nullmouse

Moral intuition would tell me to tend to the human first and I don't see how this would make me a speciesist.

We're all just a little bit speciesist. But it's okay, it's just like being a bit racist or sexist.

Racism and sexism are based on prejudice and hate because of what? Because of a difference in skin colour/nationality or a difference in gender. I fail to see how this 'othering' is different than the 'othering' based on species.

Yup, racism and sexism are based on either an essential requirement to have both male and female people to procreate and something as trivial as skin colour - Trivial things that make no difference because male or female, black or white, we're all human and share every millions of other traits that encompasses.

It's not inconsequential differences that seperate us from cows, it's unsurmountable millions. A cow is not a human, it never will be: there's a clear species divide and, whether we chose to eat them or not, it doesn't come down to one trivial difference that we decide to eat a cripple or a dog.

I think someone said that you can't compare racism, sexism and homophobia to speciesism, I'd disagree with this. Although the contexts are different, the process of 'othering' is essentially the same.

I'd disagree quite strongly with this. 'Othering' on sex and race is based nothing more on prejudice and hate - Speciesism is based on there being clear and obvious differences between us and cows, chickens, cats, dogs, carrots etc. To say they are analogous does, to me, belittle the stupidity of racism and sexism and serves no use other than to shame by association.

I don't think that'ds a particularly strong view, as show by the 'aliens' thought experiment (not the movie). If aliens discovered Earth and had the same abilities as us, but slightly better, they would be party to most of the 'human' rights we grant. Hence showing that these rights aren't 'human' rights at all, they are just rights. Just as skin colour should have no bearing on an individuals right to live, neither should number of legs, wooliness of fur, or intellectual abilities (after all, the less mentally able a human is, the mroe we protect them). The suggestion and case of 'speciesism', though not as techinical and compelte as the rest of the animal rights argument, is just as strong as the reasons against racism.

As for the economic viability, that's another practical issue. But given the efficiency of vegan diets (animals take many times their use as food, in feed, not to mention far more water than crops, and the harm on the environment which is just becoming publicised) then I would imagine society would flourish in the long run. And I'm no expert on the hunger issue, but given the inefficiency of animal products, isn't the figure of people who could be fed on them (or at least the recommended US diet with them in anyway) something like half the world. Food for the rich much? Even if we could solve the logistical problem of feeding the world, it's impossible without drastically cutting the idea that people need animal products.

I'd be wary of relying on any argument that suggests that animals use up resources better served for humans, as that sounds speciesist to me. (Sorry, cheap shot!)

I, for one, would welcome our intergalactic overlords should they arrive. For one, they'd have shown more technological know-how than your average chicken, but they'd be the first species to have demonstrated true autonomy other than us mere humans. Unless they sent a space-ship full of space-cows, or mentally disabled aliens, then we'd be look sillier than the emperor and his new clothes.

Joking apart, an alien that demonstrated true autonomy and the capacity to understand what rights were being bestowed upon it is somewhat of an intangible wild-card designed to test the moral boundaries: It's too unrealistic to prove anything about our in-depth and developed sense of sentience and species boundaries on Earth.

personally I wouldn't eat a mentally disabled person, not because of their social labels of being black or male, or of their physical labels of being human. I wouldn't eat them because I don't need to, and they have a right to live purely by virtue of being individually alive. That is how interactions take place (whether you kill the person yourself, or pay some one else to do it). So in the case of similar individuals who aren't human, the case is still the same and the exact same moral problem is present. You can't morally hide behind the labels of race or sex, so you shouldn't be able (in situations where the creature are mentally similar) to hide behind the labels of species - it doesn't make any logical sense.

Granted a vegan wouldn't eat mentally disabled person or children, but nor would I (German homosexual cannibals aside). I wouldn't discriminate on grounds of race or sex because that would be calling someone less than human, and it is patently obvious that a cow is not, nor ever will be, a human. To me, racism and sexism is a world apart from speciesism and I would I sincerely doubt that an oppressed ethnic minority would take kindly to the suggestion that the plight of cows is akin to their situation.

Again, just to reiterate, we don't ascribe the same rights and weighting to animals no matter how much anyone posting here would like to think they're not speciesist: You'd save the human, screw the sheep. Not literally. That would be disgusting.

You don't need the speciesism argument to justify being a vegan, I'm happy enough conceding that it's your choice. It's untenable to justify a political change across the entire human population because it wouldn't be viable for anyone other than economically permissive societies - And we've got these societies by shafting more than just sheep and cows.

By that logic should the same happen with mentally-disabled people? Why should the mental attributes of a cow impact on its ability to suffer? This point has been dragged on somewhat because I don't think anyone can answer it.

A mentally disabled person, "but for the grace of God", is still a human - You might as well ask why we don't eat children. Being mentally disabled or not fully compos mentis for any reason does not make you into a cow, pig, sheep, dog, carrot or whatever you choose to eat (or not).

If that makes me sound specieist then I really don't care (as it's not analogous in any form to sexism or racism, and is astoundingly degrading to those civil rights fights to claim so) - I'd rescue a human from a burning house that I didn't know over a sheep any day, although I would worry about one person being alone in a house with a sheep.

To be clear, I have no problem at all with people eating meat or not eating meat and respect anyone who decides they do not personally want to impart suffering on another animal - I just don't find any of the arguments why I should be guilted into changing my diet that convincing.

Well no, but you have to remember that in America charities (especially the cancer charities) are run like businesses. There is very good dietary information, as you state, which involves cancer prevention - however they rarely will support these causes, instead working on the elusive cures. I would doubt our charities are run much better, especially from what I know of the british heart foundation anyway. As conspiracy based as it might sound, it is very difficult to get information out if there are interests that don't want it to.

Again, this doesn't tally with my experience. All the charities I've ever had dealings with have a policy of open-access publishing, where papers are submitted to journals that peer-review and publish research online and available for all. Admittedly, if your work was industry funded there would be clauses and caveats for what you can or can't publish, but for research funded by councils or charities there's no such clauses. Again, if this work was true and perfomed properly then journals would be tripping over themselves to publish it and the charity or council that funded it would be baying about it from up high.

Thank you for the offer of a shot of your DVD - It wouldn't satisfy me too much in terms of providing evidence that the study shows what is claimed, but it sounds like it would be an interesting watch

Oh yeah the claim was definetely made. I don't know where you would find it other than the elcture I saw, will have a look when I get a minute and try find you a link.

As to why it isn't shouted from the rooftops (if true) I would hesitantly bring back the fact that there were for many years a lot of truths involving smoking and cancer risk that were witheld through various different methods. Add to this factors like the low numbers there are researching it etc, it's not hard for their to be sicentific truths these days that aren't well known, especially on things like cancer when there are new stories in the paper everyday claiming something or other - everyone takes it with a pinch of salt.

Cheers, I'd really appreciate a link. I wouldn't reckon there's much call for a conspiracy theory about suppression - There is a lot of data out there on diet and cancer risk, but nothing as profoundly striking as that. Diet is quite well researched, to be honest (we've got a whole institute in Aberdeen dedicated to it), and there are numerous credible and politically-independent scientific journals dedicated to peer-reviewed work on the subject.

I watched a lecture she did on it (same time as I saw a lecture from the great Colin Campbell actually)- it's not about food curing the problem of the cancer, it's about taking away the promoters which help the cancer to grow in the first place. If the conditions aren't there for it, most cancers won't be able to grow. Anywho, if you look up her books on the matter (I didn't think she was ever a geologist...but I don't know much about her as a person) the science behind it as well as the correlationals are there.

I wouldn't pretend that any correlational study on cancer was perfect, all correlational studies have the same flaws. However some are stronger than others (80% of terminal patients recovering is pretty strong), and it's the sciene thats behind it that got me. All be it science is flawed too sometimes in medical issues...I prefer ethics...

She is a geologist, a geochemist to be precise, and it's that she's a professor of.

Seriously, this study you're quoting I can't find any evidence of; 80% of terminal patients would be very strong indeed, and would be shouted from the rooftops by researchers world-wide. Just to be clear, prevention of cancer is one thing, but it's an entirely different kettle of fish from causing regression of an existing cancer: I guess I was looking for clarification if you were 100% sure that was the claim that was being made.

I like science, but the veracity of claims are often left unquestioned. Every study has limitations, and one study should not be taken in isolation - it should be viewed in the wider context of accepted, reviewed data. Ethics is much easier to discuss without needing to rely on critical appraisal of evidence.

But moreover my concern nutritionally is with the problems of vegan and non-vegan diets (as both could fulfil nutritional requirements with perfect balances). Vegan diets are low in Vit B12, which is something non-vegan diets are often low in too though - the only two folk I know who suffered from B12 deficiency (one was hospitalised) were avid meat eaters. However the non-vegan diets seem to have more disadvantages. Our intestines don't digest meat particularly well as they are too long, hence the presence of beef for prolonged periods etc, which is what they think causes colon cancer (though this isn't fully researched I stress, it's pretty convincing). The links between dairy and breast/prostate cancer are pretty strong (not like your average sensationalised news story), in fact I think Jane Plant did studies in which 80% of terminal breast cancers go into remission on vegan diets... And obviously there is heart disease caused by cholesterol, which you don't find on a vegan diet. This is of course based on excess, but any cholesterol is going to clog up your arteries which isn't particularly nice, and it will have some effect on your health wouldn't it?

I seriously doubt Jane Plant was in any way associated with the study you mention - She is a scientist - she's a geologist, albeit a geologist who had cancer and changed her diet, but she's not a clinical epidemiologist. Also, a claim that a change in diet alone could cause remission of 80% of terminal breast cancers also sends my alarm bells ringing. I did some digging on PubMed (an indexed database of published, peer-reviewed medical journals) and couldn't find anything to corroborate this.

However, diet is related to cancer risk, so it is possible that you are referring to a relationship between prevention of cancer and diet, rather than a cure. Even so, claims that a vegan diet alone could prevent 80% of breast cancer would be met with a lot of scepticism unless the study was tighter than a duck's arse in terms of design. That diet and physical exercise are associated with a decreased risk of developing cancer and other diseases is well known, but this is not an exclusive property of vegan diets: Properly planned, balanced diets containing meat and dairy is perfectly fine. Again, we are privilaged (or fucked as a nation, depending on your view point) to have easy access to supplements and any foodstuff we care for; the majority of the world is not in such a position.

Welcome to the thread!

Let's say for the sake of argument that eating meat was proved unequivocally to be better for you, would that change the moral status a vegetarian? I don't think it would.

The majority of the literature on this subject isn't concerned with the idea that which ever diet is better for us is more moral, mainly because the health benefits are arbitrary. If we needed to have meat to live, then the case might be different, but not necessarily.

Cheers min!

First, I'd like to declare that I am looking in to one specific claim that's been made once or twice throughout this thread, that vegan diets are universally supported by dietary associations etc. This doesn't tally with my experience, that a healthy diet is described to include diary products, fish and meat. I think this is relevant, because of the issue of supplementation - Is a supplemented diet a natural one? It interests me because one aspect of the moral argument would revolve around what we, as a species, are adapted to eat: Just because we have worked out how, in the developed world, to bypass our need for meat by artificial supplementation doesn't make veganism universally applicable from a moral aspect: We couldn't expect people in less Holland-and-Barrett infested areas of the world to survive healthily without utilising meat or diary, for example, nor could we look down upon them as less moral beings as a result. Even within the UK, does everyone have the means to support a vegan diet when a balanced diet can be obtained using cheap meat and diary products? I'm curious about what moral superiority this creates, to be blunt.

I'd actually say that the moral stance as a vegetarian is untenable if it's a choice made for animal welfare issues: Animals are still killed as a direct result of providing diary (given that most of us would be rightly suspicious of milk produced from male cows). For a vegan, the welfare rights, and political stance it probably relates to, I would not imagine they would be convinced to change diet if a meat diet was proven to be beneficial - So long as their diet wasn't detrimental to health. I don't have a problem with that choice, although the secret humanist in me hopes they look after themselves and eat well no matter what.

This thread makes great reading, but I just wanted to add in that it's not just B-12 deficiency that vegans have to worry about - Calcium, Vitamin D and n-3 fatty acids are also likely to be sparse in a vegan's diet, but can be compensated for by supplementation. Deficiencies in Vitamin D and calcium can have long-term health impacts on bones, so vegan diets shouldn't be taken lightly as a choice for children or the elderly without proper consultation from a real doctor. I know it probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Anyone considering a drastic change in diet should consult their GP first.

So yeah, properly controlled a vegan diet is sustainable, but requires supplementation and careful monitoring. An omnivore diet also requires careful monitoring (as any diet idealistically should to be effective) but is not reliant upon supplementation. For us in the UK, where we can buy supplements with ease, you could argue that the choice comes down to being a moral one. Although, just to throw a spanner in the works, the supplement business is just as bad an industry as big pharma, plus the cost of our convenient access to these supplements or wide range of food choices with an accessible reach comes at the exploitation of the environment, resources and people for our benefit. Could you truly have a healthy, vegan diet without any exploitation? (I actually don't know the answer to that - I'm trying not to be a rhetorical aresehole).

I would not agree that a properly controlled vegan diet imparts any better health properties than a properly controlled omnivore diet and I would certainly not agree that the China study comes anywhere near convincing me otherwise: As someone else has already pointed out, genetics play a huge factor in health in relation to diet, and other cultural influences confound the comparisons made within the China study meaning it's far too complicated to tease out the sole effects of diet from the quagmire of other factors involved in the author's comparisons.

Cheers, might be going there next Saturday - some burlesque night.

I'd contact Club Sapphire in advance for tickets or to book a table, especially if you're going with a few folk - They tend to be really busy. Either that or get down early.

Dr Drakes, yeah - On Shiprow, just down from the Maritime Museum.

Picked up:

Sunn O))) - Monoliths & Dimensions

Malcolm Middleton - Waxing Gibbous

We Were Promised Jetpacks - These Four Walls

Guess which one the cat doesn't like.

Quick, Nibbles! Chew through my ball sack!

I do this all the time, generally with fairly hypnotic or downbeat tracks later at night. I've been doing this over the last few days with "Keep the streets empty for me" by Fever Ray, but before that it was "Tonight the sky" by Sun Kil Moon.

I'm struggling to think of a really upbeat song I've done this with, mainly because I'll generally be more restless when listening to those kind of tracks and be more likely to jump around artists and songs.

I tried these last night (between myself and my better half):

Bay one:

Belhaven Fruit Beer (wasn't so keen)

Belhaven 60/- (sub-par)

Altlas Equinox (good!)

Bay four:

Highland Orkney Blast (definitely one of my favourites)

Fyne Ales - Sumerled (okay)

Bay six:

Little Valley Ginger Pale Ale (really enjoyed this one)

Orkney Dark Island Reserve (wonderful, but so potent. Lovely aroma. Limited quantities, plus had to wait most of the night for it to settle and be ready to serve - But well worth the wait. It clings to the glass like treacle)

Bay seven:

Orkney Raven (very drinkable)

Bay eight:

Strathaven Ales Avondale (good)

Bay nine:

Valhalla Old Scatness (good, but I remember this one having a weird green tinge)

Although written from a fairly American perspective, this book is pretty awesome - Tour:Smart by Martin Atkins - Ex Public Image Limited, Pigface-founder Martin Atkins is doing a book-tour around the UK this summer, too.

Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds ~ 'Christina The Astonishing' on 'Henry's Dream' - pretty much a perfect album other than that one song for me. Also 'Black Hair' on 'The Boatman's Call' - how many variations on 'she had black hair, she had hair of deepest black' can be fitted into one song.

I too love the output of Nick Cave, but I'd like to call "Rock of Gibraltar" in to scrutiny as far worse than either of those. Falter, alter, altar and Malta. Maybe Gibraltar wasn't the best choice of locations for rhyming schemes.

I shall be there, oh yes.

... Elizium was always fun to work on a friday(?) night...

Saturdays, I think. Never quite been the same since we stopped having your strobe-light skills, Brian.

It would be awesome - Although have you seen the footage of his recent 'funk' phase?

Not sure I could handle a full gig of that...

Still gutted I missed him in Montreal - Played the day I arrived, I found out about it the day after.

Amazing, missed the opportunity to see them in Glasgow earlier this year so stoked to see them in Aberdeen. Heard great things about their live shows, lots of positive reviews, so this should be a good 'un!

I thought it was a brilliant night. Most engaging live act I've seen in ages.

Thanks again to Scott for sound and Alun for tunes...

Nae probs Was a fantastic gig, loved every act, but Joe Gideon & The Shark completely (and probably excessively) make up for the passing of Bikini Atoll.