![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I do sometimes eat all of meat, fish, milk and eggs. But I don't eat very much meat and it's often freegan. I also cut out milk and eggs if there are easy vegan alternatives (e.g. soya milk). So I kinda drift down towards the vegan end of the scale but if you want to apply an exact category, it's "omnivore".
I'm taking the answers in the "100 years from now" question to mean "vegetarian/vegan as an ethical choice", because I assume that is what's meant in the context of the Guardian article. If the icecaps melt and we lose a load of farmland, then it might become the norm to eat a diet which is vegetarian or vegan for practical purposes, but still happily eat meat or cheese if you got the chance; and before I followed the Guardian link I thought this was what you were referring to.
I'm not sure about the 2nd question - veg*nism becoming the norm certainly seems plausible, but I don't have any confidence that it will.
I do wonder whether people in the future will look back on our eating of meat with the same horror that we now look back at slavery - and wonder what kind of evil fiends their ancestors were.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Naah, it's whether morals will change and our descendants will view our barbarous animal-eating ways with disgust.
Of course, we'll all be living in The Matrix by then, so it won't matter :->
Of course, we'll all be living in The Matrix by then, so it won't matter :->
misremembered John W's LJ name as he hardly posts
You don't eat any vegetables at all? I wasn't expecting anyone to answer that!
Assuming that 100 years from now we still have canine teeth as well as molars and incisors, I certainly hope not.
-- Steve thinks that a Western diet may be richer in meat than the one we evolved to handle, but humans certainly evolved the ability (arguably need) to consume meat.
-- Steve thinks that a Western diet may be richer in meat than the one we evolved to handle, but humans certainly evolved the ability (arguably need) to consume meat.
I have the ability to do all sorts of things which many people would not consider moral.
I think omnivore will still be the norm since it's what the species is built for. I don't think we're going to actually evolve away from it. As for the last part... while I do think that removing meat from the diet is not what humans were MEANT to do, I recognize and accept our choices as a higher-functioning species. I don't find it silly. I just wouldn't do it.
I find *some* vegan, omnivores, pescetarians and vegetarians to be silly or morally objectionable, but not all (or, indeed, most). I think I'm most annoyed by the people who say things like "I'm vegetarian, because eating meat is Wrong! But I eat fish. And chicken."
I think in 100 years time we won't be eating as much fish because most species we commonly eat will have become extinct (cod, haddock, tuna..).
I think in 100 years time we won't be eating as much fish because most species we commonly eat will have become extinct (cod, haddock, tuna..).
Edited 2010-01-18 16:44 (UTC)
Am omnivore, mainly cos we've evolved to be like that[*] and, like pretty much the rest of mother nature's predators, have a food-chain involving other animals. No one objects to lions not being vegetarian despite their brutal slaughter of gazelles.
I don't find the idea of vegetarianism/veganism objectionable - if people want to be veggie then fine - but I do object to all the activists/campaigners shoving it down my throat (no pun intended), trying to claim the moral high ground over me and telling me I'm wrong for eating meat.
It's as bad as organised religion!
* - that and I love a good rare steak.
I don't find the idea of vegetarianism/veganism objectionable - if people want to be veggie then fine - but I do object to all the activists/campaigners shoving it down my throat (no pun intended), trying to claim the moral high ground over me and telling me I'm wrong for eating meat.
It's as bad as organised religion!
* - that and I love a good rare steak.
I don't see the point and think that restricting your diet often introduces unnecessary complication into your life and that of some around you, but silly is overstating it.
*wonders if there would be anything worse than a Christimentalist Vegan* :)
(Christimentalist: Christian Fundamentalist - courtesy of Jenny's wonderfully warped brain)
(Christimentalist: Christian Fundamentalist - courtesy of Jenny's wonderfully warped brain)
And I suppose some people have "needs" that many would not consider moral... but, still, human metabolism work better with ample sources of protein, and our gut length and digestive systems can't extract or synthesise it well enough from most vegetable sources. Until very recently excluding animal proteins from one's diet led to shorter people in poorer health.
Powdered milk is an important part of emergency relief supplies for a reason.
-- Steve could certainly see a drift away from using livestock to synthetic sources (aka "carniculture" or "vat meat") but not a complete renouncement of animal tissues.
PS: Or maybe I could, with a thriving black market in dog steaks and rabbit legs as a result. Speakeasy grills... now, there's a SFnal idea I haven't seen used much.
Powdered milk is an important part of emergency relief supplies for a reason.
-- Steve could certainly see a drift away from using livestock to synthetic sources (aka "carniculture" or "vat meat") but not a complete renouncement of animal tissues.
PS: Or maybe I could, with a thriving black market in dog steaks and rabbit legs as a result. Speakeasy grills... now, there's a SFnal idea I haven't seen used much.
You missed, "vegan for values of not eating animal-derived products directly, but consuming cloned meat tissues and other products grown in tanks".
We're a lot closer to being able to grow extruded animal protein product (as opposed to, say, a finely textured sirloin steak) in tanks than most people think. And the logic of factory farming dictates that once it gets cheap enough, vat-grown product will drive out animal product -- there'll be less wastage.
We're a lot closer to being able to grow extruded animal protein product (as opposed to, say, a finely textured sirloin steak) in tanks than most people think. And the logic of factory farming dictates that once it gets cheap enough, vat-grown product will drive out animal product -- there'll be less wastage.
I find the views of people who eat what nourishes their bodies well eminently reasonable, and that includes people in all the categories you listed.
I am looking forward to that. I agree that it's going to be a long while before we can manage the right texture for things like steak, but pate ought to be fairly easy to do, or mince.
I think it is possible that we will have moved to a world where we do not eat any meat or animal products which hasn't been raised humanely, which would still leave us plenty of honey (bee catastrophe notwithstanding) but perhaps not quite a lot of what we're eating at the moment. We may be heading for an ecological disaster on the fish front, but otherwise it should be possible to sustainably eat fish and meat occasionally without serious ethical dilemmas arising. Probably better for us too than either our current diet or a strictly vegan one.
Although I didn't tick any of the boxes in the second part, I do think that people who eat milk but not lamb for ethical reasons are kidding themselves.
Although I didn't tick any of the boxes in the second part, I do think that people who eat milk but not lamb for ethical reasons are kidding themselves.
Will we?
I doubt it somehow - meat is tasty.
Also does this mean that in 100 years there will be a synthetics versus real produce movement?
Decrying the eating of plants because they are made up of living cells also?
I doubt it somehow - meat is tasty.
Also does this mean that in 100 years there will be a synthetics versus real produce movement?
Decrying the eating of plants because they are made up of living cells also?
I think it's pretty unlikely. Sheep are my prime counter-example; they live on land that is otherwise non-productive, they eat wild grass, they produce fantastic unbeatable wool, and why on earth wouldn't you stew them at the end of their life? Chickens too; You can keep half a dozen chickens in your back garden, feed them kitchen scraps and collect the eggs. What's the harm in that?
What I think is much more likely is that our current habit of feeding food that people could eat to farmed animals, killed young, to provide much of our protein will be much reduced.
What I think is much more likely is that our current habit of feeding food that people could eat to farmed animals, killed young, to provide much of our protein will be much reduced.
I'm pretty sure that in terms of amino acids that could prove to be somewhat fatal... :S
I find the views of the following silly/morally objectionable
The only group I find slightly silly are the people who claim to be "vegetarians" but also eat fish.
The only group I find slightly silly are the people who claim to be "vegetarians" but also eat fish.
I find some of vegans' restrictions silly. Where's the harm in eggs, for instance, if you have chickens kept in good conditions, say, in an Eglu in your back garden?
Page 1 of 3