Eating meat is morally indefensible

S. Canaday wrote:

It's drastically less sustainable (on average) compared to utilizing other plant-based food sources (which can also be healthier because lets face it, most Americans could use less bad cholesterol!).

If we conclude that high carbon emissions and environmental issues from climate change will destroy life on Earth (prob for us mammals first) is there some sort of "moral" obligation to try to minimize our carbon footprint for all living things on Earth....including future generations of humans?

Most of the cholesterol in your blood is made by your own body.

S. Canaday wrote:

One could argue that there is a bit of an inconsistency there where dogs get a free pass and pigs get the short end of the stick?

Try looking outside of your own little box. There are cultures/religions where dogs are eaten or pigs are not.

Hammy wrote:

S. Canaday wrote:

One could argue that there is a bit of an inconsistency there where dogs get a free pass and pigs get the short end of the stick?

Try looking outside of your own little box. There are cultures/religions where dogs are eaten or pigs are not.

It's not a little box! Are dogs eaten anywhere outside of south east Asia? Certainly not in Europe or north America, but I think not in central or south America, Australasia, Africa, or most of Asia.

Also Asians are being influenced to eat less dog (e.g. Taiwan banned eating dogs) but there is nowhere in the west are people being influenced by Asians to start eating dogs.

I don't think people who don't eat pigs for religious reasons tend to keep them as pets.

An estimated 30 million dogs are killed for human consumption every year.

Which countries? North Korea is probably one of them?

Let's tell it like it is wrote:

Which countries? North Korea is probably one of them?

Big in South Korea.

Sage, I'm sorry but your science about cholesterol has been outdated for about 50 years now - blood cholesterol (the cholesterol that causes heart disease) doesn't come from dietary cholesterol. Also there are very good reasons that only about 5 animals (cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens) - I know there are more, but people are usually eating one of those 5 - are generally raised as livestock and it has nothing to do with their intelligence. People don't eat dogs because they make much better pets than they do livestock. I would assume the only people eating dog are doing it because they have to or are doing it just because of pure social norm (which was probably developed because people had to eat dog).

I don’t known what kind of “science” you follow, but last I checked there is a pretty high correlation between heart disease, cholesterol and high fat (high saturated fat/cholesterol and red meat consumption). High cancer rates too for that matter. Of course I’ll have to say “correlation does not imply causation” as obviously other factors in diet induce heart disease as well, but high correlations can be pretty damning. My whole point with bring up dogs was to show that social norms obviously shape certain moral values and that can be very cultural and emotional . Humans are generally more upset if they have to kill an animal with a higher IQ and a developed central nervous system. Animals that have emotions and feel suffering and pain are more like us compared to a plant or an insect that lacks a central nervous system. Whether dogs or pigs “make better pets” is beside the point (people have pet pigs and they act a lot like dogs). Cultural values (which have evolved over time) shape current moral values. People desperate for food will do anything they can to find calories in order to survive and have had to overtime (and still do). Some have had to resort to cannibalism at times. Thats just survival instinct. Whether or not over time that becomes “morally taboo” depends on the culture and the time period.