Is eating morally wrong

You don't need to eat! So of course eating is morally wrong. Isn't the first food babies consume from their mothers' breasts? Breasts are related to sex and sex is also morally wrong! Bad humans, shouldn't have eaten that apple in the garden...
 
Cottontop3000 said:
Nice trick. Can you teach me how to do that? I assume chlorophyll injections are necessary.
Click to expand...
But seriously, I knew a girl that had green patches in her skin, and the doctor told her that they were harmless, some kind of plant.

I did a quick search just now to see if I could find more information, but I couldn't find anything.
 
Googling "human photosynthesis" turned up a number of sites, some of them talking about a guy called Hira Ratan Manek who claims to have gone without food for years.

(He may be right about lack of sunlight depressing people. Isn't that called Seasonal Affective Disorder?)

But I think this story is more realistic ... and funnier :p
 
This thread seems to be a reaction against the vegetarian threads currently running, in which it is carefully explained why eating meat is unethical.

Merely existing in the world means you have an environmental impact. So, if you want zero impact, your only option is not to exist at all. However, once you accept that your existence is allowable, then the moral course of action is to try to minimise any harmful environmental impact you have.
 
In other words you should act like every other omnivore. Cultivation of land is a far bigger impact that killing a cow.
 
James R,

I agree with you almost totally. One should try to live in harmony with nature. But then it's pointless to question the morality of something like eating. We do it to stay alive, not because it is an effective way to inflict pain on animals or microbes.

The intent is to stay alive! You could say that itself is immoral. (And for the record I am almost completely vegetarian.)
 
Cultivation of land is a far bigger impact that killing a cow.
Click to expand...

Cultivating the land to sustain the cow, however, is an even greater impact. If you dont want to hurt the earth, vegetarianism would be the best way to go. You get ten times the food output per unit energy input.
 
Roman said:
Cultivating the land to sustain the cow, however, is an even greater impact. If you dont want to hurt the earth, vegetarianism would be the best way to go. You get ten times the food output per unit energy input.
Click to expand...

Really? I see a cow in a field, I kill it, skin it, process the meat and have several hundred pounds of meat and fat. For grain I have to till, plow, plant, water, tend, harvest, seperate chaff, and I get not nearly as much. Hmmmm.
 
Yeah, just simply cultivating the wheat (assuming you're talking about wheat when you say "grain") generates a lot less product for the amount of work you have to do. For cows, you just put in a friggin grass pasture, no needing to cultivate special crops, and you get to use ALL of the meat, rather than just a portion of it.
Also, with wheat, to make it edible, you have to grind it, mix it with egg (chicken embryo, oh my!) and form it into dough, then roll it and shape it, yeast it, and bake it to make a loaf of bread. Wow, that's a shitload of work for something that will last you, what, a week or two at most? Whereas a whole cow, which takes a lot less work to cultivate, can last several months, if properly rationed.
 
Hapsburg and Scott, it's not about the work you have to do, it's about the resources you're wasting. For example, if everyone were to use the same amount of resources as the average person in the USA, we would need 12 earths :|
 
BS not even close.

Actually what do you think you are using to tend this crop you are growing, Do you think the human body runs on credit. You waste more personal energy growing a acre of mixed crops then you get out of it. Just common sense here. This is why we evolved as omnivores. Becuase we could take advantage of all food sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top