Vego kids unethical ?

[2b]

Caught a story on ABC radio yesterday in which it was announced that scientists have discovered that children who were fed meat had a higher inteligence than those that don't. The story then went on to say that scientists had deemed it unethical to force vegi/vegan values on developing children. Now i can't give any references for the mentioned studies as i heard the peice while driving but sure it could be found at your ABC web ? I'll look into it if i get time , but ineresting thoughts.

(NB: You all know my thoughts on meat MMMMMMMM........)

[Dirty Old Man]

I couldn't agree more.

We have canine teeth for a good reason.

[apothecary]

Canine teeth? We have teeth just for eating dogs with?

...Seriously though, forcing any values apart from a basic instinct of right/wrong on anyone is stupid. I'm not going to say unethical, because the word ethics is crappy.

[caludia]

i am a vegetarian, except when i have a hangover and go to kfc out of laziness and gluttony for oil and fat I am not a vegetarian for religious or health reasons, i am a vegetarian for ethical reasons.

we are having a child soon, so this is an important issue for me. We decided that we will feed our child a "normal" diet, and not make any decisions about food based on vegetarian considerations. The reason is: we are Ethical vegetarians only, and thus we decided that our child must make any such choice at an age when a clear ethical decision can be voluntarily made.

re: the canine teeth, i think a better question is, when was the last time you ate raw red or chicken meat? That's what carnivores and omnivores eat. I'm not talking about the sushi bar either

but rantings aside, we decided to leave vegetarianism as an ethical choice for our child when he/she feels like making it.

We will at some stage show her/him, gently as possible, what goes on in a slaughterhouse. As someone once said, if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.

And as Gandhi once said, there is more truth to the saying, "you are what you eat" than most people realize ..

[occidentalis]

2benubee:

The story then went on to say that scientists had deemed it unethical to force vegi/vegan values on developing children.

It isn't the job of scientists to decide what is and isn't ethical. Their job is to find information - for instance, do children suffer from a diet lacking animal products- and report it. It is up to everyone who that information applies to, in this case parents, to decide on what is an ethical course of action based on this information. Some may decide that the production and consumption of meat is unethical to such a high degree that they don't mind if their children end up 2 IQ points below kids that do eat meat. Others will decide that they want their kids to be intelligent as they possibly can be no matter what the consequences to anyone else, so they will raise them on a diet of steak, brahmi, and hydergine . And of course there will be everyone in between.

A few of you make the point that you wouldn't force an ethical decision, such as vegetarianism, on beings who lack the conceptual framework in place for understanding it. This is a noble idea but I'd look at it the other way. Think of the two sides of the question - to eat meat or to be vegetarian - and ask yourself which one is more likely to cause an ethical problem.

I also think that in considering dietary ethics, we need to broaden our viewpoints considerably. most people see three options - omnivore, vego, and vegan. Then there's always those who say they're vego unless they feel like eating meat ( ). However I think we should examine the ethical implications of every food item individually and create diets freely without concern for labels and categories. My own diet is largely vegan, as I live with two vegans and we share meals frequently. However I don't have a problem with eating animal products, including a small amount of meat, as long as I judge them to be sustainably produced. For instance, I will eat organic free range eggs, some milk products (I'm a sucker for cheese and icecream) and very occasionally some fish or kangaroo. Eventually I hope to only eat animal products that are produced locally and organically, but there's only so much you can do on a student's income. I believe that this diet actually causes less harm to the environment, my own body, and other organisms than many vegan and vegetarian diets that do not consider the many levels of ethical questions that run parallel to that of animal rights.

My personal decision (although it'll be a few years before I breed) is that small children do require a fairly protein rich diet, so I might feed my little ones the occasional bit of kangaroo or other sustainably produced meat to supplement an otherwise vegetarian diet. As I've studied environmental ethics and animal rights issues in some detail, I feel fairly confident that this is an ethical way to live, which is why I do, and I would feel comfortable in imposing this on a child.

[ 25. February 2005, 14:45: Message edited by: creach ]

[reptyle]

how can a person be a vegitarian out of ethical reasons yet bust down to KFC when they feel to lazy to eat somethin else? haha.

and i agree with creach wouldnt the best way to allow the child to make their own decision is to feed them veg food and then tell them they can eat meat when they choose to?

i dont begrudge my parents for feeding me meat. its what they do, but i woulda been happier if i got to choose if i wished to include meat in my diet when i was old enough to choose.

[rkundalini]

This hypothesis has been around for a while. I remember speaking to a vegan nutritionist who brought up her son vegan. He was incredibly gifted apparently so she didn't believe in the claim, or at least didn't believe it was very significant.

MG are you serious that you eat KFC as your only breaking of ethical vegetarianism?? Personally I can't think of any animal subjected to more legally sanctioned cruelty than chickens. Perhaps experimental lab animals though I think they are on a par & the chicken industry is on a much larger scale.

FWIW MG my wife & I made the same decision as you & yours. Well actually my wife made the decision and I just went along with it since I was unsure myself. But now having rejected my own original ethical grounds for becoming vegetarian, I'm glad I didn't try to enforce it upon my daughter.

 

quote:

---

 

We will at some stage show her/him, gently as possible, what goes on in a slaughterhouse. As someone once said, if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.

 

---

I used to believe this statement and the implication that this supported vegetarianism. Now I think it is the perfect illustration of how disconnected most western city dwellers are from the realities of the ways of nature. Coming to realise what it means to eat meat is why I reacted by becoming vegetarian, just like the quote suggests. However if I had not grown up alienated from nature I doubt there would ever have been any revelation, I would have always been aware of where meat comes from, and been comfortable with the consequences of my actions as an animal, which by its very nature must derive sustenance from the body parts of other life forms. IMO it is being aware & grateful for what you're given is the main thing, not living in denial and trying to run away from the more obviously confronting aspects of it (the ole it's not ok to kill an animal but it is ok to kill a plant, and I'll just turn a blind eye too to the thousands of animals killed in the process of growing commercial plant crops while I'm at it, argument)

So, I encourage you to show him/her what goes on in a slaughterhouse, but I don't necessarily agree that this should be done with an undertone of "therefore eating meat is evil". Personally I'm hoping that introducing fishing & hunting to my kids from an early age and talking to them about where their food comes from and how the food chain works in general, I can give them the background to make their own decisions without starting behind the 8-ball of denial like I and most city dwellers have had to.

[caludia]

Fair enough. With regards to RK's note, personally, i don't actually think that meat eating is "evil". How could it be? It is our compassion, our oneness with the universal soul, our recognition of oursleves in other beings and things, which makes us consciously reject suffering and help other beings when they suffer. I deliberately said that i was not a "religious" vegetarian because that would imply a belief in evil, and all kinds of other things, which i reject.

No, i meant "ethical" as in, i'm not perfect, i am always doing rotten things, thinking rotten things, and sometimes like i mentioned, when laZy, eating rotten things (b-boom boom tsss).

And RK, btw, i worked at (not for) BK briefly in Miami as part of a software implementation that i had to perform or be fired Does it er.... look like i'm happy in that photo?

Re Reptyle's statement: "how can a person be a vegitarian out of ethical reasons yet bust down to KFC when they feel to lazy to eat somethin else? haha. " ..... no offence but i think that is a ludicrous thing to write. Are you saying that all the time (99.99% of the time, maybe more) that i consciously choose to abstain from meat, out of a desire not to perpetuate the forms of suffering which factory-farmed animals endure, is all hypocrisy because once in a blue moon i succomb to a lust for a certain taste?

If that's what you are saying, that's not only absurd, but mean-spirited (and ignorant, because you've never met me).

If it's not, i apologize for going nuts about it

We should ENCOURAGE OTHERS, not belittle them, for eating less and less meat in their diets. We all do ROTTEN things. You do too. When, once in a blue moon... once in a blue year? ... i eat a chicken fillet burger from KFC because i feel rotten, i directly perpetuate the suffering of factory farmed chickens, which is horrible. But EVERYONE occasionally does things they regret. Everyone I've ever met, anyway.

Encourage others!

p.s. RK, that's an excellent point about alienation from one's nature & environment. Couldnt agree more!

[ 25. February 2005, 18:39: Message edited by: MetalGuru ]

[caludia]

p.s. PETA produced a video showing some of the horrible abuses that occur on animal farms. Narrated by Alec Baldwin (which one was he? i forget )

It's called "Meet your Meat"

if anyone doesnt have the bandwidth, but would like a copy on CD, just PM me, i'll burn a CD of it and send to you for free.

[Rev]

my take is that well feed our kids meat n dairy as part of a balanced diet while they are young as i think meat n dairy do promote strong bones and strong bodies - paying special attention to the QUALITY of such animal products (no spam n frankfurters at my place) but explain to them, as they get old enough for rational thought, the issues of adult lactose intolerance and issues to do with long term overly carnivorous diets (ie past 30) and issues like ageing and cancer from my viewpoint that as one reaches physical maturity and ages the proportion of meat should be radically cut

for example in the Euro paleo diet there was a lot of meat eaten. The people were by modern standards very large, robust and healthy. However they rarely lived beyond their 30's to 40's. These days its societies with high vegetable intake and low meat intake that seem to live better longer lives

combine that with observations in some omnivorous species that start out as quite carnivorous when young but shift to mainly veg diets once mature

i think we can vary the diet somewhat especially into older ages and do better than the past

however when it comes to kids nutrition i think our forbearers obviously did a good job at it so i dont think we need to radically alter what to feed kids beyond what they ate say pre 1940's

moderate portions of varied and complex whole fresh foods - animal and vegetable

there are some special considerations though like that kids naturally have sweetr palates than adults so give them more fresh fruits and that bone calcium deposition for girls has a critical window between 11 and 14 yrs in which excercise and high calcium foods has the most benefit it will have in their entire life and will set them up for a life with strong bones

BTW Fuck PETA and their meddling with the kangaroo cull and meat export

grrrr :mad: :mad: :mad: those bastards give me the shits

what i find most unethical is a bunch of vegetarians being politically active in the meat trade

not to be trusted cos ultimately whatever the conditions the animals are in PETA just wants people to stop eating meat entirely

it would only be ethical is meat eaters interfered in the meat trade in order to get a more humanely produced and healthy commodity

[ 26. February 2005, 02:06: Message edited by: Rev ]

[Jason]

 

quote:

---

And as Gandhi once said, there is more truth to the saying, "you are what you eat" than most people realize ..

---

One of Gandhi's many (forced vegetarian) children once became extremely ill and the doctor told him that his child would die if he did not take a small amount of meat or meat broth.

Gandhi would not give his child meat & I can appreciate his reasoning.

If you truly believe that the human animal is no more special than the rest of the animals, then who are you to take 1 life in order to save another.

That said, I wear leather shoes, eat fish & kill annoying or scarey insect's. Where do you draw the line? Everyone is a hypocrite.

[Rev]

Ghandi may have been a good politician but sounds like he was a bad father

[Torsten]

The problem with vegetarian diets isn't so much the concept of vegetariansism, but the fact that most vegetarians don't have a clue about nutrition.

Most vegos simly leave out meat and then add a few meat replacements. That is simply not good enough. When I was at boarding school I was vegetarian. 2 other students were forced to eat meat there, but stubborn that I am I got my way However the condition was that I had to submit a weekly plan calculating the nutrient intake for myself (and later the other two) to our resident nutritionist. Granted, in those days Sanitarium had 4 tinned vego products plus there was TVP, so things were a little more complicated, but most of the time we made do without these anyway. And that is the hard part. Actually getting a minimum of 30g of protein into your body without resorting to meat or TVP is difficult, not to mention B12, calcium and a few others. Having a balanced diet was extremely difficult and I soon realised why so many vegos had health problems.

For adolescents it would be almost impossible to get all the right nutrients without at least eating eggs and dairy. So my opinion these days is that vegetarianism can be healthy even for kids if done properly, but veganism is too risky and in most cases simply unethical.

[nabraxas]

rev--i have been to many excellent indian doctors in europe, but the doctors i went to see about a lung infection in india were terrible--5 in all-- 1 even told me i was smoking the wrong brand ov cigarettes, & offered me one ov his!!

if all the doctor could offer as acure was broth, the maybe ghandi was just protecting his son from a typical quack.

[caludia]

there's a lot of anecdotal stuff written about gandhi that i wouldnt bet the house on..

[faustus]

 

quote:

---

That said, I wear leather shoes, eat fish & kill annoying or scarey insect's. Where do you draw the line? Everyone is a hypocrite.

---

i've grappled with this very problem for some time. as the saying goes "a vegetarian is someone who doesn't hear the screams of plants". no doubt this will draw the ire of some but i'm a "vegetarian" who still eats fish as i don't believe that they consciously experience pain in the way we or other animals do.

it's strange that people are also ignoring the environmental reasons for not eating meat, particular beef; methane from cattle is a large contributor to greenhouse gases, as well as the ranching that causes deforestation.

[Torsten]

Originally posted by twix elbert:

it's strange that people are also ignoring the environmental reasons for not eating meat, particular beef; methane from cattle is a large contributor to greenhouse gases, as well as the ranching that causes deforestation.

This to me is part of intensive meat production which is the only reason why I am against eating meat. And this is really the reason why I have no ethical problems with organic meat in moderation. ie, minimal cruelty, minimal damage to the land, reduction of consumption by 75%.

[occidentalis]

twix elbert:

i'm a "vegetarian" who still eats fish as i don't believe that they consciously experience pain in the way we or other animals do.

That is absolute utter fucking nonsense. :D .

Firstly, why would you just decide to believe that another quite similar taxa would differ from your own in a way as funamental as the consciousness of pain - a very basic survival mechanism?

Secondly, there is scientific studies showing that fish respond similarly to most other things that feel pain when submitted to painful stimuli.

Eat fish if you want to but don't decide you know things about others' experience of the world without being them.

[Jason]

 

quote:

---

there's a lot of anecdotal stuff written about gandhi that i wouldnt bet the house on..

---

The story I mentioned was from his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments With Truth". Unless it got jumbled in the translation (he didn't originally write it in english), I'm fairly sure it's true.

Also interesting to note that in his youth he and a friend decided to commit suicide by taking poisonous datura seeds (if my memory serves me).

In the end he only took 1 or 2, and obviously weren't that committed, but interesting choice of poison.

[ 26. February 2005, 20:19: Message edited by: Jason ]

[apothecary]

I think there are a lot of irrational vegetarians, just like irrational religious people etc whos

belief pegs don't quite fit through the logic hole.

It's moot. Basically you'll have some justification to do what you want, which is fine by me.

The difference between doing what you want however, and using your influence on another person is that what you're doing isn't affecting just you any longer.

Parents should serve meals no different to what they eat, and if the child decides that he doesn't find the practice of eating meat to be something he agrees with, you can figure out a new diet.

I'm not saying the child should be spoilt and given whatever they please, but certain choices should be theirs to make.

[faustus]

 

quote:

---

why would you just decide to believe that another quite similar taxa would differ from your own in a way as funamental as the consciousness of pain - a very basic survival mechanism?

---

the conscious experience of pain is different to the avoidance of aversive stimuli, e.g. a single-celled organism will move away from toxins, though it doesn't have a nervous system. in regards to fish, i don't believe that they have the sufficient brain complexity to consciously experience pain, though they could very well. this is where i've chosen to "draw the line" as mentioned in the previous post.

 

quote:

---

there is scientific studies showing that fish respond similarly to most other things that feel pain when submitted to painful stimuli.

---

some people with injuries to their brain can display complex, non-reflexive behaviours to injurious stimuli (what one would interpret as reacting to pain) even though they don't report any conscious experience of it whatsoever.

 

quote:

---

Eat fish if you want to but don't decide you know things about others' experience of the world without being them.

---

my belief exactly. who are we to say that a rock doesn't feel pain? why assume that a nervous system is even necessary?

[occidentalis]

twix elbert:

the conscious experience of pain is different to the avoidance of aversive stimuli

---

No, it's not. Aversive stimulus is pain. Pain is just the word we use to name aversive physical sensations. It's how our bodies tell us that they are being damaged. Are you saying that other complex organisms have systems where their bodies say "oh, excuse me, you might be interested to know that you're receiving an aversive physical stimulus, but if you're not, that's ok" ? Natural selection has weeded out any such individuals if they every existed, because they wouldn't last long. Pain is an unpleasant sensation and has to be to ensure you don't go doing stupid things to your body. I don't see any reason to assume anything other than that all complex organisms experience aversive stimuli very similarly to the way we do.

[ 27. February 2005, 20:15: Message edited by: creach ]

[Happy Cadaver]

Fish bleed. They are meat. Just because they don't breathe oxygen from the air doesn't mean they aren't animals. Some vegos tend to lump them into the same category as carrots and lettuce. I believe there's a pretty big difference If you've every caught a fish and killed it you'll know. they tend to bleed and look pretty upset, sort of like a human. Sure they come from a can, but so do carrots.

I believe in a balanced diet and that invloves eating everything Ocean fish are fucken exploited now and need protection.

BTW I DISLIKE VEGOS WHO THINK THEY CAN EAT FISH AND STILL BE CALLED A VEGO, YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE! Just admit it!

[faustus]

LOL yeah the correct term for a fish-eating "vegetarian" is a pescotarian.

you use the term pain too broadly. there is a difference between pain, a psychological experience, and nociception, the unconscious detection of injury by the nervous system. in humans nociception is usually accompanied by the experience of pain.

in fish it's believed that nociception is mediated by the spinal cord and brainstem, and aversive stimuli results in an automatic withdrawal of the stimulated body part, struggling etc. fish lack the regions of the brain known to be responsible for the experience of fear and emotional aspect of pain.

although i've never caught my own fish i'm not doubting they bleed or struggle for their darn lives. but it doesn't necessarily mean they experience pain like we do.

[Benzedrine]

Gee ... I'm beginning to dislike this modern popular science. These days they seem to research anything popular and manufacture a hypothesis that sells. The turning of research into an industry is reducing Science to a cheap assortment of soapboxs and advertisements. Every scientist these days seems to have shout out non-existant contraversies just make enough to fund the next tacky endeavor they undertake.

I totally agree with the above mentioned "scientists don't decide ethics" opinion. Why not look at the full story though since red meat causes cancer there are a lot more downsides indeed to feeding children meat then are really presented. Also when we talk of slight negatives there talking about a far more exhaustive study indeed is really required to such a definitive judgement, whose to say that there aren't other benifits that such an exclusive study simply misses altogether.

Also who is to what is a natural diet for humans, since historical eskimos survived almost wholy off of meat while some cultures would have had very little access to some types of meat especially island dwellers. Parts of the digestive system are thought to have evolved even in the last thousand years, especially the liver. So I think our natural diet is far closer to what we eat today then what was eaten ten thousand years ago.