How do non-religious people motivate that humans have a higher "value" than animals?

[Mark of Zorro]

how can anything be sacred to an atheist?

Loosely speaking, lots of things. If something is given high enough priority on a list among a group of people, it is effectively the same as being sacred. Such a list is made by all people based on concepts of morality and importance. But religious people also throw in concepts of spirituality and that which their prophets (probably lots of schizoids in there) told them was sacred. The only two differences I can think of between atheists and agnostics on one side, and religious people on the other, is that the two A's don't include what I will call "macro-spirituality" (cause many include a sort of non-religious personal spirituality) nor are they so absolutist in their priority scale (top ranked priorities can change along with reality).

I would say that prioritizing starving children is not really a matter of religion or gods, but more a point of morality shared by the two A's and religious people.

Yes I know religious people desperately want to claim that morality was their brilliant idea, and that its thanks to them that anybody cares for children, but they co-opted those along with the date for Christmas etc.

You don't need to be religious to have morals or compassion or priorities. In fact, it is possible to have all three in oneself on a much higher level if you don't have religion sabotaging your thought processes. However, I won't say that a majority of people of the two A's have actually achieved that higher level. Most haven't because they are not really trying or even mentally capable. On the other hand, religious people probably have a better base to start with if one is stupid.

And guess what? Most people ARE stupid. And that is why you don't see me knocking religion left and right. If everyone was intelligent I would hope religion and superstition would disappear. But I won't see that in my lifetime, I am sure of that!

 

[Macrobiotic]

Thanks that was probably the best reply trying to justify the standpoint of non religious people prioritizing human life as "sacred", although I will never understand why people become so angry they almost lynch me if I say "give Africa back to the animals" or "no big deal" when something like 9/11 happens. Instead I feel spontaneously more upset with animal abuse, including the gargantuan animal industry slaughtering millions. I know that even hamsters are individuals, so are pigs, so are cows. It's simply wrong to argue that a tax cheater would have a higher right to exist than a pig or cow or hamster.

 

[Mike Cash]

You would condone the wholesale slaughter of humans, while decrying the wholesale slaughter of other animals. If we and the beasts have equal status and rights, then how can you pretend moral superiority?

If you were so strongly against the killing of any life, I could at least have some respect for the moral integrity of your position. But to condone packing people into "death camps" is nothing short of vile and repugnant. How can you possibly take offense when people apply the term "Nazi" to you? You differ in no significant way.

People like you are a far bigger threat to the world than even the most extreme Islamist terrorists.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I never claimed I didn't want to get rid of people who harm nature or other people. I did say though that animals have a more pure mind than many modern day humans. Only way to treat those hurting others is by wiping them out and the first step towards a realization of that is to create a society with zero tolerance for certain behaviours. A good place to start is by acknowledging the right for animals to not become human food and instead of building competition and resentment between humans focus on upholding this respect for nature.

I can't shake the feeling, upon encountering certain people, of "this person deserves to die" while in other situations thinking "this is what people should be more like". For example, when bringing my animals to the state run vet clinic near where I live, I see true compassion. If I want to see a lot of fake, evil, selfish people on the other hand I just have to go down to the nearest demonstration for Palestine or "save the kids in Africa" or "don't touch our nuclear power and cheap gasoline!!" gathering. Or just take a quick look at the people sitting in a McDonalds restaurant.

I don't think people like me are a threat to the world, but to humans and civilization maybe. We don't care if civilization is destroyed, but we do not necessarily aim to destroy it. A good civilization could emerge eventually even though the current one is rubbish. It's likely that humans can change their destructive behaviors if fostering a different culture.

 

[RickNZ]

Why do you choose to spend your time on the Internet, using language and technology to discuss philosphy, religion, dietary science etc etc? No animal is capable of any of those things. You don't choose to spend your time wandering homeless and naked in the outdoors,never speaking, and thinking only about your next meal and how to avoid predators. Clearly you value the kinds of things that make humans what we are more than the kinds of things that make animals what they are. Why do you prefer intelligent company to the company of idiots? Because you place value on intelligence. Why are you interested in Japanese? No animal could learn it. But you place value in it. Would you prefer the company of a psychopath who kills with no regret or remorse or someone who has a sense of right and wrong? No animal has a sense of right and wrong, And yet you place value in it. These, and thousands of other things are why human life is worth more than animal life. Art, science, philosophy, technology, creativity, expression, mathematics... you name it, we can do it, but they mean nothing at all to any animal. That's why human life is is valued, and why animal life is dinner.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I agree with you about halfway RickNZ. I believe the things you named are important as a part of human life but I also believe this awareness demands responsibility to not create exclusively anthropocentric structures which damages both humans and animals.

I enjoy human language for example, sometimes. I do not however forget the animals. I'm not stuck in anthropocentrism. I try to avoid hurting nature as much as possible. This is something most people tend to forget. The more human-centered a mind is, the less compassionate. The cold and aggressive mindset of the modern society is a byproduct of humans moving from survival to an age of excess while retaining and even intensifying a completely blindcovered, self centered way of life. This is where there must be a change in the thinking process. Modern society, not because of technology in itself but because of a dated mindset abusing wealth and technology only to serve human interests, actually damages the world more than any primitive survivalist society based on hunters and shamans.
Today humans have the means to not just coexist with nature and uphold balance but to actually spare all animal life.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The biggest problem with your reasoning RickNZ is that you expect Macriobiotic to live life the way he wants, despite the fact of the way the world is. Its near impossible to do that for most things.

You don't choose to spend your time wandering homeless and naked in the outdoors,never speaking, and thinking only about your next meal and how to avoid predators.

He would wind up in jail and/or a mental hospital.

The only way to convince us humans to leave him and animals alone is to use our language and methods of communication. And while he is at it, he might do some other things to improve his quality of life in the world he is forced to live in, like it or not.

I can just about guarantee you want to the world to change in some way, but don't live as if it already changed yourself.

Mind you I am not supporting Macrobiotics reasoning in full, but merely pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

 

[RickNZ]

The more human-centered a mind is, the less compassionate. The cold and aggressive mindset of the modern society is a byproduct of humans moving from survival to an age of excess while retaining and even intensifying a completely blindcovered, self centered way of life.

There you go again, valuing compassion, but you'll never see a lion deciding not to eat a zebra because he feels empathy for it. This is why anti-human veganism fails as a coherent philosphy, due to the fundamental flaw that everything that your philosophy is based on, is an exclusively human trait. No doubt you would say having compassion for animals is better than not having it, but animals don't have compassion. So by the very statement of your point of view, you're affirming that humans are better than animals.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

The biggest problem with your reasoning RickNZ is that you expect Macriobiotic to live life the way he wants, despite the fact of the way the world is. Its near impossible to do that for most things.

Ok, if you insist , insert the phrase "given the choice..." at the start of that sentence. He still wouldn't do it. He would be on here, using the internet, communicating with language. Just by being on here he shows that he values human traits more than animal. Q.E.D.

 

[Macrobiotic]

No doubt you would say having compassion for animals is better than not having it, but animals don't have compassion. So by the very statement of your point of view, you're affirming that humans are better than animals.

No, I'm saying that humans are more heavily obligated than animals, not that humans are better.

 

[RickNZ]

No, I'm saying that humans are more heavily obligated than animals, not that humans are better.

Right, and what's an obligation? A question of doing the "right thing", which, once again, means nothing to any animal. You would have a negative opinion of a person who doesn't follow an obligation, because you believe following an obligation is better than not following it. Therefore, again, you're saying that the human trait is better than the animal. No matter how you re-word it, or how deep you go down the rabbit hole, it amounts to the same thing: you'll be valuing something humans do that animals don't. Therefore you value humans more. Just like I do.

 

[Macrobiotic]

I still don't see what you mean RickNZ. I make a distinction between a value and obligation. I have never claimed that the ability to follow an obligation makes someone more valuable than someone without the ability to make obligations. I have however said that those with the ability to choose and who choose the road of entitlement rather than obligation have less value.

from my perspective, a modern human is obligated to not kill animals. Those who do not kill animals have the same value as animals.

The fact that animals do not think like this means nothing. You're mixing in variables I have never even mentioned just to make your argument fit.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Ok, if you insist , insert the phrase "given the choice..." at the start of that sentence. He still wouldn't do it. He would be on here, using the internet, communicating with language.

Much better! Not saying you are correct, but its a much better supposition!

Just by being on here he shows that he values human traits more than animal. Q.E.D.

Well, he is a human after all. Does not mean he agrees with all that humans do, including himself.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"Ever since I switched over to pressure cooked whole grains (I really mean whole, like whole oats, hulled barley etc), brown rice, boiled veggies, nuts, beans and miso etc I never feel this way, I just feel energized within 15-30 minutes."

"from my perspective, a modern human is obligated to not kill animals. Those who do not kill animals have the same value as animals."

But you cause the death of numerous animals to get your boost of energy.

""Vegan diets are not bloodless diets," Davis said. "Millions of animals die every year to provide products used in vegan diets."

"Davis presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural systems large enough to sustain the human population.

"Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of the field," Davis said. "This, it seems to me, is a serious omission."

"Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

"Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: "Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations."

"Davis has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest. Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the field.

"In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures, according to Davis, less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize soil and reduce run-off into streams."

OSU scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet | News & Research Communications | Oregon State University

 

[Macrobiotic]

It is a problem if field mice are being killed. I need to look into this and if its true replace the grains with something which contains both fiber and carbohydrates.

At least I know there's no pesticides killing them. The grains I buy, with exception for rice, are locally and ecologically produced in smaller scales with traditional methods. But if tractors are killing mice I cannot accept it. Then I will have to make a change, although I admit whole grains really are good for my health.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Well, I KNOW tractors and combines kill field animals like mice. I've seen these operations and even been involved in a few.

Many birds, small mammals, and insects make their homes in planted fields during the growing season. Some get chopped up into the grain, others are left homeless and foodless and starve. Where would they go?

Bugs, birds, and small animals also get destroyed by vehicles taking harvested crops to market. The fact is that, regardless of diet, no human can exist without causing the destruction of numerous animal lives.

 

[BrianLewis]

I can't shake the feeling, upon encountering certain people, of "this person deserves to die" while in other situations thinking "this is what people should be more like".

That's the kind of mentality I would expect from a abortion clinic bomber.

This is where there must be a change in the thinking process. Modern society, not because of technology in itself but because of a dated mindset abusing wealth and technology only to serve human interests, actually damages the world more than any primitive survivalist society based on hunters and shamans.

I can agree with that. I can see that our current system of hoarding resources for personal gain has reached it's limit, where the more some own, the more others suffer for it. I think we need to jump to another social philosophy of personal development over net assets.

from my perspective, a modern human is obligated to not kill animals. Those who do not kill animals have the same value as animals.

Ah, there's the problem. You are projecting your value system onto others, then blaming and condemning them because of it. Surpise! People are all have their own value systems, and most don't share your perspective.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

"Consequently, Davis asks what is the morally relevant difference between the field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that humans may eat.

It is not just killing the cow! Not even mostly killing the cow for many of us! Its the horrible treatment the cow receives from birth to death! Wallowing in muck and shoved into cramped pens and barns! Chained to a post 24/7 unable to even lie down and with suckers on their nipples!

What happens to the field mouse in the combine is much the same as if they were grabbed by a hawk. There is NO natural equivalent for the inhumane and evil treatment of cows, chickens and pigs while they are still alive!

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

Go liberate them, then.

 

[RickNZ]

There is NO natural equivalent for the inhumane and evil treatment of cows, chickens and pigs while they are still alive!

So what do you think of the wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpillars, and the wasp larvae slowly eat the caterpiller from the inside, leaving the vital organs till last to keep the caterpillar alive as long as possible? They release toxins that paralyse the caterpillar and also prevent it from pupating. Kindly old mother nature at her finest!
The Komodo Dragon has an interesting method of hunting. It's saliva is riddled with bacteria, and it gives the prey a non-fatal bite and then follows it round for however many days it takes the prey to be too sick from septicaemia to run or fight back, and when it can't move any more the Komodo dragon just casually starts taking chunks out of it while it's alive. It makes no attempt to kill it, just chows down on the living flesh, while the poor creature bellows and howls. I'd take a bolt through the head from "old painless" at the slaughterhouse over that, any day.

---------- Post added at 20:17 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

At least I know there's no pesticides killing them. The grains I buy, with exception for rice, are locally and ecologically produced in smaller scales with traditional methods. But if tractors are killing mice I cannot accept it. Then I will have to make a change, although I admit whole grains really are good for my health.

How do you justify supporting these small scale, low-yield production methods? Surely it just means more land is being used for human purposeses, therefore less land is available for nature? If you bought food from a larger producer who made use of economies of scale and modern farming methods, you'd be able to feed yourself from half the amount of land.

You talk about this diet being good for your health. Someone mentioned earlier that they think their vegan ( or vegetarian, I forget) diet extends their life. What's your take on that? Do you believe that your macrobiotic diet will make you live longer? If so, how do you justify that in terms of human overpopulation? Wouldn't it be better for the planet for you to shuffle off sooner and stop using resources?

 

[Macrobiotic]

Quality is better than quantity both when it comes to food as well as people. In a post global capitalist world there will be no reason for overpopulation.
Fewer people will be able to eat more nutritious food.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Go liberate them, then.

Can I count on your assistance?

---------- Post added at 23:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:55 ----------

So what do you think of the wasps that lay their eggs inside caterpillars, and the wasp larvae slowly eat the caterpiller from the inside, leaving the vital organs till last to keep the caterpillar alive as long as possible?

Not mammals or avians. I think its pretty horrible, but the quantity and quality of the horror is quite limited, in both the time scale of the suffering and the evolutionary development scale of the victims.

And the Komodo dragon is spreading disease. Diseases are natural. So is spreading them. The Komodo dragon benefits by spreading disease. We do not. Which is why we pump our victims full of antibiotics. But that is a dangerous game. Our playing with antibiotics has created superbugs. And while we have pretty much been safe so far, you cannot compare a few generations using antibiotics to hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

Then there are the viruses like bird flu.

In short, what is natural multiplied a million times is NOT natural.

 

[Wardibald]

A few remarks and clarifications.

All told, the B12 argument is not a very compelling one against vegetarianism, as most will still eat something from the list above. The B12 argument is also certainly not a very good argument for every day meat eating. One steak would provide you with enough B12 to last for years, literally.
But as an argument against vegans? Well, vegans just over-think everything. They have good reasons against poor practices, but they usually confuse the poor practices with the practice itself. Anyone against beekeeping on principle is not playing with a full deck.

I never used the B12 argument against veganism. I just meant to say that if anyone would use this vitamin supplement, for whatever reason, it might be worth it to check where it comes from. The cheaper ones tend to be extracts from living tissue, typically liver, which also handily contains other useful nutrients, so it can be correctly commercialised to contain this wide range of vitamins, without telling the whole story of their origin. The more expensive ones are from bacterial cultures and are more specifically B12 only.

I used to be an egg eating pescetarian but I built more muscle than I needed that way and my connective tissue became harder, I usually had headaches after a meal and I became like drugged for two-three hours afterwards having problems focusing. Ever since I switched over to pressure cooked whole grains (I really mean whole, like whole oats, hulled barley etc), brown rice, boiled veggies, nuts, beans and miso etc I never feel this way, I just feel energized within 15-30 minutes.

In the industrialized world today many depend on medicine rather than food. They see no cause and effect relation between high blood pressure and other health issues and their diet of bacon, white flour, sugar, trance fats and alcohol. They just go to the doctor, get a prescription and then feel sorry for themselves and comfort eat some more because they have high blood pressure, *sob sob*.

A bit of meat isn't unhealthy at all. In fact, since we are all rather meaty creatures, it is not difficult to argue that meat contains most of what we need to sustain ourselves. As argued previously: too much of anything isn't good for you.

Also, there is definitely correlation between cancer and blood pressure, and the typically western diet. However, it does not actually influence a lot. It is all about "increased chances", but genetic affinity for any type of metabolic disorder influences these chances much more. The argument of "biological justice", when it comes to nutrition, really does not count for much. So many people who live healthy, develop cancer, while an equally large amount lives like a French god and stays in good condition.

It might also be worth noting that fruits contain a lot of sugars too, and the carbohydrates of grains, nuts 'n beans, are simply sugars that are polymerised (connected in a long molecular chain). This chain needs to be cut before it can be digested as common sugars. Brown rice and whole grains add fibers to your nutrition, which stimulate your bowels. That's usually a good thing, but there are medical conditions that make this quite undesirable.

I don't think vegans necessarily risk anemia. I consume sea weed as well as a glass of barley grass every day. Barley grass contains more iron than meat and 25 times more calcium than milk and is on top of that highly alkalizing, making the blood less sour. A small glass covers my daily needs of many things otherwise hard to get on a vegan diet.

The nutrition that is claimed to alkalise your blood, is actually a hoax. Even the slightest change in blood acidity, in any direction, will readily kill you. Because stomach acid has made everything that leaves it very acidic, our digestive system has many ways to cope with it. On top of that, our blood is buffered with bicarbonate. This molecule, like many others, stays in balance with its acidic and basic form, keeping blood pH at the required narrow interval needed for survival.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

A few remarks and clarifications.
I never used the B12 argument against veganism. I just meant to say that if anyone would use this vitamin supplement, for whatever reason, it might be worth it to check where it comes from.

Sorry about that, and yes, a real vegan should know where the B12 comes from.

A bit of meat isn't unhealthy at all. In fact, since we are all rather meaty creatures, it is not difficult to argue that meat contains most of what we need to sustain ourselves.

While I am not about to suggest we are the same as rabbits, there are plenty of meaty creatures who basically only eat vegetable matter. Look at horses, hippos and elephants!

Of course you could say that the herbivores spend A LOT more time eating and finding food while the carnivores have more time for relaxation and play, but I think human machinery more than makes up for problem of herbivores.

Also, there is definitely correlation between cancer and blood pressure, and the typically western diet.

I have problems with the term "typical western diet" although I cannot say you are incorrect. I tend to think of the North American diet when health comes up, but I guess there is also the British and German diets, as well as the Aussie/NZ diet to consider. But still, the French, Spanish, and Italian diets and general Mediterranean diets are western and significant. The word "typical" seems to take away their significance.

 

[RickNZ]

Quality is better than quantity both when it comes to food as well as people. In a post global capitalist world there will be no reason for overpopulation.
Fewer people will be able to eat more nutritious food.

Ahh, I see, in your dream utopia where everyone who doesn't agree with you has been sent to the death camps, you will be justified in living long and inefficiently using land. But you are doing those things now, not after your imaginary apocalypse. What's your justification for contributing to overpopulation and waste of land today?

 

[Tamayo]

You are muslim Hezam, so you don't count in this discussion. Religious people already justify their uncivilized standpoint well enough. This was aimed at atheists and humanists.

That's a pretty unfair generalization of all people who have religious beliefs. Do you mean to suggest that there's something they don't see? Writing off a huge group of people because of what they believe is an incredibly effective way of shutting out perspectives that you disagree with without reason.

How can you expect anyone to take your "Animals are my best friends, and I love my hamster" speech seriously, if your first response to any religious person is that "you're uncivilized, and you're just trying to justify your behavior with what you've been taught all your life"? While any given religious demographic probably falls into the minority on this site, I'd bet that you yourself are in the minority in thinking that it's even remotely okay to shut out opinions and perspectives purely because you personally dislike what someone believes.