The only "trap" with evo-psych is extrapolating to value and/or moral judgements. Eating monkeys isn'twrong, but it's pretty fucking weird. Eating people isn'twrong, but it's distasteful and also objectively a bad idea.
Evo-Psych logic typically follows thus: There is a vague possibility that this is instinctual, thus we can't change it, thus it is okay. People use it to justify all sorts of bad things that people do, like raping.
Was it literally wild boar? I'd love to hear more about it.
Yeah, it's a delicacy in Spain. They're "wild," but they feed on acorns in specially-controlled pine and oak forests which are basically massive free-range pens (on the order of hundreds of acres), which gives the meat this really intense and unique flavor and fat marbling. The cured equivalent, Jamon Iberico, quite literally melts in your mouth. The fat on a slice just disappears into this delicately rich, unique fat flavor, and then you chew on the meat, which is itself kind of indescribably nutty and a tad gamy. It's wonderful, but you really need to try it to know what it tastes like.
Similar boar are present in California; you can hunt them there or order it at a decent restaurant. It's not the same as the traditional Spanish boar, but damn close.
EDIT: Durr. I was in fact referring to the Black Iberian Pig, which is domesticated, but reared in the same way as above and come from wild boars as far back as 1000BC. The removal of them would actually harm the ecosystem at this point, so I'd say that despite their domestication, they still earn that title.
Right, but I don't do that. I stop at "this is instinctual, so that's why we see this behavior." That doesn't mean that you can't change it, only that you'll need to do a lot of psychological programming to do so.
Was it literally wild boar? I'd love to hear more about it.
Yeah, it's a delicacy in Spain. They're "wild," but they feed on acorns in specially-controlled pine and oak forests which are basically massive free-range pens (on the order of hundreds of acres), which gives the meat this really intense and unique flavor and fat marbling. The cured equivalent, Jamon Iberico, quite literally melts in your mouth. The fat on a slice just disappears into this delicately rich, unique fat flavor, and then you chew on the meat, which is itself kind of indescribably nutty and a tad gamy. It's wonderful, but you really need to try it to know what it tastes like.
Similar boar are present in California; you can hunt them there or order it at a decent restaurant. It's not the same as the traditional Spanish boar, but damn close.
EDIT: Durr. I was in fact referring to the Black Iberian Pig, which is domesticated, but reared in the same way as above and come from wild boars as far back as 1000BC. The removal of them would actually harm the ecosystem at this point, so I'd say that despite their domestication, they still earn that title.
Also my original point is that any wild animal, including boars aren't great to eat because in the wild animals tend to use their muscles a lot, making them less delicious. What you had was non-wild boar, making it just boar (yes I realize they're universally referred to as wild boar though).
I've had wild rabbit and reindeer. Reindeer was some of the most flavorful meat I've ever had. Also, rabbit meat has no fat no matter where it's sourced from, and it is always delicious.
I've had wild rabbit and reindeer. Reindeer was some of the most flavorful meat I've ever had. Also, rabbit meat has no fat no matter where it's sourced from, and it isalwaysdelicious.
Again, are you sure it was wild reindeer? There are plenty of reindeer farms out there to get reindeer meat from and I'll agree with you on its deliciousness.
Rabbit doesn't change much though, it's a pretty simple meat. Rat tastes a lot like rabbit.
I think I burst a blood vessel reading the first couple pages.
The only reason that this whole vegan 'don't hurt animals cause they have feelings too' argument got started is because people became very removed for the actual slaughter of animals. This wasn't something you would hear before we sent livestock of to be butchered in some magical factory that turns cows into steaks.
The closer you are to death, the less mystical it becomes, actually I highly recommend the book 'on killing' as it addresses this in a much more eloquent way than I can manage in this little box. When death loses it's mystical position in your mind, especially killing an animal for food, you gain an understanding of how things tend to work in this world. If you want to keep living, you must consume some other form of life in order to fuel your biochemical machine. No matter what you eat, you are killing and destroying it, be it a plant or an animal or whatever, you strip it of any nutritional value and pass the rest out as waste.
So it boils down to this: in order to keep living, you must kill, or at very least cause death. What you kill and consume is I suppose a matter of personal choice for most. that being said I can't force you to eat meat. Yet I do feel that it is necessary to break down some of the arguments in the original post.
The position that humans are 'above everything else' on this planet is an interesting premise that is quite natural for us believe. So, I'll roll with this one. Yeah, why not? We formed tools, use language and build civilizations. I'm unaware of any species that does this to the extent that we do.
As for this 'all humans should be treated equally' business, I strongly disagree with that. I believe that we are 'equal under law', that is to say that the laws apply equally to all of us, but to say that we should all be treated equally is a huge mistake. That means that even the people who excel should be held back and that the people who drag everything down should be celebrated. That's actually one of the largest problems we have in North America now as far as I can see, the celebration of mediocrity.
Now for the third point. Yes animals feel pain. What does this have to do with the argument of turning them into food? This line of reasoning seems to assume that some form of torture is necessary to harvest an animal. This is where actually understanding the process of slaughter becomes useful. Tortured animals produce worse meat, and also it is inefficient to torture an animal before you slaughter it. Aside from that, this is still largely irrelevant to me. I don't eat humans because they are part of my species and there is a marked reluctance to kill another of your own kind noticed in almost every animal on earth, probably due to evolutionary mechanisms that try to ensure the survival as a group. As such, humans aren't a reliable form of nutrition, even cannibal societies practice ritual cannibalism, it isn't relied upon as a major source of nutrition.
Besides that I feel pain everyday, and I'm sure most people do too, so using your line of logic it would be safe to assume that an animal experiences a certain degree of pain everyday as well. Considering this, I don't see why an animal's pain should make me stop eating meat. They will feel pain regardless of whether or not they are slaughtered and consumed. I don't think the pain aspect is relevant at all in fact, and the real heart of the issue is a discomfort with the idea of killing mixed in with a society where everyone and everything is seen as 'equal'. As such the only way to effectively end this argument is by returning to a state where people experience death in a more natural and regular way, which due to industrialization has about 'a snowball's chance in hell' without some sort of catastrophe sending us back a couple hundred years.
Anyways I'm going back to eating some adorable animal, because being an omnivore allowed me to become the dominant species of this planet.
How can you not cause death? I don't know of any diet which consists of non living substances that can maintain a human. I'm including the death of a plant, as 'death'. Even if you can eat products such as milk etc which don't cause death per se you are still destroying the thing you consume.
In other words we're designed to eat things that were alive, and as such, they usually don't stay alive after we eat them.
*edit* I also find that article Scott linked to be quite amusing. Especially the bit about how when she discussed her health issues around other vegans the general opinion was that she should suffer for the cause. The thing I found particularly amusing was how she turned it around immediately into a feminist argument about how these patriarchal misogynists who are women body haters want to keep her down, considering that many of them were former 'friends' and would have been considered allies had this health issue not come up. It's always great to see someone get really indignant when they get judged for something that they and their 'friends' judged the exact same way, only to make sure they can work the victim argument they just change which 'minority' or 'special group' they belong to. If she was called out by her feminist friends I have a feeling she would magically become some other kind of activist, but whatever.
Rabbits are cute, funny, adorable creatures. I had bunnies as a kid, and I would definitely not be averse to having them again, if I lived in a place where it would be an option. That being said, rabbit is one of the most delicious animals I have ever eaten.
I wouldn't be able to eat rabbit meat in the same room with a living one, though. That'd be weird. It's like having sex when your cat/dog is in your bed. Watching.
So it boils down to this: in order to keep living, you must kill, or at very least cause death. What you kill and consume is I suppose a matter of personal choice for most. that being said I can't force you to eat meat. Yet I do feel that it is necessary to break down some of the arguments in the original post.
The position that humans are 'above everything else' on this planet is an interesting premise that is quite natural for us believe. So, I'll roll with this one. Yeah, why not? We formed tools, use language and build civilizations. I'm unaware of any species that does this to the extent that we do.
Sure, killing is natural and a necessity. However, I think your reasoning for why humans in particular shouldn't be killed is insufficient.
So you're saying we should eat them? I personally don't have a major issue with it, might even be economically feasible in some places. I personally wouldn't be out buying fresh people to eat considering how unhealthily most live, but that's a consumer choice I suppose.
Also as I stated roughly 98% of people are averse to killing others of their own kind. Most would rather be killed than kill a fellow human the numbers would suggest. 'On killing' covers this quite extensively. It's not so much that I'm against killing and eating humans as it is that we are instinctively programmed not to do that. Actually, killing humans could possibly fix a few problems, but then you get rights activists complaining.
I could give valid reasons, but they have to do primarily with the social contract and civilization etc. and I would only be rehashing Hobbes and Locke in a particularly brutal way. People don't want to be somebody's food, so if you try to eat them, they can't have the minimum level of trust needed for civilization.
Rabbits are cute, funny, adorable creatures. I had bunnies as a kid, and I would definitely not be averse to having them again, if I lived in a place where it would be an option. That being said, rabbit is one of the most delicious animals I have ever eaten.
I wouldn't be able to eat rabbit meat in the same room with a living one, though. That'd be weird. It's like having sex when your cat/dog is in your bed. Watching.
Can't do it, mate, for the same reason that people don't like to eat cats. I have little problem with other people eating rabbit meat (and I'm sure I'd think it was delicious if I had to eat it), but I had such love for my bunnies that it would be nigh impossible to eat the meat of another without pangs of guilt. Also, I think having the rabbits indoors running around makes a difference. They are smarter and more affectionate than people give them credit for.
I guess we can separate people into two groups: Those that only focus on the individual animal, and those that tend to project their observations of individuals onto the species. I am a little more of the second group.
Rabbits are cute, funny, adorable creatures. I had bunnies as a kid, and I would definitely not be averse to having them again, if I lived in a place where it would be an option. That being said, rabbit is one of the most delicious animals I have ever eaten.
I wouldn't be able to eat rabbit meat in the same room with a living one, though. That'd be weird. It's like having sex when your cat/dog is in your bed. Watching.
Can't do it, mate, for the same reason that people don't like to eat cats. I have little problem with other people eating rabbit meat (and I'm sure I'd think it was delicious if I had to eat it), but I had such love for my bunnies that it would be nigh impossible to eat the meat of another without pangs of guilt. Also, I think having the rabbits indoors running around makes a difference. They are smarter and more affectionate than people give them credit for.
I guess we can separate people into two groups: Those that only focus on the individual animal, and those that tend to project their observations of individuals onto the species. I am a little more of the second group.
Comments
I've also had wild boar leg, cured like Jamon Serrano. Oh man. If there is a heaven, it tastes like that meat.
Similar boar are present in California; you can hunt them there or order it at a decent restaurant. It's not the same as the traditional Spanish boar, but damn close.
EDIT: Durr. I was in fact referring to the Black Iberian Pig, which is domesticated, but reared in the same way as above and come from wild boars as far back as 1000BC. The removal of them would actually harm the ecosystem at this point, so I'd say that despite their domestication, they still earn that title.
That's right I mean brains, its a soooo guud!
Rabbit doesn't change much though, it's a pretty simple meat. Rat tastes a lot like rabbit.
The only reason that this whole vegan 'don't hurt animals cause they have feelings too' argument got started is because people became very removed for the actual slaughter of animals. This wasn't something you would hear before we sent livestock of to be butchered in some magical factory that turns cows into steaks.
The closer you are to death, the less mystical it becomes, actually I highly recommend the book 'on killing' as it addresses this in a much more eloquent way than I can manage in this little box. When death loses it's mystical position in your mind, especially killing an animal for food, you gain an understanding of how things tend to work in this world. If you want to keep living, you must consume some other form of life in order to fuel your biochemical machine. No matter what you eat, you are killing and destroying it, be it a plant or an animal or whatever, you strip it of any nutritional value and pass the rest out as waste.
So it boils down to this: in order to keep living, you must kill, or at very least cause death. What you kill and consume is I suppose a matter of personal choice for most. that being said I can't force you to eat meat. Yet I do feel that it is necessary to break down some of the arguments in the original post.
The position that humans are 'above everything else' on this planet is an interesting premise that is quite natural for us believe. So, I'll roll with this one. Yeah, why not? We formed tools, use language and build civilizations. I'm unaware of any species that does this to the extent that we do.
As for this 'all humans should be treated equally' business, I strongly disagree with that. I believe that we are 'equal under law', that is to say that the laws apply equally to all of us, but to say that we should all be treated equally is a huge mistake. That means that even the people who excel should be held back and that the people who drag everything down should be celebrated. That's actually one of the largest problems we have in North America now as far as I can see, the celebration of mediocrity.
Now for the third point. Yes animals feel pain. What does this have to do with the argument of turning them into food? This line of reasoning seems to assume that some form of torture is necessary to harvest an animal. This is where actually understanding the process of slaughter becomes useful. Tortured animals produce worse meat, and also it is inefficient to torture an animal before you slaughter it. Aside from that, this is still largely irrelevant to me. I don't eat humans because they are part of my species and there is a marked reluctance to kill another of your own kind noticed in almost every animal on earth, probably due to evolutionary mechanisms that try to ensure the survival as a group. As such, humans aren't a reliable form of nutrition, even cannibal societies practice ritual cannibalism, it isn't relied upon as a major source of nutrition.
Besides that I feel pain everyday, and I'm sure most people do too, so using your line of logic it would be safe to assume that an animal experiences a certain degree of pain everyday as well. Considering this, I don't see why an animal's pain should make me stop eating meat. They will feel pain regardless of whether or not they are slaughtered and consumed. I don't think the pain aspect is relevant at all in fact, and the real heart of the issue is a discomfort with the idea of killing mixed in with a society where everyone and everything is seen as 'equal'. As such the only way to effectively end this argument is by returning to a state where people experience death in a more natural and regular way, which due to industrialization has about 'a snowball's chance in hell' without some sort of catastrophe sending us back a couple hundred years.
Anyways I'm going back to eating some adorable animal, because being an omnivore allowed me to become the dominant species of this planet.
In other words we're designed to eat things that were alive, and as such, they usually don't stay alive after we eat them.
*edit* I also find that article Scott linked to be quite amusing. Especially the bit about how when she discussed her health issues around other vegans the general opinion was that she should suffer for the cause. The thing I found particularly amusing was how she turned it around immediately into a feminist argument about how these patriarchal misogynists who are women body haters want to keep her down, considering that many of them were former 'friends' and would have been considered allies had this health issue not come up. It's always great to see someone get really indignant when they get judged for something that they and their 'friends' judged the exact same way, only to make sure they can work the victim argument they just change which 'minority' or 'special group' they belong to. If she was called out by her feminist friends I have a feeling she would magically become some other kind of activist, but whatever.
I wouldn't be able to eat rabbit meat in the same room with a living one, though. That'd be weird. It's like having sex when your cat/dog is in your bed. Watching.
Also, Bison are fucking fantastic.
Also as I stated roughly 98% of people are averse to killing others of their own kind. Most would rather be killed than kill a fellow human the numbers would suggest. 'On killing' covers this quite extensively. It's not so much that I'm against killing and eating humans as it is that we are instinctively programmed not to do that. Actually, killing humans could possibly fix a few problems, but then you get rights activists complaining.
I could give valid reasons, but they have to do primarily with the social contract and civilization etc. and I would only be rehashing Hobbes and Locke in a particularly brutal way. People don't want to be somebody's food, so if you try to eat them, they can't have the minimum level of trust needed for civilization.
Can someone tell me this isn't real?
EDIT: Yup. That's a really elaborate hoax.
I guess we can separate people into two groups: Those that only focus on the individual animal, and those that tend to project their observations of individuals onto the species. I am a little more of the second group.