MovieChat Forums > Fast Food Nation (2007) Discussion > Ten reasons to be a Vegetarian, or at le...

Ten reasons to be a Vegetarian, or at least support it

posted 15 years ago by naylor-3
50 replies | jump to latest

Ten Reasons To Be A Vegetarian
http://www.vegecyber.com/others/about_vegetarianism.shtml

Hunger

Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million.
Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced
their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million.
Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80.
Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95.
How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds.
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000.
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250.
Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56.
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of beef: 16.

Environmental

Primary cause of greenhouse effect: carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels Fossil fuels needed to produce meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 3 times more . Percentage of U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75. Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85.
Number of acres of U.S. forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million. Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pound of rainforest beef: 55 sq. feet. Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 per year.

Cancer

Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat daily compared to less than
once a week: 3.8 times. For women who eat eggs daily compared to once a week: 2.8 times. Increased risk of fatal ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs. less than once a week: 3 times. Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs. sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times.

Cholesterol

Most common cause of death in the U.S.: heart attack.
How frequently a heart attack kills in the U.S.: every 45 seconds.
Average U.S. man's risk of death from heart attack: 50 percent.
Risk of average U.S. man who eats no meat, dairy or eggs: 4 percent.
Amount you reduce risk if you eliminate meat, dairy and eggs from your diet: 90 percent
Average cholesterol level of people eating meat-centered-diet: 210 mg/dl.
Chance of dying from heart disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol level is
210 mg/dl: greater than 50 percent.

Natural Resources

User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the U.S.: livestock production.
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of wheat: 25.
Gallons of water needed to produce a pound of California beef: 5,000.
Years the world's known oil reserves would last if every human ate a meat-centered diet:13.
Years they would last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260.
Calories of fossil fuel expended to get 1 calory of protein from beef: 78.
To get 1 calory of protein from soybeans: 2.

Antibiotic

Ingredients: Any one of our instant noodles, fresh vegetables (if you don't have fresh
veggies handy, then our Just Corn and Just Veggies are just as good), Roasted Seaweed (optional), Wei-I Best Grade Laver Ro Su (bacon bits) (optional) and any of our frozen gourmet.

Percentage of U.S. antibiotics fed to livestock: 55.
Percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13.
Percentage resistant in 1988: 91.
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: ban.
Response of U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: full and complete support.

Pesticide

Fewer than 1 out of every 250,000 slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical
residues.
Percentage of U.S. mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 99.
Percentage of U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant levels of DDT: 8.
Contamination of breast milk, due to chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in animal
products, found in meat-eating mothers vs. non-meat eating mothers: 35 times higher.

Ethics

Number of animals killed for meat per hour in the U.S.: 660,000.
Occupation with the highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker.
Occupation with the highest rate of on-the-job-injury in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker.

Spiritual Consciousness

Food is the source of the body's hemistry, and what we ingest affects our consciousness, emotions and experiential pattern. If we want to live in higher consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all creatures, then we should
consider not eating meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs.

Karmic Consequences

Major religions around the world such as Buddhism or Hinduism teach that all of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.

http://www.vegecyber.com/others/about_vegetarianism.shtml

[–] steve90215 15 years ago

Two reasons not to become a vegetarian/vegan:

You can live a healthy life,eat the right foods,excercise,etc. and still get hit by a truck or shot in the head. What have you gained.

People have roamed the earth for centuries eating meat (carnivores) and wearing fur. Big Deal.

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

Did you read the 10 reasons I listed? If you are only interested in your own well being (inward thinking) and not considerate of the world around you... and want to enjoy life as much as you can than your reasoning makes sense (I don't mean to call you inconsiderate or an unthougtful person). I would say the majority of people are in this categorey and there is nothing wrong with that, unless you do care about the planet and how you effect other living things more than what brings you temporary enjoyment. If you are interested in respecting the world around you and puting others and the planet before your self, then my reasoning makes sense. Neither are right or wrong. Both are options. I do agree you never know when your time is up. I just feel better making sacrifices for the sake of others rather than myself. So, because that is worth more to me, I am making the most of things as it makes me happier. If you spend an afternoon watching videos on the pain animals go through in factory farms and being electrocuted and skinnied alive for fur, you may find you have more compasion for them than you think. I personaly don't want to support anything i wouldn't want done to me. If I was in their situation I would be lucky if there were people standing up for me. Thanks for your comment.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

You can live a healthy life, eat the right foods,exercise,etc. and still get hit by a truck or shot in the head. What have you gained?

Speaking merely for myself, I will have gained a lot of peace of mind about my food, in return for giving up a few flavours (some of which, like lamb, I never liked anyway).

I also believe in trying to plan for all eventualities: assume that something bad might happen or I might live to 100.

I'm shooting at a fifth grade level!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] killian_d 15 years ago

Many of the ideas suggested by you is over-kill and silly propaganda to say the least.

Hunger world-wide could be solved with the combination of genetically engineered crops and a jump in agriculture studies for third world countries. There are literally tens of thousands of improperally maintained acre of farmland in Africa and you want to turn properly maintained farms into third world veggie factories? One of the most prevalent limiting factors in solving world hunger is spoilage from point A to point B. Why not solve the problem at its source.

The biggest problem, I have with your "solution" is that it relies on absolutes. Why not focus on reduction and conservative buying? If the average person decreases the amount of beef to reasonable levels and only buys beef made in that persons country it would have impressive enviromental results without sacrificing the benefits of being an omnivore.

I always have difficulty believing the cut-and-paste statistics people throw around so willy-nilly. such as;
"Occupation with the highest turnover rate in U.S.: slaughterhouse worker."
... where's the source on this? how is it equated? Is it based off of DoL? I've seen statistics like these before, but never with a source or how they calculate it. Personally, that just seems like an incalculable projection with all the variables that would go into finding a statistic like that.

"It's true I read it on Wikipedia"

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

"Why not focus on reduction and conservative buying?"

I agree that this is a more realistic solution and I appreciate your comments. Most people I know have meat in almost ever meal which isn't really eating it in moderation. I do think we could be a lot more proud of our selves if we stopped letting our cravings controle us and treated animals and each other better. Indifference is probably the biggest thing keeping us from making this world a much better place and the cause of most of our world's problems (along with greed, selfishness, and lack of compassion).

I'm lucky enough that I don't need meat to survive so I don't eat it anymore as I don't think the creatures deserve to live in horrible conditions, or have their lives ended simply for our pleasure. I recognize that not everyone is as fortunate as me and some people still need it to survive. I just can't support anything that is done to another living person or creature that I woudn't want done to me and then expect to have certain rights and privilages myself. Humans love to complain about their rights and love to talk about the greatness of freedom and liberty, but have no problem taking it away from everything else.

Cutting down would be a great start if people could understand the benifits, and it seems you do. Cheers.

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

That is because freedom and liberty are human concepts. They require reasoning that is lacking in any other animal. Plain and simple. A lion trying to escape its den is not interested in "freedom" it is simply following the biological urge to roam territory to find food. For instance, lions in bountiful habitats have no problem living in much smaller parcels of land. They are not roaring "give us us free". Don't even get me started on herd animals, which move only when they have destroyed whatever resources they had at any given location.

Again, indifference is the problem, but indifference to what is where you are missing the point. We cannot expect people to personify traits in animals that don't exist when they couldn't care less about the overwhelming majority of people just like them throughout the world: People who do know what freedom and liberty are; that do know a better life exists; that do comprehend their own mortality and in many cases its impending status.

Our craving less meat at this point will have zero impact on the transportation problems and nearly none on the global land misusage referred to by a previous poster. AS I have argued before, people's attention and patience are valuable commodities and, pragmatically, are severely limited. Focusing on meat production in the very Western Nations that have citizenry able to make sacrifices for the betterment of the world is a grave misuse of that commodity.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

Hunger world-wide could be solved with the combination of genetically engineered crops.

I don't want to be a guinea pig for GM food and so I don't think it is fair to expect people in Africa to be either. Hunger would be solved by better use of resources, better use of existing plant diversity and a ceasefire where wars are going on.

We must not be brainwashed by monarchist carroteers!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

All plants are not created equal and they are not all suited for mass production in all environments. Although I do not agree with all of his oversimplified theses, Diamond makes a good survey of that particular issue in Guns Germs and Steel.

Creating ceasefires is much more easily said than done, and quite often those very wars are created by food shortages which are in turn worsened by the turmoil. Look at Zimbabwe...at this point Haiti looks better, ending a 200 year reign as the most awful place in the world.

Most of the "organic" plants you eat, if not all of them, are "genetically modified". Every single time you selectively breed one it is modifying it genetically. We have been doing it since history began. We have simply become better at it now and actually know what to change instead of the happenstance of trial and error. I think this comes back to my point from elsewhere that veganism is a regression not a progression. It is a denial of science in the very face of the science that makes it possible.

If you don't want to be a guinea pig, or anyone else to be, then you need to get over letting guinea pigs be guinea pigs. The only way to ever find out if something is edible, ANYTHING, is to eat it and hope you don't die. If you inherited that knowledge, then someone else did that test for you sometime before.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

Selective breeding is certainly NOT the same as genetic modification.

Plus, I don't want animal genes turning up in my fruit or veg.

We must not be brainwashed by monarchist carroteers!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Selective breeding is genetic modification. Just slower and less reliable.

If those animal genes could make broccoli taste like roast beef, I and many others would eat a lot more veggies.

[–] jar-jar-stinks 15 years ago

Selective breeding is genetic modification via slow process.

[–] killian_d 15 years ago

I don't want to be a guinea pig for GM food and so I don't think it is fair to expect people in Africa to be either

People fear the future, when vaccines were first introduced people were afraid and refused to allow their children to recieve it.

By refusing the progression of genetcially engineered crops we are dooming the lives of millions and wasting cropland which has the domino effect of hurting the enviroment.

And for what? Because you don't feel comfortable?

Though, genetically engineered crops are only one peice of the puzzle. While a ceasefire of wars isn't going to happen, we need to invest largely in agriculture studies in the third world, currently the peace corps is offering this at a limited capacity, but we need a large expansion of these programs. And for the teacher with real balls, we need to expand these programs to conflict regions such as Zimbabwe and South Africa.

"It's true I read it on Wikipedia"

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

And for what? Because you don't feel comfortable?

Because there is no need for me to be a guinea pig. GM is not going to make the world healthier. I saw a documentary about farm workers in South America getting really ill as growing GM cattle food enables farmers to use a lot more synthetic chemicals on the crops.

And there is no need for it. As I stated. Why are we not doing more to promote the genetic diversity that already exists?

We must not be brainwashed by monarchist carroteers!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Making corn better is a far easier task than trying to make Pine trees into a staple crop. Biodiversity for food is a sham. Almost everything we eat comes from fewer than ten crops, and it has taken millenia for them to reach the productive levels they have. Why fight science that holds the potential to improve our lives?

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

Pine trees? Edible pine trees? Lost me there.

Hope to return to the topic in the New Year. Meanwhile, best wishes for Xmas except in so far as I hope your turkey tastes of cardboard and you find yourself yearning for nut roast or any other herbivorous option. Other than that, best wishes for Xmas.

We must not be brainwashed by monarchist carroteers!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Pine trees have seeds, and with 2000 years of cultivating we might even be able to make them quasi edible. Alas, they were only a hyperbolic example of the difficulty in making staple crops.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

What are you on about? I never suggested eating pine cones and you know it. I don't see the point of digging up pine trees for Xmas either.

Found link to item about GM soya, mainly for cattle feed, causing all sorts of problems for people. I don't eat GM soya, I don't eat that much soya, I have always said there is no reason for vegans to eat soya if we don't want to, and because I don't consume animals that have been fed soya, I'm pretty sure that my soya consumption compares favourably with that of most meat eaters.

Certainly, those vegans in the UK who stick to local food will not be consuming soya, except possibly as emulsifiers in food if they consume some processed food.

http://library.digiguide.com/lib/uk-tv-highlight/Unreported+World-5299 /Documentary/

Peacocks! Responsibilities!!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

I suggested eating pine cones to show the general difficulty with creating new staple crops from existing biodiversity. It took ten thousand years of dumb luck and trial and error to get the 7 or so staples of the world food chain.

I would venture it isnt the GM part of that which is causing the problems, but the pesticides and lack of regulation in a third world country.

They don't grow soy in the UK? I thought that was a crop that would grow anywhere.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

To the best of my knowledge, soya is not grown commercially in the UK.

In the UK, there seems to be an official dislike of natural genetic diversity. There are some perfectly natural and safe fruit and vegetable seeds that cannot even be bought or sold. I'll google a link when I get time.

Of course lack of regulation is one issue, but the point is that the farmers would not be able to use so much pesticide if they were not using GM crops.

Peacocks! Responsibilities!!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

I don't think much of the genetic modification being done renders the plants more impervious to pesticides. Most of the pesticides focus on specific animal neurotransmitters. For instance, we used DDT in massive quantities prior to the widespread introduction of GM plants, and consequently withdrew it for a host of reasons, none of which were related to it doing its job or it killing plant life. Truth be told, it was too good at what it did and not specific enough to only kill the "bad" animals. It is also cheap and easy to produce and still used worldwide, which brings us back to the issue of people living in third world squalor three feet away from a field that is doused in cheap harmful pesticides that would never be allowed by the EPA for example.

[–] NN-dimethyltryptamine 15 years ago

Genetically modified crops are great, this allows companies to create seeds that self destruct - ensuring the poor farmers of the 3rd world HAVE to continue buying seed and are not able to simply harvest seed from their crops.

HARAMBI

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Of course it also allows us to make nifty things like Rice that cannot be destroyed by flooding...

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

Thanks for the response. I'd like to think that humans are capable of helping a species exist without there being a benefit to us. If we stopped breeding cattle for factory farming there would be far fewer cows, far less pollution, and far less suffering. Saying they would eat the vegetation we are "supposed" to be eating isn't really true - we don't eat grass (but I think you are saying we would use that space to grow crops). Besides being great creatures before they are beneficial to us, cows are also great for fertilizing fields. And if one knows anything about farming, the same fields can't be used every year. They must be left uncultivated at times so they remain fertile. There really isn't anything that is supposed to be for us humans. It would be nice of we could get into the train of thought that we are supposed to be sharing this planet and being its protectors rather than taking ever thing ourselves as rulers. Which is more admirable? Some parts of the world still need meat to sustain themselves and survive. Anyone with a decent income in Western society should be able to live comfortably with out meat if they wanted to. Unfortunately in our society we all want more than we need. The majority want the biggest tv, the nicest car, the best deal and the tastiest food we can get, however we get it. We are a society of gluttons. We don't need to eat meat. We choose to support cruel practices as we would rather end lives as we enjoy the meat. I personally don't think I'm worth ending a life for and try to give other creatures the same respect and right to live as I would like to retain for myself.

Watch Meat your Meat on youtube and if you do and still don't think Humans can do better, then your expectations of the compassion and wonderful things we are capable of are probably a lot lower than mine are. Also, remember, if you eat meat you are in the minority on this planet, not the majority. There are no rules and no limits to what we are capable of.

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Cows are not designed for the wild, nor do they exist in the wild. We have created them for our own benefit over the course of tens of thousands of years.

Not factory breeding would not in turn lead to fewer cows unless in turn we kept eating them until we ran out. They would continue to reproduce and they have no predators other than us. They would still starve and overproduce, just like deer have across the country.

Eating them is perfectly natural. Life feeds on life.

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

Agreed. Life feeds on life. But seeing the cruelty and suffering we induce and not caring about it does not seem like a good human attribute to me. Compassion is just as natural and selfishness and indifference. It is up to us which traits we wish to live our lives by. And if we have design them, then that doesn't really seem natural. (I would say eat them until we have a more sustainable amount and/or then end the practice of inpregnating them over and over to produce as much milk as possible, stop taking their calfs away as soon as they are born, stop transporting them in terrible conditions. Stop breeding them in certain ways to make the ultimate cow with the most muscle and most cuts of beef. Stop killing baby cows for veal. Let them live their lives in a natural way in which both the cows and the people can enjoy their lives and gain from one another.

meet your meat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4

super cow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

So if you have friends or family members who choose to become vegetarians you won't support them and their effort to do something they see as worthwhile?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jar-jar-stinks 15 years ago

What do you mean support them?

If somebody make a personal choice about what they eat, that's up to them. I certainly don't see it as a worthwhile cause and it's not something that I believe in.

When my children are of an age where they can make this descison, not based on childish factors (peer influence, how cute lambs are etc.) then I'll respect it. Until then they they eat what they're told.

[–] cattyfinns 15 years ago

my children will be raised vegan.

I'm not really like that... except when I am.

[–] jar-jar-stinks 15 years ago

Good for you, deny them that choice.

Purile sniping aside, is there no benefit to a child gained from eating meat products?

I know that my father was denied meat as child and stands a massive 5 foot 7 where as my siblings and I were given meat regularly (2-3 times a week) and we are far taller and broader. I appreciate that this is only anecdotal and not to be taken seriously but I am under the impression that some meat is pretty good for children.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

So what? My sister and I were both fed meat as a child. I am 5 ft 5 and she is about 5 ft 9. Your father's height is nothing to do with being denied nutrients.

Oh, no! Bart has stolen the elderly!

[–] jar-jar-stinks 15 years ago

Really - Then howcome post war babies (when meast was rationed) form part of a generation that was shorter than both the previous one and all subsequent?

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

Reference, please.

http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/War/londonRation.html
It is generally accepted that food rationing improved the nation’s health through the imposition of a balanced diet with essential vitamins.

Oh, no! Bart has stolen the elderly!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

A good example is the Dutch Famine of 1944-45, which resulted in a measurable decline in the size and health of its children. Certain conditions (i.e. schizophrenia) also increased amongst that generation. Because of when and where it occurred it is one of the most scientifically studied famines in history and has resulted in a ton of information on nutrition.

[–] Radiant_Rose 15 years ago

You cannot compare famine to rationing. In the UK, during the Second World War, people may have grumbled about particular foodstuffs (meat, butter, eggs, sugar, etc) being rationed, but they were certainly not starving.

To suggest they were would be a disservice to those who suffered in the Dutch Famine.

Incidentally, I read that the Dutch Famine was possibly responsible for the actress Audrey Hepburn being so small. Do you think this was the case? I fret when I read about women dieting to try and resemble her more closely.

Oh, no! Bart has stolen the elderly!

[–] batistuta47 15 years ago

Well, technically the food was being rationed during the Dutch famine, and the biggest issue was that the pregnant women in particular were not getting enough of the proteins necessary. Also, post war covers far more than the UK, which really had it pretty well once the US started lending its full support. I don't know the specifics of all the other countries, but the Dutch famine was not unique. I just know more studies have been done on it.

IT is certainly plausible that was what was behind Hepburn's "failure to thrive". However, what I find most interesting is that not only were the children of that era smaller, but THEIR children were as well.

[–] jar-jar-stinks 14 years ago

"It is generally accepted that food rationing improved the nation’s health through the imposition of a balanced diet with essential"

agreed but that is because we are greedy as consumers.

[–] cattyfinns 15 years ago

if i give them meat i am also denying them that choice.
either way, we are making a decision for them.
as a parent, don't you think we should be raising them in the best possible way as we see it? and as a vegan, don't you think i would believe that veganism is the best possible way?

and no, there is no benefit to feeding meat products over non-meat products if you ensure that all your dietary requirements are met (which i might add, are not followed by ALOT of parents out there, meat eating and non-meat eating - i worked at Jenny Craig and you wouldn't believe the stuff that people think are good for their kids).

I'm not really like that... except when I am.

[–] minka989 15 years ago

What happens when your kid wants a cheeseburger, or you go to a restaurant and they order chicken strips?

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

[–] the_morrigu47 15 years ago

Um.....black bean burger.....

Why would we be eating at a restaurant where there are few or no vegan choices?

Kids' eating habits are shaped by what their parents teach them. I was taught to appreciate fresh fruits and vegetable and not given sweets or soda, hence I don't crave sweets or soda often, if at all. I wasn't raised Vegan, but I still grew up to choose it for myself.

This is neither here nor there, but a great little anecdote about a parent's power over how a child views food: My mom worked with a gentleman that until he was 9 years old he believed that cottage cheese was ice cream because his mother told him it was. It wasn't until he went to a birthday party when he was 9, that he learned what ice cream really was. I don't agree with a mother lying to her child, but was the mother wrong to teach her child to prefer cottage cheese to something that has less nutritional value?
_______________
I may be love's b*tch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.

[–] minka989 15 years ago

Yes, children's eating habits are affected by what they have been taught. However, that does not define them. My question is what happens if they do decide that they want something other than what you choose for them? Just as you grew up to desire veganism, they too will eventually make that decision for themselves.

I recently read a book where it was mentioned many times about a teen, who came from a vegan family, occasionally sneaking animal products at school throughout her late childhood and teen years.
At a young age, of course they will eat what you set in front of them, but there will come a time when they will want to try things you do not support. At what age if ever is that acceptable?

I am not being critical of your lifestyle. You would teach your children what you believe is right, just as I would teach mine. I am genuinely curious what your plan of action would be.

I put on my robe and wizard hat.

[–] pieeatingpirate 15 years ago

You make some good points.

But you ruined it all with the spiritual consciousness and the karmic consequences section.

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

I don't beleive in spirituality myself, but it is there for people who do.

[–] machines11 15 years ago

If god created us in his image then he's a meat eater too , we are designed to eat meat , the body needs meat, the problem today is that the meat is no longer 100% pure meat all the time like in the old days , corporations want to have higher profits with less meat , so they use chemicals , those chemicals are the ones that do the harm to our bodies not the meat itself.

Im a carnivore and will be until i die.

so pass me the big juicy steak , a bottle of A1 some french fries or smashed potatoes.

[–] naylor-3 15 years ago

Yes, meat is yummy. We all agree on that. If people can try to get past the fact that you enjoy meat and think you should have it simply because you like it so much and despite how it effects other living creatures we should be sharing this planet with, try to start thinking outside yourself, and think about what being noble means to you. If God created us, maybe we should realize that we have it within us to be more honorable, respectful, thoughtful and compassionate and not base our eating habits on what we enjoy with no thought as to how we effect other creatures on this planet who feel pain, fear and suffering just as much as we do. To the other creatures of Earth we are the equivalent of supreme beings as we have awareness, morals, consciences, laws, standards, and have the ability to decide how they are treated and how they live and die. If you believe in God than I think it would be wonderful if you were as respectful with the lives of other creatures as you would hope God would be with yours. Imagine if God was as reckless and compassionless with us as we are with them? Why should we set our sense of honor so low and only do what fills our cravings? Isn't this selfish and obnoxious? Humans should play either the role of leaders and protectors, or hunters when need be. But we should not be using cruel practices, killing without need (Thou Shalt not kill), and basing our habits around our cravings with no respect for fellow Earthlings.

[–] liutenantsalt 14 years ago

Your list was full of *beep* even BEFORE all the spirituality and Buddhist crap.

[–] naylor-3 14 years ago

Thanks