. Not all behaviours lend themselves to being weighed on the ethical balance.
>
> No. We don't condemn animals hunting. Animals aren't moral agents. Would you think it is okay to squash a retarded human being for pooping in your food?I think I could find ways to manage the human. Mice are small and scurry into walls. They also breed when they're only a few weeks old.
> If not - why not?
> What is the difference?
>
>
> > Sorry. I wished only to ensure consistency of argument with empirical evidence.
>
> Thats ok.
>
> It can be hard to figure just how much the empirical evidence affects the argument, though.Empirical evidence is a major component of my own decision-making.
> My main argument was Singers - that we should consider comperable suffering comperably. That animals have comperable sentience to a human infant, therefore to take greater account of human infants than animals is morally unjustifyable.
>
> If you take greater account of human infants than animals then that is morally unjustifyable.
>
> That was my main point.I'm comfortable with my decisions.
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 22:17:58
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on March 3, 2005, at 21:32:41
> I really don't want to step between two heavyweights here, but there's two debates going on here simultaneously, the comparative nutritional value of the two diets and the moral argument.
Yes, indeed there are :-)
And the bridge between them is far from clear...>I'm intrigued by the moral argument that you posit alex.
:-)
Is it immoral for Eskimos who have virtually no access (before technology) to plant food to survive off mamalian whale meat? Are primitive cultures that are unaware of agricultural technologies immoral because eating meat is the only food source they have learned to harvest?
According to Singer (I hope you don't mind my doing this) it is not that it is wrong to eat animals as a blanket rule with no exceptions.
All he is trying to say is that an animal has a comperable degree of sentience as a human infant. Sentience is the only morally defensible boundary with respect to whether one has interests. All with comperable interests should be given comperable moral consideration.
That is why he asks us to consider that whatever it is we want to do with animals we ask ourselves whether it is morally acceptable to do the same thing to a human of comperable sentience. If we say 'no' in the human case and 'yes' in the animal case then (according to him) we are speciest - which is immoral.
Now, with respect to your case... I personally would not condemn people for eating either animals or other people if that was necessary to their survival. It would be senseless to say that they *shouldn't* be doing that because they are unable to stop.
Likewise if their was no other food source (that they were aware of) other than people then I wouldn't consider them immoral for eating people.
Does this sound reasonable???
>It strikes me as similar to the question if someone has never heard of God can they gain entrance into heaven if entry is conditional on belief in God.
Well there the answer would be 'no'. You can't believe in something you have never heard of. And you stated that you have to believe to gain entry.
Bugger for all those little kiddies out there who can't talk yet - eh?
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 22:40:17
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:13:20
> > Right. So not all people would require suppliments then?
> Require, no. But they're not a huge expense, either.Depends on how much money one has I suppose...
And an expense that is unnecesary for at least some people...
> > > And it does not falsify the conclusion that some may do best with meat.
> > How much better? There is a difference between consuming meat every night and once per week.
> Was that a concession? :-0I don't know enough about nutrition.
What are you getting from meat that you can't get from non-dairy again???
> For it to enter one's urine, it must first have entered the bloodstream, and gotten past the liver.You mean it can't just go straight through the torus??
> In the stomach, duodenum, small and large intestine, membranes are set up to allow the passage of a variety of substances into the body out of the gut, and provides numerous pumps for important stuff to enhance uptake further. Getting nutrients past the gut membranes is uptake. Swallowing is intake, and they're not synonymous.Ok. So we would be able to measure uptake by blood samples. I am not sure how much of what is in suppliments gets into our blood. I suppose blood tests could let us know that... People (women) used to be given iron injections (not sure whether it was IV or muscular) - but not so much anymore. It was found that they didn't really help iron deficiency all that much after all...
> It tends to substantially increase the blood concentration of that nutrient, but the instant that happens, the kidneys start to let it go. The kidneys just don't seem to be that "smart", really, or we've evolved to expect fairly frequent intake of most nutrients.Or maybe the kidneys are actually pretty smart in helping the body get rid of excess...
> Yellow urine is proof of uptake, and blood enrichment.
Are you sure most of it doesn't just go straight through the torus???
> I think I could find ways to manage the human.Heh heh!!!
>Mice are small and scurry into walls. They also breed when they're only a few weeks old.
Yeah. They are much more of a problem over your side of the wall apparantly. We get a possum problem instead... I don't know. Anyone have any ideas for humane removal of mice??? I don't know. Have to admit I'd kill them myself (try to find the least painful method possible).. I am not sure what Singers position on that would be.
> Empirical evidence is a major component of my own decision-making.
But it can be hard to figure out what the 'empirical evidence' actually says...
> I'm comfortable with my decisions.Thats nice.
Shall we focus on the meat eating decision in particular?
But do you believe that is ethical?
Can you point to something going wrong with Singer's argument?(You don't really want to talk ethics anyways, you want to talk nutrition...)
:-(
Posted by Toph on March 3, 2005, at 22:42:44
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Toph, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 22:17:58
LOL, you crack me up. You're too smart for me with all your fancy words like sentinence, speciest and bugger. I bet you could even talk me into eating brussel sprouts. Tell me you wouldn't stomp on one of those cute little Kiwis if they pooped on your table cloth.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:53:31
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » alexandra_k, posted by Toph on March 3, 2005, at 21:32:41
> I really don't want to step between two heavyweights here,
Hear that, a_k? We is heavyweights. ;-)
> but there's two debates going on here simultaneously, the comparative nutritional value of the two diets and the moral argument.
I disagree, although I have subsequently taken my own argument on a (hopefully) informative tangent.
I rely on my disputation of this quotation from the very first post in this thread. One which requires an essential predicate assumption to be true, whereas I do not believe it to be true:
"For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialised societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at meal-times: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."
I do not believe that it is "established beyond doubt". And all that flows from that assumption is as flawed as that fallacious predicate and foundational argument.
> I'm intrigued by the moral argument that you posit alex. Is it immoral for Eskimos who have virtually no access (before technology) to plant food to survive off mamalian whale meat?Oh how about cave-men who have imperfectly tried to adapt to diets based on monoculture grain farming, while retaining meat consumption to ensure adequate diet?
The Inuit have done very poorly when place on grain-based (so-called modern or western) foods, just for the record.
> It strikes me as similar to the question if someone has never heard of God can they gain entrance into heaven if entry is conditional on belief in God. Are primitive cultures that are unaware of agricultural technologies immoral because eating meat is the only food source they have learned to harvest?
And are modern societies more ethical if they falsely believe that meat is not an essential component of a healthy diet? Or do they instead worship at the altars of false deities?
I think the evidence I provided fairly strongly suggests that a vegetarian diet requires some supplements (certainly B12 and vitamin D, if not zinc, iron, selenium, long-chain omega-3s, calcium, and iodine) for long-term health. Is reliance on such a contrived (and I would argue unnatural, based on our evolutionary path) diet an essential sequela of adopting this posited ethical perspective?
Lar
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:53:31
> Hear that, a_k? We is heavyweights. ;-)
I thought I was a skeleton :-)
> I rely on my disputation of this quotation from the very first post in this thread. One which requires an essential predicate assumption to be true, whereas I do not believe it to be true:
> "For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialised societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at meal-times: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends. We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."
> I do not believe that it is "established beyond doubt". And all that flows from that assumption is as flawed as that fallacious predicate and foundational argument.Ah. Perhaps I should point out that that passage occurs partway through Singer's article. I just picked it out because I liked it :-)
The quote in the next thread preceeds that section (and justifies the 'specism' charge). And there is still more in front of that in the actual article. So that bit isn't a first premise, or foundation on which the argument rests. Refuting it isn't as crucial to Singers argument (that we should give comperable moral consideration to children and animals) than you might be thinking...
> Oh how about cave-men who have imperfectly tried to adapt to diets based on monoculture grain farming, while retaining meat consumption to ensure adequate diet?Ew, 'grain'.
Best I can figure there are other varieties of vegetables and soya is a kind of bean (???)We might wonder about the cognitive capacity of the cave man. ie whether ethics had evolved yet ;-)
> The Inuit have done very poorly when place on grain-based (so-called modern or western) foods, just for the record.Ew. Grain again.
> And are modern societies more ethical if they falsely believe that meat is not an essential component of a healthy diet?My understanding was that you were trying to say that suppliments were essential to a healthy diet. There isn't anything in meat that you cannot get from alternative sources.
> I think the evidence I provided fairly strongly suggests that a vegetarian diet requires some supplements (certainly B12 and vitamin D, if not zinc, iron, selenium, long-chain omega-3s, calcium, and iodine) for long-term health.And the following article talks about how to get them:
http://www.veganhealth.org/shv/
Posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:49:40
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
I should have read that...
If you followed the link you will note that it talks about... well... suppliments.
I drink 'V'. Lots of it. There is my B12 right there. Never thought of it as a 'suppliment' but of course it is...
So. I conceed you your suppliments...
BUT: You do not eat to eat animal products. I stand by that one!!!
Posted by Toph on March 3, 2005, at 23:50:36
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Toph, posted by Larry Hoover on March 3, 2005, at 22:53:31
> > I really don't want to step between two heavyweights here,
>
> Hear that, a_k? We is heavyweights. ;-)
>I take it back Lar, I kind of like being between two big ol smarty pants throwing their well reasoned assertions back and forth at each other. Why, its a veritable food fight!
> "For the great majority of human beings, especially in urban, industrialised societies, the most direct form of contact with members of other species is at meal-times: we eat them. In doing so we treat them purely as means to our ends...
Boy, I have to side with you on this one Larry. My dog would sure be offended by that statement. Speaking of canines, have you guys battled it out over incisors yet?
Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on March 4, 2005, at 0:04:11
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
Actually I should bow out of the suppliment discussion as gracefully as possible. I don't know much about nutrition.
But that is a seperate issue from the moral consideration that we may or may not be obliged to show to animals.
Even if we need to eat meat
1) We do not need to eat as much as we do
2) We do not need to keep animals in such appalling conditions as we do
3) We do not need to run as many experiments on them as we doAnd I am not convinced at all that we need to eat meat or animal products in order to stay healthy.
But it was instructive to think about individual variation.
I can't answer for everyone.
That is a good point, Larry.All I know is that I shall try my best.
I believe we owe them at least that much.
Posted by Toph on March 4, 2005, at 6:00:57
In reply to Re: Animal Rights, posted by alexandra_k on March 4, 2005, at 0:04:11
In an attempt to be the clown, I made light of a topic that you care very much about. The Kiwi quip was especially stupid and insensitive. I apologize. I hope you know that I respect the opinions of both of you very much.
Toph.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 4, 2005, at 9:19:49
In reply to Re: Animal Rights » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on March 3, 2005, at 23:45:39
> > "We regard their life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say "taste" deliberately - this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defence of eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products."
>
> > I do not believe that it is "established beyond doubt". And all that flows from that assumption is as flawed as that fallacious predicate and foundational argument.
>
> Ah. Perhaps I should point out that that passage occurs partway through Singer's article. I just picked it out because I liked it :-)It doesn't matter where it falls in his essay. He argues that necessity does not exist as a refutation of all that he goes on to examine. But necessity does not equal zero. Thus, we have moved decidedly away from an issue of black and white, of absolutes.
The manner in which he expressed himself, above, makes clear than he knew that to be the case.
Lar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.