<p>afruff,</p>
<p>Humans share something like 98% of their DNA with most animals on the planet. Who cares? I bet we're very close to pandas relative to other animals. It doesn't mean that I want to live on bamboo shoots.</p>
<p>Genetic closeness does not necessarily preclude vast differences in dietary needs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And such a belief would require you to steal from people since I don't see high-intensity foods going away anytime soon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Just because there's no clear solution doesn't mean it's moral. You're confusing the morality of the issue with the solution to the moral problem.</p>
<p>Furthermore, who says it has to be "stolen?" There are potential market solutions to the problem that will preclude any sort of forced action.</p>
<p>The only reason I'd become a vegetarian is because of personal issues. I have never really like meat at all and often the smell of meat makes me sick. Dissecting animals and seeing what I eat makes me feel sick. My family has a lot of health issues and red meat is a big no-no because of that. I wouldn't do it because of moral issues or anything like that, I'd just be doing it because I dislike the texture, taste, and smell of it. It's like how some people refuse to eat certain foods because they don't like it.</p>
<p>afruff,</p>
<p>Let me elaborate the moral argument a bit.</p>
<p>Let's assume that we have 100 people, all of whom require a basic level of nutrition to live. Now, we have 50 acres of land, which can produce enough calories for all 100 people if we use 45 acres for non-meat goods and 5 acres for meat. Assuming that 40 of those acres are now privately owned by 10 people, who use it almost solely for meat production (so they can all eat meat), you are left with 10 acres of land-- which cannot support the other 90 people. Someone will starve.</p>
<p>Now, the rational counterargument is that it's possible to increase crop yields through technology. But technology is fickle and potentially slow, meaning that long-term returns are not guaranteed.</p>
<p>So what do we say about the 90 other people? What is the morality of the situation?</p>
<p>@UCLAri
[quote]
It doesn't mean that I want to live on bamboo shoots.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Was that ever the issue? We were merely talking about dietary needs. I know I wouldn't want to give up meat either, but I do not foresee any health problems should I do so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because there's no clear solution doesn't mean it's moral. You're confusing the morality of the issue with the solution to the moral problem.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But you just said that the heavy-intensity food consumer was immoral. How can I be immoral when I am trading my honest labor for another person's honest labor? How can you put a positive moral obligation on me to feed another without my permission? You cannot. To be consistent with this belief, you would have to allow me to impose moral obligations on you without your consent.</p>
<p>afruff,</p>
<p>Refer to my post above. Let's now assume that the high-protein diet behavior is potentially leading to other people being unable to eat enough to live. </p>
<p>How is that moral?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Was that ever the issue? We were merely talking about dietary needs. I know I wouldn't want to give up meat either, but I do not foresee any health problems should I do so.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, but that's because you are human. But comparing a human to another species is not a useful foundation. Just use evidence from other humans and other human diets. Fewer complexities, fewer potential differences. Why compare oranges to tangelos when you can compare them to oranges?</p>
<p>@UCLAri</p>
<p>When dealing with highly abstract situations, you make many assumptions and thus these thought experiments are not consistent with reality. Why would those 10 people not trade food for the services of the 90 people? And why are those 90 people entitled to food which they have not worked for (again, going back to the slavery argument)?</p>
<p>@UCLAri</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why compare oranges to tangelos when you can compare them to oranges?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I see what you mean. Point taken.</p>
<p>afruff,</p>
<p>
[quote]
When dealing with highly abstract situations, you make many assumptions and thus these thought experiments are not consistent with reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Except that they actually are. The vast majority of the world's arable land is in the hands or under the control of the high-protein Western societies. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Why would those 10 people not trade food for the services of the 90 people?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not the point. The land can only produce enough food for a certain number of people. You cannot make more food once your land reaches its limits of production. Production of meat uses more land than production of grains. You cannot change that with the creation of a job market. Even if people are hired to work the land, it doesn't change the fact that those 40 acres are no longer producing enough food for all 100 people. Arable land and food are a scarce resource in the same way that oil and fresh water are scarce. Labor markets do not change this. </p>
<p>
[quote]
And why are those 90 people entitled to food which they have not worked for (again, going back to the slavery argument)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What does reduction of consumption have to do with slavery?</p>
<p>@UCLAri</p>
<p>
[quote]
Except that they actually are. The vast majority of the world's arable land is in the hands or under the control of the high-protein Western societies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, forgive me for not knowing much about the current agricultural condition.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's not the point. The land can only produce enough food for a certain number of people. You cannot make more food once your land reaches its limits of production.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Okay, a reasonable assumption and consistent with reality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What does reduction of consumption have to do with slavery?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For someone to be moral in your opinion, they would have to give up some of their food which they procured by honest and mutually voluntary means. Thus, whatever work they put into acquiring said food was in fact enslavement.</p>
<p>Ricky Williams has to be the worst example you can use for "vegetarian athletes."</p>
<p>Also, baseball is one of the lesser sports in terms of athleticism (i.e., you can be out of shape and still be a great player).</p>
<p>enjoy spending $10 on a bowl of organic salad and depending on tofu and nuts for natural protein</p>
<p>
[quote]
For someone to be moral in your opinion, they would have to give up some of their food which they procured by honest and mutually voluntary means. Thus, whatever work they put into acquiring said food was in fact enslavement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your definition of "enslavement" is Randian at best and irrational at worst. By your definition, me not being allowed to purchase a good because of regulations is always enslavement. Remember, I do not actually produce my own food-- I trade for it. Furthermore, farmers produce what the market demands. If the market no longer demanded tons of beef, farmers would not produce it. That's not enslavement, that's supply and demand.</p>
<p>I refer you all to this:</p>
<p>
[quote]
enjoy spending $10 on a bowl of organic salad and depending on tofu and nuts for natural protein
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I can buy organic fruits for far less at my local grocer (Henry's) than at the local supermarket (Ralph's.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your definition of "enslavement" is Randian at best and irrational at worst. By your definition, me not being allowed to purchase a good because of regulations is always enslavement.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What are these regulations and are they agreed to voluntarily by the farmers? if so, I see no problem. However, regulation implies political relationships (e.g. non-volutnary top-down control) rather than business/personal relationships (e.g. mutually beneficial exchange). You can dress it up all you want, but initiating force against someone is wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Remember, I do not actually produce my own food-- I trade for it. Furthermore, farmers produce what the market demands. If the market no longer demanded tons of beef, farmers would not produce it. That's not enslavement, that's supply and demand.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For there to be a supply, there has to be a demand with something to exchange. I don't see all those starving people in the world having something to trade for food. If they did, then starving would be a problem of the past. Clearly, this is not the case since starving goes on everyday and many of these people have little to nothing to trade for food. If they were able to get the farmer to participate in some sort of voluntary exchange, then there would be no problem. However, to have an exchange, both parties must have something the other desires and poor starving people clearly do not have anything a farmer desires (otherwise they would not be starving).</p>
<p>The enslavement refers to regulation (e.g. political), rationing without choosing to do so, and subsidizing (e.g. by stealing another person's labor to subsidize crops).</p>
<p>
[quote]
What are these regulations and are they agreed to voluntarily by the farmers? if so, I see no problem. However, regulation implies political relationships (e.g. non-volutnary top-down control) rather than business/personal relationships (e.g. mutually beneficial exchange). You can dress it up all you want, but initiating force against someone is wrong.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fine. But slavery it ain't. It's just unjust regulation. </p>
<p>
[quote]
For there to be a supply, there has to be a demand with something to exchange. I don't see all those starving people in the world having something to trade for food. If they did, then starving would be a problem of the past.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So then you think it's acceptable for these people simply starve and die? All so that the lucky minority can eat more protein than they need anyway?</p>
<p>Is that really moral?</p>
<p>Inuit life expectancy- 64-67 years</p>
<p>Average life expectancy of people who had been vegetarian for 20 years or more was 86.5 years, compared with 82.9 for the short-term vegetarians.</p>
<p>Inuit</a> lifespan stagnates while Canada's rises | Reuters
Veg</a> out, live longer - <a href="http://www.theage.com.au%5B/url%5D">www.theage.com.au</a></p>
<p>Of course other factors play into it, but there is little to suggest that a diet almost entirely of meat is good for a person.</p>
<p>Look at it this way. If everyone did in fact have something to exchange for food, there still wouldn't be enough to go around. The nature of the high protein diet in question requires that some people go without food. Is this morally permissible?</p>
<p>From the way you've responded thus far, it looks though you believe economic freedom is one that overrides human life itself.</p>
<p>Leave labor and entitlement out of this for a second and just think, is it okay for me to eat more than I need for no other reason than my own convenience and desires?</p>
<p>And ultimately, I'm not talking about coercing farmers out of ranching or producing what they want, but about creating the demand through your own dietary choices.</p>
<p>"How can you put a positive moral obligation on me to feed another without my permission?"</p>
<p>Nobody has to. Again, you're presupposing that morality somehow involves coercion. It involves decisions, and your decision to disregard the the connection between your diet and the suffering of others is your own. Whether you acknowledge it or not is also your choice.</p>
<p>The argument can't proceed much further without your understanding this.</p>