Talk:Ethics of eating meat/Archive 3

Edits 4-6 January
I'm of opinion the edits made these past few days are strongly NPOV and should be reverted. Examples of what look clearly like NPOV text to me (these are direct quotes): (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I did the edits. (I assume that what you meant by NPOV above was non-NPOV.) I am not personally NPOV on this question, but I think my edits were intended to restore balance, where the entry itself had become non-NPOV --Stevan Harnad 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not clear, however, whether it is necessary to arrive at a consensus about whether or not it is ethical to eat oysters while the urgent and pressing ethical question is about mammals, birds and fish.


 * now changed to "It is not clear, however, whether it is necessary to arrive at a consensus about whether or not it is ethical to eat oysters while the ethical question is mostly about mammals, birds and fish." The point being made is not about POV but about ethical priorities. To come to an agreement about the ethics of killing cows, pigs and chickens, it is not necessary to agree about oysters, is it?  --Stevan Harnad 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not clear, however, whether and how the evidence that animals feel and that breeding, killing and eating them is not necessary for human survival and health enters into Bost's calculation of what is "ecologically benign."


 * I'm not sure what the neutrality objection here is. The prior text referring to Bost read '...if “ethical is defined as living in the most ecologically benign way, then...' In other words, the suggestion was to adopt the premise that "ethical" means "ecologically benign." The addendum simply points out that this premise does not take into account the fact that animals feel and that breeding, killing and eating them is not necessary for human survival and health. It points out that there is another POV on the ethical question, other than ecology, and that defining ethics as ecology is non-NPOV. --Stevan Harnad 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The fundamental arguments for not eating animals are that (1) most animals almost certainly do feel -- especially the mammals, birds and fish that humans consume -- and that (2) killing and eating animals is not necessary for human survival or health. In contrast, it is highly unlikely that plants feel, and human survival and health are not possible without consuming plants (either directly, or indirectly, by consuming animals that consume plants).


 * I'm again not sure what the neutrality objection is here: the discussion is about ethics -- hence about what is right and wrong, given the evidence, and how it is interpreted by most people. Most people would agree that it is very likely that mammals, birds and fish feel and very unlikely that plants feel. Some people might believe otherwise (that mammals, birds or birds don't feel, or that plants do feel), but is there really any disagreement about which is the prevalent view, and that it is almost certainly true? There is more disagreement about whether eating animals is necessary for human survival and health, this is not the clause that is qualified as almost certainly true. So this paragraph does not go against NPOV; it simple states the two most important reasons that are cited by those who argue that it is wrong to eat animals. --Stevan Harnad 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Similarly I still think a list of vegans who may be vegan for reason other than ethics has no reason to be on this page. It is simply not relevant. I'm not reverting the edits at once, but I'm seeking some opinions on this. Banedon (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is true that there are people who are vegan for reasons other than ethics. That doesn't mean that they are irrelevant to the ethics of eating meat: (1) non-ethical vegans still provide evidence that people can be vegan without any harm to their health; (2) they provide evidence on the growth and prevalence of non-meat-eating; (3) their reasons for being vegans (health, ecology, economics, sustainability) also provide indirect ethical and pragmatic reasons for not eating meat. In any case, List of vegans is just one of the items in a 21-item "See also" list which also includes veganism (as well as: vegetarianism, emotion in animals, moral agency, and meat) and none of which are exclusively about the ethics of eating meat, but all relevant to it. --Stevan Harnad 22:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The point is all these "it is not clear" statements are your opinion. You may not think it is clear, but some other people may. For example some people may well believe that it's clear that if ethical vegetarians are serious about their beliefs they should have no qualms about eating oysters, even if you think "it is not clear". Banedon (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014


 * "It is not clear" is a way to point out that there is a difference in POV. Yes, the article describes the POV that it is ok to oysters because they may not feel. But there are also those with the POV that oysters do feel. And there is also the POV that the boundary between feeling and non-feeling organisms is between plants and animals, not between vertebrates and oysters. With all of these different POVs, it can hardly be described as non-NPOV to indicate that it is unclear which POV is correct, or to point out that the question of whether oysters feel is independent of the question of whether it is ethical to eat organisms that do feel. To report the logical relations between POVs is part of the function of WP articles. --Stevan Harnad 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, you claim that it is highly unlikely that plants feel, when whether or not they feel have no relevance to Carol Kaesuk Yoon's argument (besides the link you added indicates there is ground to believe that plants are intelligent). Banedon (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014


 * Please read the linked article (and also the articles its cites) further. The issue is precisely the difference between functioning "intelligently" and feeling. All living organisms function adaptively, including individual living skin cells, which can survive and reproduce in tissue culture. All the adaptive growth, secretions and behavior of individual animal cells, plant cells, plants, and multicellular organisms can be validly described as intelligent, but they do not imply that the organism feels. The distinction between feeling and function is extremely important, though it goes beyond the scope of an article on the ethics of eating mean. I have inserted a cross-reference to the hard probem of consciousness, Problem of other minds, and the Turing Test for WP readers who want to pursue the question of the difference between feeling and function, and the question of how to determine whether an entity (including both living organisms like plants and animals, and nonliving ones such as robots, crystals or even atoms) feel. --Stevan Harnad 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And human survival is possible without consuming plants or animals that consume plants - just look at former Israeli president Ariel Sharon, who is comatose yet hasn't died. See also parenteral nutrition. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014


 * I'm afraid I cannot understand your point here at all: Where do you think the glucose, amino acids, and lipids in Ariel Sharon's parenteral nutrition come from?--Stevan Harnad 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As for a list of vegans, it is simply not relevant. Whether or not a vegan diet is healthy is to be proved by scientific studies, not "there are many people who are vegan and are healthy, therefore vegan diets are healthy". Compare: there are many healthy smokers out there, which doesn't prove that smoking is healthy. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014


 * You would certainly be right if any WP editor were making the argument for smoking that there exist healthy smokers. But your analogy with smoking is precisely backwards The article cites the evidence of the American Dietetic Association -- "The fundamental ethical objection to meat eating is that for most people living in the developed world it is not necessary for their survival or health; ". This is equivalent to citing the medical evidence that smoking is harmful to health. And then pointing to the list of vegans is like pointing to a list of smokers with lung cancer. That supports the evidence, in both cases (veganism is not unhealthy and smoking is health).--Stevan Harnad 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the edits are opinionated, biased in favour of ethical vegetarianism and occasionally factually inaccurate. Banedon (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a POV. But I suggest that the way you express it is not to remove the evidence and POVs expressed in the article, but to edit the article to add your own (if you can support it with further references and evidence). (I have already stated that I am not personally NPOV on veganism, but I have good deal of experience -- both in editing WP and in editing a peer-reviewed journal for a quarter century -- in separating facts and evidence from my own personal POV. And I edit WP non-anonymously, so I am fully answerable for my edits.)--Stevan Harnad 12:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If there are people who think Oysters do feel and are therefore not appropriate for consumption, they should be cited. Functioning intelligently and feeling or whatever still has no relevance on Carol's argument. I'm pretty sure glucose, amino acids etc can be synthesized artificially or by bacteria; if not I suspect they can be harvested and therefore does not consume the plant. I still do not see how a list of vegans can be related to this at all. A list of ethical vegetarians would, but not vegans. The connection is tangential and distant; a discussion on whether or not vegetarian diets are healthy is better suited to the page on vegetarian diets as a whole. I still think your edits are not neutral and hint strongly towards you being an ethical vegetarian. Requesting a third opinion. Banedon (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've thoroughly edited the article. I took out what I felt was some of the most non-neutral text, as well as removed some redundant material (for example the idea that humans do not have to eat meat, and therefore meat-eating is wrong, was repeated quite a bit). I removed the list of vegetarians since it's not a list of ethical vegetarians. I also reorganized the article to put all the criticisms and responses into the same section - may not be a good idea, since some of the criticisms and responses really can go into the relevant sections, but there are also criticisms that don't fit in anywhere else (such as with nonchordates) so I just put them all together (WP:BOLD). I did not check for OR - if someone else would do that that would be great. Banedon (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the paragraph on oysters and other molluscs having nervous systems and being grouped together with other vertebrates as per WP: Original Synthesis. Banedon (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The first paragraph in this section states "animal pain would not apply to animals that do not have central nervous systems if they do not feel pain." The second paragraph by Cox is about oysters which (1) have nervous systems and (2) feel pain. (In fact pain -- "nociception -- is extensively studied in molluscs such as oysters. --Stevan Harnad 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You say that oysters feel pain, and that this has been extensively studied. Please give some sources that back up your contention. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The other paragraph, about plant sentience, I removed under WP: Original Research. Banedon (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The passage did not cite original research; it was a reference to the fact that plants have adaptive sensorimotor function but almost all botanists and plant physiologists consider it unlikely they feel. I have now added generic book references on this in place of journal article references, in order not to cite original research.--Stevan Harnad 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed some text from the section on oysters. The ILAR reference didn't say anything about oysters having nociceptive systems; it discussed clams, mussels and scallops but not oysters. The other reference, to action by the EU, does not apply to oysters either since oysters aren't cephalopods. I haven't checked the other references yet; intending to do so but no time right now. Banedon (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oysters are bivalves of the same rank, just as clams, mussels and scallops are. There are no relevant neurobiological differences at all between the nervous systems of oysters, clams, mussels and scallops insofar as the substantive point at issue in this section, and in this article are concerned: Do oysters have nervous systems? Yes. Do oysters have nociceptive (pain) systems? Yes. Removing the supporting evidence because it mentions clams, mussels and scallops but not oysters would be as justified as removing the supporting evidence for the deleterious effects of cage-rearing on gorillas because the studies were done on cage-rearing in chimpanzees -- or the deleterious effects of smoking on female lung tissue because the studies were done on male lung tissue. Please leave the bivalve evidence intact. As to cephalopods, it is correct that bivalves are not cephalopods, and of lower rank. The point -- and it is very relevant to the bivalve question -- is that the EU regulations for protection in research were formerly only accorded to vertebrates, and not to invertebrates, because it was assumed that invertebrates do not feel, and hence do not need the protection. Subsequent neurobiological research -- especially intensive research on cephalopods as potential models for understanding human brain function -- has led to the conclusion that cephalopods too need protection from pain. It is almost certain that the only reason this protection has not yet been extended to research on bivalves is not because neurobiologists think bivalves differ in any relevant way from cephalopods insofar as nociception is concerned, but because bivalves are not even remotely as extensively used in neurobiological research as cephalopods are. Please do not remove the reference to the legal protection of cephalopods. It too is highly relevant to the question discussed in this section, as well as to this article as a whole. --Stevan Harnad 13:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Your argument that oysters feel pain is straightforward original research, and the only source for the argument appears to be you. I have removed the corresponding entry you added to article. Please read this guideline, with particular attention to this section, and make sure you understand it if you intend to resume any further argument on this topic. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How can protection of cephalopods be relevant to oysters if oysters aren't cephalopods? I just don't get it. Perhaps the EU is now according protection to invertebrates as well as vertebrates, but so what? Cox's argument isn't that it is ethical to eat ALL invertebrates, only oysters. Why protection hasn't been extended to bivalves has no relevance to the fact that protection hasn't been extended. If and when the protection is extended, then it can be added to the article; until then it doesn't deserve to be there. I am removing it again. Banedon (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * About the animal and plant section, I don't understand the last paragraph as well. Of course plants "can detect and react adaptively to input conditions" because they are living creatures, and one of the hallmark of life is response to stimuli. The last line though, about sensory functions being felt functions, would take some justification. I searched up the paper "Crosstalk between secondary messengers, hormones and MAPK modules during abiotic stress signalling in plants". However I do not see where in the paper this is mentioned. Certainly the words 'feel' and 'felt' do not appear in the paper at all, and both the abstract nor the conclusion don't seem to discuss anything to do with feeling. Can you quote the paragraphs from which provide this information in both this paper and Long-Distance Systemic Signaling and Communication in Plants? Banedon (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the above I'm removing the sentence. That leaves the remaining two sentences rather out of place, so I removed the entire paragraph. Banedon (talk) 11:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

"Shock Image"
Someone removed the image of the cow about to be slaughtered (again) and I just put it back. If you'd like to discuss it let's do so here. It's not a shock image, it's an image of a technique parts of this article actually describe as humane. An example of a real shock image would be the picture of what happens a few seconds later. --Calibas (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

--The current front (first) picture also may have shock value and nothing added but. deleted. [Raam) 18:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.173.57.39 (talk)

"Humane"? What a joke. So its ok to kill animals as long as its done in a humane manner? How about waking up and not killing animals in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 12 June 2012

I would argue it is also ethical to kill people so long as it is in a humane manner. But that is beside my main point, the picture of the Holstein cattle reads that it is a common cow eaten for meat which is not true. Holstien beef is very tough and mostly unsuitable for consumption. Holsteins are the largest producers of milk of any cow used in commercial production. I feel the picture should be changed to an Angus beef steer, which is the most commonly eaten cow in the United States and much of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.10.223.158 (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The cited source on this image did not actually have the information. I have removed the source and added a citation needed tag. If a source for the use of dairy cows as meat cannot be found, I suggest removing the picture. Personally it seems like that picture is on the page because holsteins are a "cute" cow. I recommend placement of a food cow on the page instead of a dairy cow.Cliff (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Image Texts
I've changed the text that read as questions, such as "Meat: Right or Wrong?" and "Does this cow have consicnous?" Because it doesn't support neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckCoke (talk • contribs) 23:32, 15 September, 2009

Humans are naturally plant-eaters (i.e. meat-eating is unnatural)
Source article — DrYouMe  (Talk?)   01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone copy & pasted the bulk of one of my articles here. I removed it for so many reasons: (1) WP is not a forum. (2) My article has nothing to do with the WP article. (Mine is about whether eating meat is *natural*, WP's is about whether it is *ethical*. I object to my irrelevant article being used as evidence for a completely different subject.) (3) Discussion in WP-Talk pages should be made by the editors, not from huge text dumps from other sources. (4) Enough of the article was copy & pasted to easily constitute copyright violation. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Excellent essay. I love what you said about psychology. I know a lot about human psychology, and it's so true. So many meat eaters will say "Animals eat other animals", but most of the ones they eat don't, at least not naturally. In fact, there was a restaurant that sold "lion burgers" that had to close because too many people protested, and I actually saw a comment on a YouTube video about this saying that it is hypocritical for humans to eat omnivores (even though chickens and turkeys eat worms), and I saw a comment on an article about this saying that the owner of the restaurant should be fed to the lions.

I also read some guy say that some societies take it too far and eat cats and dogs. I don't see why that is going too far.

But this all pretty much proves that they're not interested in the truth. They were raised eating these animals, they like the way they taste, and they want to be able to continue enjoying the taste. Everything else is just an excuse.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is all obviously incorrect. Humans are, of course, omnivores. Moreover, our closest cousins, Neanderthals, were almost exclusively carnivorous, and according to the Max Planck Institute, based on its genome study, 4% of the DNA of modern humans (except for sub-Saharan Africans) was contributed by Neanderthals. When I read this supposed "evidence" that humans are not omnivores, I feel as if I'm on a Creationist website reading their supposed "evidence" that the earth is only 4000 years old. In any event, the issue of human omnivory has little, if anything, to do with the ethics of eating meat, so I am hard pressed to see why it's in the talk section for this particular article. Incidentally, there is a Wikipedia article on omnivores that addresses the issue of human omnivory, and this material would be better suited for that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, quite a convincing point Pgordon2. A well researched and well written article with Scientific facts yet 'it is obviously ALL wrong'. Excellent counter argument. Your point on Neanderthals also makes no sense. They were carnivores and contributed to our DNA so we must be carnivores as well? First of all actually read the article and you will the evidence that the earliest ancestors of homo sapiens were vegetarian and even in those hunter-gatherer groups, plants were still a dominant part of the diet. There is so many points in that article that strongly support the powerful foothold of vegetarianism in human evolution its mind boggling anyone with the slightest intellect would actually challenge it (and in such a weak way as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smodtactical (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm...a convincing assertion at first blush, but problematic on examination. First, according to the Wikipedia entry on Humans (which in turn cites a 2002 paper on prehistoric human diets), Homo Sapiens has been cooking its food since it branched off from Homo Rhodesiensis, which means that even if we were once herbivores, modern human "natural" diet can only be described in context of a species that processes its food via tools and fire.  This also means I must question your assertion that evolution is an irrelevant question due to short timescale, since humans have likely been using fire in a controlled fashion for approximately one million years.  A mere 10,000 years was far more than sufficient time for humans to not only evolve the ability to digest lactose, but also invent an enormous spectrum of different foods that contain it; at one million years, evolution is absolutely a relevant concern.  This is especially true because we do show a clear evolutionary difference from our herbivorous days: our "cecum", which we once used over a million years ago to allow us to digest the fibre, cellulose, and hemi-cellulose that makes up such a large part of the nutrients found in plants, has atrophied over time into what we now call our appendix, a useless vestigial organ that does nothing when it's healthy and causes tremendous problems when infected.


 * Second, "natural" and "unnatural" is distinct from "ethical" and "unethical". It is perfectly natural for a human being to kill out of jealousy, greed, or selfishness, but it is not ethical.  As such, stronger support for the article's ethical relevance would be required.  This is especially so because herbivores that are not obligate herbivores do in fact eat meat in the wild when given the opportunity, a fact which you mention in your own assertions.


 * Lastly, the article you cite builds its entire case upon the definition of "omnivore", but "omnivore" is a poorly-defined word at best, and one with no clear taxonomic criteria. Foxes are omnivores, for instance, despite being a member of the Canidae Family and Carnivora Order.  Dogs, too, are sometimes classified as omnivores, and if not then at the very least they are not "obligate carnivores" and are capable of adapting to plant diets.  Cats, by contrast, are obligate carnivores, and have tremendous difficulty digesting plant matter (I know cat food has plant matter in it, but it is added in a form that is specifically processed and tailored to be easily digestible by a cat's carnivorous GI tract.  A better comparison is bananas: giving a cat bananas is a terrible idea that should always be avoided, but giving a dog some banana is fine so long as it is not given at the same time as meat and one doesn't give the dog so much he/she suffers sugar overload).  Looking at your table, the anatomical qualities of carnivores is almost completely identical to that of omnivores, but is that truly an accurate representation of the absolute anatomical disparities between "omnivores", "carnivores", and "herbivores"?


 * One study by the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center showed that all omnivores descended from species that are either primarily carnivorous or primarily omnivorous, and I cannot help but think that the "omnivorous" qualities on the table were taken exclusively from those omnivorous species such as grizzly bears and foxes that, as members of Order Carnivora, descended from carnivores and, therefore, have exhibit largely carnivorous phenotypes with secondary, less-prominent herbivorous adaptations. However, this is not an evolutionary history common to all omnivores.  For instance, boars (who are, I should point out, members of the largely herbivorous Order Artiodactyla, a.k.a. even-toed ungulates) have a jaw above the plane of the molars, no shearing in the jaws, a masseter and ptergoids, tusk incisors (which are typically found on African Elephants, who are herbivorous, obviously), and chew extensively.  Yet, they are omnivores, not herbivores as their anatomy might suggest.  By contrast, Panda Bears meet most of the chart's criteria to be either Omnivorous or Carnivorous, and yet they are obligate Herbivores.  I would submit to you that anatomical similarities are far more strongly influenced by taxonomy and evolutionary proximity than an animal's diet, since diet can change much more quickly than genetic evolution.  In fact, diet must change before genetic drift, as otherwise there cannot be selective pressure for genetic adaptation.  On top of that, there are all those anatomical qualities the article completely fails to mention, qualities which humans, bears, boars, and foxes all share: our forward-facing stereoscopic vision is optimized for hunting prey and only has a mere 150-180 degrees of peripheral vision; we lack a large, multi-chambered stomach or cecum for digesting fiber and cellulose; and our stomachs are incredibly small compared to herbivores because we can supplement our diet with meat, which has much higher energy density than grasses and other plant matter.  63.95.218.254 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is another point supporting human omnivory: chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, obtain 5-10% of their calories from animal prey. In fact, they make spears by stripping leaves from twigs and use those spears to kill bush-babies (a small species of monkey), which they then eat. The human and chimpanzee lineages diverged, initially, 6-7 million years ago, then according to the most recent theory there was some further inbreeding between the lineages approximately 4.5 million years ago, after which the final divergence occured. Given how close chimpanzees are to us genetically and the observed fact of their omnivovry, given neanderthal near-carnivory, and given the omnivory of homo sapien hunter-gatherer societies, I think it's clear that humans are omnivores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have significant problems with all arguments here - both claims for "humans as herbivores" and "humans as omnivores". The problem is that writers are employing principles of evolutionary medicine that are now accepted as outdated. The extensive 20+ year work of Dr. Randolph Nesse and colleagues show that rather than "Humans" being herbivores, omnivores, or carnivores - Individuals - based on complex heritable adaptation - combined with more proximate epi-genetic factors dictate what is optimum for an individual. So - if the implication is that this touches upon ethics because it's ethical to be healthy - the we should attempt to come together and frame the issue in terms of personalised nutrition - not broad sweeping generalities about evolutionary adaptation on a species level. MythicMeats (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)Mycobovine

Let's show some sense here. As can easily be seen from e.g. the human page here on Wikipedia, there are plenty of sources out there that claim humans are omnivores (just go to that page, ctrl + f 'omni', click on sources ... or use Google). There are so many sources that classify humans as omnivores that I think it's safe to conclude that that is the mainstream opinion. This article is therefore a minority argument that humans are herbivores that, perhaps coincidentally, reads like a pseudoscientific article with plenty of bombastic words meant to sound impressive. The article appeals directly to the reader to come to his own conclusions instead of trying to convince other scientists in scientific literature, and is written by someone without expertise in the field to boot (plus the source page link is broken, plus the fact that it's written by a M.D = medical doctor, which are not specially trained in biology). For these reasons and more I do not trust it. I strongly oppose any mention of the 'naturalness' of humans being herbivores unless academic and peer-reviewed publications for this can be found. Banedon (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems as if we would not have developed into humans if we had not eaten meat, seee article here. The above seems to me a WP:Fringe theory. Thanks S H 07:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This article Misrepresents its Sources
This is straight up propaganda on arguments using quote mining and misrepresenting sources. I have listed all the source and arguments below so you can decide yourself.

The chart is invalid and simply wrong. First we do not know the sample animals he used for each generalization. Second the pH in the stomach is 1.3-3.5 (see Gastric acid) also saliva also has digestive enzymes to digest fat (salivary lipase) besides that saliva is not a good measurement since it can vary between different taxonomic groups. Also there is NOTHING mentioning the rumen or fermentation vats in herbivores which they use to generate vitamin B12. Humans do not have rumens so they are omnivores also herbivores cannot digest meat. For other jaw and intestine features check this vegetarian site (http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm link)
 * Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet.  --Dr. McArdle, vegetarian and Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society (http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm Vegetarian Resource group)

Although none of these both vegetarian articles are NOT peer reviewed sources the facts are humans do not have rumens and humans can digest meats along with plants so they are omnivores. Here is another fine example of the quote mining
 * "Our early ancestors from at least four million years ago were almost exclusively vegetarian. (see source)"

If you check the source it will quote a paper from PNAS titled "Starch grains on human teeth reveal early broad crop diet in northern Peru" here is the link from PNAS. This only addresses early individuals in the Zana Valley of Peru NOT worldwide. It is also not 4 million years ago if you look at the first paragraph the Carbon 14 dating shows that the time period was 11,200 to 6000 calendar years. The discussion of the article shows that the source said "Starch grain data from dental remains can inform a number of important issues concerning early human diets and the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture. " Here is a manipulation of statistics that was used:
 * The most common cause of choking deaths is eating meat. (source)

If you look at the source abstract the sample size is very low (133) and restrictive (only in San Diego County) The statistics list "14% having using alcohol or other sedatives and 55% having a documented neurological deficit or anatomic difficulty with swallowing." It only mention that the "most common specified food objects" was meat. Yet the author state it the most common cause is meat which is not true as quoted in the above statistic. The abstract also states "Most victims who choked to death had an underlying neurological deficit" In the Vitamin B12 section it list:
 * It's found where things are unclean. (And meat is dirty.) This easily explains why historically it's been easy to get B12, because until recently we didn't live in a sanitized environment.

B12 as stated before is produced by bacteria in the rumen. It can be obtained through meat or fermented foods such as kombucha and algae. By the author's logic these are also unclean and unsanitize. The author also uses tactics to disgust the audience where he states that B12 is also obtained through termites and unsanitized water (actually algae rich see article) This is ironic since he also recommends supplements:
 * Vegans should take a B12 supplement, not because veganism is unnatural, but because the modern diet is too clean to contain reliable natural sources of dirty B12.

Because under US law 21 CFR § 184.1945 Avitamin B12 supplements are produced Streptomyces griseus, a dirt bacteria. It is also not known what is used as the hardening agent for the supplements generally come in liquid or powder form. The source article has barely any opposing sources and uses vegan advocating sources to support itself. The real question we should be asking is if this is for an ethical reason why would data be manipulated? Why can't it be discussed scientifically and logically using peer review sources? To sum it up this article uses: -Cs california (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ad hominem attacks on meat eaters and omnivores labeling them as extremes and fanatics
 * misuses statistics by misrepresenting large populations using isolated small samples rather than random samples.
 * quote mines and misrepresents arguments from peer reviewed articles.
 * misinforms the audience using false statistics
 * Biased the argument by attempting to make meat seem "disgusting"

Health Issue
I think that it is overemphasised in the article that being on a vegetarian diet poses no health issues and that eating meat is not necessary for our health. As some have pointed out here, this is a blatant lie that is not backed by scientific evidence and is basically propaganda. In fact, many people, such as myself, cannot survive on a vegetarian diet due to health issues such as inflamatory bowel diseases. For such people being on a vegetarian diet is nothing more than a rapid way to find yourself on the operating table. The second sentense in the article: "The fundamental ethical objection to meat eating is that for most people living in the developed world it is not necessary for their survival or health; hence, it is concluded, slaying animals just because people like the taste of meat is wrong and morally unjustifiable." although referenced, is false. For many people, the consumption of animal products may not be necessary but that is not a general claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.129.190 (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A disease caused by a faulty immune system is not a good argument basis for calling vegetarianism advocation unscientific propaganda. Ironically, the cause of your condition connects with the requirement of large scale meat production: antibiotics. --84.48.53.113 (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You should read WP:Verifiability, not truth. We don't get to say "yes, the sources say X, but we know better and will say Y," because Wikipedia trusts peer-reviewed, published sources more than it trusts anonymous Internet users' opinions. If you believe it is not true that most people in the Western world could live without eating meat, then find a reliable (published, edited, fact-checked) source that agrees with you, present it here on the talk page, and we'll change the article to say: The American Dietetic Association, along with most nutritionists, holds that eating meat is not necessary for most Westerners' survival. However, this claim has been challenged by [whatever source you can come up with which has a chance of sounding reliable while disagreeing with the ADA]. FourViolas (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Milk and eggs
Would anyone care to justify the inclusion of this section? It currently
 * Contains only pro-vegan sources, and information used (almost verbatim) in pro-vegan advocacy
 * Does not explain why "ethics of eating milk and eggs" is proper to include in an article on "ethics of eating meat"

The sole peer-reviewed source it cites is Saja 2013, a primary source, and given the amount of literature on this I don't think that's nearly WP:WEIGHTy enough to support the inclusion of this much material not covered by the article title. Perhaps it would be DUE to include a sentence mentioning that many vegans, and at least one moral philosopher, consider other animal products in the same framework as they do meat; however, at the moment the size and content of this section seem to be UNDUE and serving only to advance vegan ideology. FourViolas (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is far from neutral when it is stating as fact that eating meat is morally and ethically objectionable and unjustifiable. Billions of people would disagree, but that isn't what we're here for. If you're here to help build an encyclopedia, please at least make an attempt to adhere to some modicum of WP:NPOV. If you're not, then that is going to be a problem. Laval (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

This material tagged with citation needed


please explain why WP:V is not relevant here? Banedon (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Quotes
In several sections there are paragraphs of text that are indented. Are these quotes? If they are, shouldn't they be in quotes? DrChrissy (talk) 21:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ethics of eating meat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106031527/http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Pluhar__E._2010._Meat.pdf to http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Pluhar__E._2010._Meat.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140506071302/http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb-statistical-bulletin/sb-973.aspx to http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/sb-statistical-bulletin/sb-973.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106041409/http://spot.humaneresearch.org/content/truth-behind-labels-farm-animal-welfare-standards-and-labeling-practices to http://spot.humaneresearch.org/content/truth-behind-labels-farm-animal-welfare-standards-and-labeling-practices
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921061132/http://livres.edesaulniers.com/?product=vache-a-lait-dix-mythes-de-lindustrie-laitiere to http://livres.edesaulniers.com/?product=vache-a-lait-dix-mythes-de-lindustrie-laitiere

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Animals vs non-human animals
If I am not mistaken referring to non-human animals by using 'animals' isn't proper scientific language. This issue is addressed in the 'Animal' article on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#Etymology). My changes were reversed and I would like to discuss this topic further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrownLies (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don’t think the distinction is necessary. The context of that article makes it clear that the subject is not the consumption of human flesh, i.e. cannibalism. Adding ‘non-human’ just makes the article read a bit bizarrely. Île flottante (talk) 12:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It's standard in writings in this field (animal ethics) to say something like "non-human animals (henceforth 'animals')" on the first mention, to clarify that the author recognizes the elementary but sometimes-important point that humans are a species of animal. Afterwards, authors use "animals" except where context requires additional clarification. See this Scholar search for examples. FourViolas (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a perennial issue which needs a guideline. See, for example, here. I have proposed WikiProject Animals develop a guideline. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Arguments for eating meat.
This article is missing a section outlining arguments in favour of meat eating, it is at present a showcase of arguments against eating meat only. There is a vast philosophical literature on both sides of the argument, e.g. https://www.bobfischer.net/, making this article fairly poor as it doesn't present a complete picture of the "debate". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boddika (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Ancient arguments
The ethical arguments against meat and animal cruelties exist since the ancient times. It includes those by the ancient Indian, Greek, and Chinese philosophers. However, the article appears to discuss only about the modern discussions. The former aspect needs to be covered as well. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article NEEDS (requires) a historical section AND a main article on the history of discussions - not merely in the Western nations, but across the planet. However, my scholarship, historical reading of the history of majority views vs. ethical dissent on the topics of (i) our treatment of animals and (ii) optimizing human food selection decisions is highly complex and that any superficial treatment (even in an encyclopedia) is unlikely to 'do justice' to the broader overlays of complicated topics. I would also like to move away from the 'ethical culturist' type of analysis that modifies the wrongdoing with the phrase 'ethics of' because 'ethics of food choices' or 'ethics of food selection' might be a better article title.


 * With that said, IMO the outline of arguments is not well done (best writing is not easy to achieve), but I would also believe that a single-tradition analysis of the different positions on plants vs. animals food choices could stand if it were enhanced by a cross-cultural and historical long view of the topic. However, philosophers, ethicists, and religious teachers are not always reflecting the extant culture in which they emerge, from which background they appear to bring logical and conceptual contrast. 'The free mind' can be lauded, but how 'prophetic' does it prove itself to be? MaynardClark (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Very much agree. This is extremely one-sided, to the point that it seems biased toward Western philosophies and modern sentiments. It reads like the conversation only started in the 1950s. I’ll try and find more sources so I can flesh out the “overview” that begins with Singer in the coming days/weeks/whenever. If anyone has links, throw them at me. Dax Kirk (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, I went in and added a number of citations. They are mostly from ancient Western philosophers though, so it is still a little biased. We still need to add ideas from other philosophers, theologians, etc. from more diverse cultures, I think. Dax Kirk (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Title change for article
I propose that either (a) this article's name be changed to 'ethics of food selection' or (b) a larger 'main article' be developed on the topic 'ethics of food selection'. MaynardClark (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article's title remains 'Ethics of eating meat' it should include discussions of the ethics of eating what is called 'meat' - including (a) plant-based meat(s) vs. cellular agriculture, (b) faux meats (historical veggieburgers), and (c) the Biblical word for food which was historically (mis)translated as 'meat' ('to you it shall be for meat' applied to eating plants). MaynardClark (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We do already have Ethical eating. —valereee (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good! That article doesn't spell out the conversations about issues with the word 'meat' (as I had above):
 * Discussions of the ethics of eating what is called 'meat' - including
 * (a) plant-based meat(s) vs. cellular agriculture,
 * (b) faux meats (historical veggieburgers),
 * (c) the Biblical word (in Genesis) for food, which was historically (mis)translated as 'meat' ('to you it shall be for meat' applied to eating plants),
 * (d) misgivings about advocating eating AS 'meat' what is made from plants because it enables or empowers doing something (deemed) evil (killing animals) because the semantics of eating plant-based (alt-meats) i the same as the semantics of eating the corpses of tortured animals.
 * That 'article adjustment' takes (or would take) this article 'to a new level' in the conversation about eating what is called 'meat'MaynardClark (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Should there be more here about ethical omnivorism?
It's a "see also" but I think it's probably important enough to merit its own mention? Likeanechointheforest (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethics of eating meat, NPV
I made significant revisions to this article over the last two days to try and address some of the many longstanding issues mentioned by other editors -- and to and address some of the problems that surfaced during the peer review.

First, the intro was poorly written and had a number of grammatical issues. The intro was also very one-sided. The "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides, as demonstrated through the many citations included in this article. Previously, the intro only had one sentence (and no citations) about people who support meat consumption. I added citations to reliable sources that support meat consumption in an attempt to remove this bias.

Second, the second heading was previously titled "Overview of the argument against meat eating." However, this section also included arguments and citations that supported meat consumption. This makes the heading very confusing. Addittionally, the "ethics of meat eating" is a conversation with two sides. Having a heading for arguments against meat consumption, and no heading for arguments promoting meat consumption, makes the article biased. In an attempt to improve accuracy and remove bias, I changed this heading to "Overview of arguments for and against meat eating."

Third, the article only included arguments from modern philosophers, theologians, and scientists. This conversation has been ongoing for millennia, as many citations in this article note. I added citations to reliable sources that discuss arguments made by Plato, Pythagoras, and other ancient people regarding the ethics of meat consumption.

Fourth, the existence of the "criticism and responses" section was confusing. Throughout the entire article (in literally every heading), arguments for and against meat consumption were referenced. So it made sense to integrate the things mentioned in "criticism and responses" into the appropriate section (i.e. environmental arguments, animal consciousness arguments, etc.) and delete the "criticism and responses" heading.

I believe that's all. If it looks like I deleted a lot in my revisions, I didn't. I just moved stuff around. Happy to discuss any of the above here. Dax Kirk (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Title change
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Ethics of meat consumption" sounds more encyclopedic than the current title.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)