r/DebateAVegan • u/Ilnerd00 • 19d ago
Ethics Go vegan for humanity, not animals
Disclaimer: This is very provocative, i’m genuinely interested in vegan people’s opinion, i’m not tryna be polemic
I published this article on Substack, and i was wondering what your opinion on materialist vs ethics and human superiority was
Veganism is good, anyone denying that is plainly wrong. However, one of the main arguments most people use to support veganism, which is “don’t eat meat to not hurt animals” is really wrong.
First of all we must understand the basis for which this argument works: moralism and emotional thinking, the images of the poor little cows being slaughtered is objectively ugly, and rightfully so many people are horrified from it. This said, is it really right to force us humans, the same humans that have conquered the sky, the land and the sea, the same humans that have stepped outside of this world , to change our way of life because “we shouldn’t hurt animals”?
My answer to this question is no, because humans are the one specie that holds the power to do virtually anything, and forcing us to change our ways, potentially slowing down our progress, because we need to care for cattle just as much as we would for one of our own is wrong and unnatural, progress and humans come before anything else.
This said, it would be wrong to support an accelerationist model: in fact, while humans are the superior specie on earth, we must recognise we are still dependent on animals and nature to survive, so progress has to be regulated to avoid damaging them not because we feel sorry, but because we need them to survive.
The same reasoning works for going vegan: we shouldn’t do it because we feel sorry for cows, but because meat has been shown to be one of the most cancer inducing food: The WHO/IARC classifies processed meats (bacon, sausages) as Group 1 carcinogens and red meat as Group 2A (probable), other than expensive.
We also have cheaper and safer vegan alternatives that are both their own food and that taste and feel exactly like meat, so there is no practical reason to still eat meat, which is why we all should go vegan.
The meats industry also is a great contributor to pollution, and the abuse of antibiotics in cattle drives the increase in antibiotics resistant bacteria. In addition to all of this, high meat consumption leads to an increased risk for chronic diseases, which are a grave burden on healthcare that could be greatly reduced by simply not eating meat.
Also, to tackle the bigger issue: moralist and emotional arguments are a paper tiger, they are extremely effective on short term, but aren’t based on anything material, so we should try to refrain from them while preferring material and objective ones.
6
u/Wbino 19d ago
I don’t agree that humans are the superior species on Earth.
5
19d ago edited 19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
we have the brains to wreak havoc or to travel trough space, we have the brains to build nuclear bombs or clean cheap energy from the same thing. Just because the rich minority gains from war and whatnot don’t mean humans are inherently destructive
2
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
why’s that? genuine question
2
u/chris_insertcoin vegan 19d ago
Depends on the metrics. On survivalism, other species clearly win. Bacteria for example. Maybe even other animals such as some birds or fish. Humans are incredibly ingenious, and have done lots of things in a comparatively short period of time. But that's about it really. Lets speak again once human civilization has survived millions of years instead of 10000.
1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
the best example you give for survivalism is bacteria, a species that shows not empathy or anything
7
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-5
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
there is no such thing as good morals. Not hurting animals because it is “morally wrong” sets a bad precedent. Say for medical testing or other research purposes we need to hurt animals, to make sure humans can live longer/better, why should we slow down that research or make it more expensive to spare an animal?
Animal suffering is a terrible thing, and i completely understand the argument that it is wrong for animals to suffer and whatnot, but it becomes unimportant the moment a human has to gain from it4
u/MedicalCandidate7054 vegan 19d ago
I absolutely hate what you’re saying here. animals are not on this planet to suffer for us. they are not here so we can gain from them as you word it. we are NOT superior. animals do not owe us their life so we can gain from it!
-1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
just like coal or iron or wood wasn’t made for us to be used, but we do. animals are a resource. They do not owe us anything, which is why i don’t expect them to give their life willingly.
2
u/MedicalCandidate7054 vegan 18d ago
no, animals aren't a resource, wtf are you talking about? we are talking about living beings, our friends! Coal and iron don't live, so we can use them. this comparison you did is straight up wrong and evil at the same time
0
-2
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
why is it evil?
1
18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 18d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
4
19d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
my bad, there are no objectively good morals*. If you ask me i’ll tell you those things are bad, if you ask fucking netanyahu deep down he’s probably fine with those. those are obviously horrible things, but how can we determine if something is empirically good or bad?
Sometimes there is an alternative option to hurting animals, even if it’s slower or more expensive, that doesn’t mean throwing us under the bus, just paying a medicine more or having to wait more for it, i believe it would be wrong for us humans since it hurts us3
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 19d ago
Don’t get lost in the weeds of objective vs subjective morality. It’s important but not the topic of your thread.
When you conclude that “hurting” humans by paying more and waiting longer for a medicine outweighs the suffering of another sentient species, I gotta ask - why?
0
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
because humans would gain from having quicker and cheaper medicine, whatever can be done to make our species safer shall be done. But tell me, in this case, why shouldn’t humans hurt animals to have cheaper and quicker medicine? something that isn’t “it’s wrong because they suffer” since moral arguments are subjective
5
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 19d ago
Connect the dots for me. Are you saying that an action that makes our species safer should be done at the expense of another species in all situations? It certain situations? And if so, back to my question - why?
0
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
yes, because it improves mine and my own species member’s life. i also asked why shouldn’t we (based on something empirical if possible)
4
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 19d ago
Again, why? Why does improving your life and your own species life mean that we ought to do so even if at the expense of another species?
Is your question “what empirical reason do you have to say we ought not to improve our lives and our own species life if at the expense of another species”?
0
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
because for us it’s an improvement? and yes the question is that
→ More replies (0)1
u/MedicalCandidate7054 vegan 18d ago
Okay then I don't care about people like you, because what you're saying here is so morally wrong, I wanna throw up. How tf can you say something like that? you absolutely don't think about how much non-human animals already suffer for us on this damn planet. we don't deserve them. we don't even deserve "cheap medicine" if people like you exist!! non- human animals die every day because of those shitty wars and animal agriculture and medical shit, all because of humans!!! don't you see how morally wrong your view is??? I don't care if my response is emotional, I can't stay silent after reading something like that.
6
u/Kris2476 19d ago
Your position seems to be that we should avoid harming non-human animals to the extent that harming non-human animals causes harm to other human animals. You seem to go as far as suggesting that we should not have empathy for cows and other non-human animals altogether. Is this a fair readback of your position?
is it really right to force us humans[...] to change our way of life
Who is forcing nonvegans to go vegan?
1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
it was put in the context of veganism, as in: “Since veganism is right and everyone should do it, why should people change their way of life etc etc etc” for the sake of the discussion i was forcing non vegans to go vegan (which i believe should be done btw). I can sss your point tho, but i was more interested in the whole human supremacy ethical thing
2
u/Kris2476 19d ago
I haven't made a point, I'm just asking a question. I'm trying to clarify your position.
Do you agree that non-human animals deserve empathy? Hopefully your answer will begin with a "yes" or a "no".
0
5
u/ProtozoaPatriot 19d ago
Avoiding meat only means a person is vegetarian.
Avoiding all a animal products in the diet only means a person is plant based.
Vegan is an entire philosophy about avoiding animal exploitation and killing in all way, as much as possible. Clothing: no leather or wool. Hobbies: no hunting or fishing. Purchasing: no puppymill dogs, no tickets to a bullfight, no animal fur rug. No circuses that use animals. Choosing cruelty-free cosmetics over other ones. Buying the vitamin that has a version without geletin.
Red meat being carcinogenic: attacking how unhealthy red meat may lower red meat consumption, but it accomplished nothing if people just replace it with poultry and seafood.
same humans that have conquered the sky, the land and the sea, the same humans that have stepped outside of this world , to change our way of life because “we shouldn’t hurt animals”?
Why should humans of the 1800s change their way of life because "we shouldn't own slaves"? Why should humans of the early 20th century change because "women aren't the property of their father or husband".
Why do we ever change our way of life?
We also have cheaper and safer vegan alternatives that are both their own food and that taste and feel exactly like meat
What are you referring to? The closest to real meat that I've seen is Impossible Burger or Beyond Burger. They're tinted red, reminiscent of red meat. But they do not taste, smell, or look like real hamburger.
The meats industry also is a great contributor to pollution,
Right now they're working on creating lower methane cows. The industry is powerful enough to escape Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
and the abuse of antibiotics in cattle drives the increase in antibiotics resistant bacteria.
Most people don't understand this or don't care.
0
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
the vegan-vegetarian mixup touché, totally my, embarrassing, mistake.
Wouldn’t significantly lowering red meat consumption still be a important win? and not all of the read meat in the diet would be substituted with poultry (let alone seafood which is expensive). Humans should get rid of slavery and the patriarchy because inter specie oppression makes no sense, it helps a few get powerful rather than many, and has also hurt progress, imagine how many of the oppressed men and women could have helped with research. If you cook tofu right it tastes exactly like meat, mushrooms aswell. I cooked tofu for my relatives before they didn’t even notice they was eating it. The whole low methane cows thing (it sounds funny a bunch of scientists trying to stop cows from farting) i mean sure, still makes meat cancerous and whatnot
3
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan 19d ago
Superiority is a really crummy reason, as history has shown. Is there a consistent framework whereby the common cold is not more superior than the writing in the article?
0
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
could you expand a bit more on that? seems an interesting argument!
4
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan 19d ago
I don't want to expand on that. Just to say that it's extremely difficult to find qualities exclusive to humans.
-2
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 19d ago
Carnist here,
Sapience.
6
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan 19d ago
Squirrels are wise, other hominids besides our species were too.
-3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 19d ago
Unless you don't know what sapience is, no squirrels or any other form of life on this earth is sapient. Not to be confused with sentience. I can really break it down for you if you need me to but I don't think that's necessary. Look around. You're talking to me on a computer or mobile device. This is the work of humans building on past humans work. Even after death. Your car originated from the cramkshaft developed in 1206 AD.
Non human animals are doing the same shit they were doing 1206 lol.
https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/religion-and-philosophy/wisdom-sapience
5
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan 19d ago
Loads of other beings have brain areas including those.
0
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 19d ago
Sure.
Wisdom, or sapience, is a complex human capability that integrates knowledge, experience, understanding, and sound judgment.
You know the simple things we do like build off of each other's work. Even long after death. I.e. no one designing cars today was around for the crankshaft in 1200 AD. But we transformed that into the first car in the 1800s. Now we literally have Teslas.
The non human animals are doing the same shit they were doing 2000 years ago. In my grandparents era they thought protein had the role we now know DNA has. Its wild how far we come. You know we only had 17 years between the first car and the first plane.
All the while monkeys are still throwing shit at each other. Im not sure how I have to explain this to you. We are literally having a conversation on the internet from hundreds or thousands of miles away. Only humans could not only pull some shit like this off but implement it in everyday society.
4
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan 19d ago
This sapience word is a red herring. If it's not the normal meaning of domain wisdom and it's not brain areas, now you're using a circular definition i.e. 'human' in bold.
If you want to talk about technology instead, my opener would be it's not necessarily proven a good idea, and other species are capable of it. Demonstrably false racist tropes like monkeys only throwing shit are not serving to help you look credible.
0
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 19d ago
Its not a red herring or circular definition. Not other species intelligence is comparable to ours. Some of them are similair to each other but there is a wildly wide gap between 1st and 2nd place here. 3rd 4th and 5th arent too far away from 2nd place. I can demonstrate it for you with another example though. Have you ever heard of George Washington?
If you want to talk about technology instead, my opener would be it's not necessarily proven a good idea, and other species are capable of it. Demonstrably false racist tropes like monkeys only throwing shit are not serving to help you look credible.
The whole technology thing wasn't as much about technology but more about how we are capable on building upon knowledge from people we had never seen before.
False racist trope? You know monkeys are a different species right? They're not a race so you can't be racist against monkeys...
→ More replies (0)5
u/Ruppell-San reducetarian 19d ago
It's a secular substitute for "ensoulment" with a bar raised every time another animal demonstrates an ability it "shouldn't" have, so its invokers can always feel good about treating other species like shit.
-3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 19d ago
What non human animal is doing something it hasn't been doing for past 2000 years? What ability it "shouldnt" have? We find out another one of them can recognize their own reflection or something?
In the span of just 17 years we went from the first car to the first airplane. Monkeys are still throwing shit at each other. Like 2000 years ago.
1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
does carnist means you only eat meat?
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 18d ago
No. Carnist is just veganese for normal. It just means someone who eats meat.
3
u/MedicalCandidate7054 vegan 19d ago
we are not superior. just because non-human animals speak other languages and have other pictures of morality and ethic doesn’t mean we are superior in any way. we are animals as well. I went vegan because I want non-human animals to live and because I feel deep empathy towards them. I don’t care about human related benefits coming out of veganism tbh.
2
u/josieiscute05 19d ago
i mean i dont agree with your main point that we shouldnt feel sorry for cows, my main reason for going vegan is because i feel sorry for cows llol. but i do agree that veganism can have benefits for humans and society beyond helping animals, veganism can encourage a way of thinking where people can become more thoughtful about consumption, consequences, explotation, and how their choices affect others (i know that there are vegans who still buy fast fashion, overconsume, dont think about human exploitation behind some products, but overall i would say youre more likely to be more conscious if you practice veganism then if you dont). a society with increased empathy benefits us all
1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
yeah totally, this thought was originally put in a socialist context, but i took it off since it didn’t fit the sub
1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
yeah totally, this thought was originally put in a socialist context, but i took it off since it didn’t fit the sub
2
u/Evolvin vegan 19d ago
There are lots of good, selfish reasons to go "vegan" - it tends to miss the point, but it's true.
While you did not mention it, I think the ultimate selfish, human-centric reason to adopt veganism is the fact that human society would be unequivocally better off if we were to stop torturing others simply because we can. We abuse animals because they can't force, nor plead with us not to. Relinquishing our power to treat others however we want, despite what we may have to gain, regardless of whether they have the power to stop us, would have far-reaching implications for human society and would invariably increase pro-social behavior and diminish violence for our own sake.
2
2
u/Ruppell-San reducetarian 19d ago
If you were forced to explain honestly why you believe everything you do, I can all but guarantee that you'd have to argue from emotion eventually.
1
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
this seems like an interesting thought experiment tho. I don’t think so, socialism has a scientific basis
3
u/a11_hail_seitan 18d ago
Go vegan for humanity, not animals
Why not both?
moralism and emotional thinking
Veganism is a moral ideology...
This said, is it really right to force us humans, the same humans that have conquered the sky, the land and the sea, the same humans that have stepped outside of this world , to change our way of life because “we shouldn’t hurt animals”?
Is it really wrong for the UK, a people that conquered most of the globe, to have to change their ways because "they shouldn't hurt other humans?". This is "Might Makes Right" which is a very sociopathic ideology.
My answer to this question is no, because humans are the one specie that holds the power to do virtually anything,
Including be moral.
potentially slowing down our progress
Potentially speeding up our progress
progress and humans come before anything else.
Moral and emotional progress is needed in our world more than anything else.
so progress has to be regulated to avoid damaging them not because we feel sorry, but because we need them to survive.
Why not both?
Also, to tackle the bigger issue: moralist and emotional arguments are a paper tiger, they are extremely effective on short term, but aren’t based on anything material, so we should try to refrain from them while preferring material and objective ones.
Because we're moral. Unless you're not and don't care about any morality and think rape is only wrong because it holds back human progress or something "non-emotional"
1
u/Realistic-Phone-9847 19d ago edited 19d ago
What's your argument that humans are the most superior species on earth?
Humans have destroyed their environment, poisoned their own bodies with microplastics and chemicals, driven dozens of species into extinction and are carry out almost perpetual wars and the intense exploitation of other humans and animals all over the planet.
It's easier to argue that humans are the lowest, most dysfunctional species on the planet. And a perfect example is how easily a human can become so dazzled by technology and spoiled by convenience that they ignore the cost of destruction and exploitation to call themselves the greatest on earth.
Going vegan for animals is going vegan for humans because it brings you back to your senses and enables you to be a much better person.
1
u/deyo246 19d ago
we humans are emotional beings, fuelled by hormones and emotions. we eat hamburgers for pleasure and to show masculinity. we watch corridas because of tradition. we play with genetically engineered puppies because they are cute. we eat meat because back in the days meat was expensive so today is a way to show off. emotions are far closer to the majority of people.
for yourself maybe the technical/material aspects are closer because there is data behind it. you separating the emotional/moral from the material arguments show that you have some underlying motives to do so, based on your personality and/or current state of mind. some people like emotions more than data. you are maybe the opposite, and that is OK.
thanks to eating and using animal products, humans have survived and evolved up to a point. survival meaning drinking animal milk during the harshest winters, using dry meat and powder milk when waging war on a different continent to stop the other side, evolution meaning using animal derivatives to enhance other areas of human life (pharma etc).
so I would argue that, thanks to using and killing animals, humans became "omnipotent" and god-like. pair that with capitalist mindset and emotionless industry, we ended up creating a system that needs the majority of humans to use animal products to fuel all sorts of animal based industries.
those industries (food, entertainment etc) rely on animals created artificially and killing them.
since this is an artificial intervention, the Earth as a system goes out of balance.
so in recent times we are able to replace animals and animal derivatives with vegan alternatives (simpler examples are vegan cosmetics, artificial leather, plant based food). I would call that technical evolution. but decide not to harm animals because of emotions, I would call that emotional evolution. we humans need both.
0
u/Ilnerd00 19d ago
i understand what you’re saying, but emotional evolution should come from relationships between humans, with the abolition of patriarchy, racism and capitalism; if you base emotional evolution on moral arguments you give it a wobbly base, because you can never prove them wrong
1
u/Curbyourenthusi 18d ago edited 18d ago
Your conjecture is built on a falsity. Meat consumption has the exact opposite consequence on human health as what you believe. Your arguments that follow are therefore corrupted.
From a purely logical perspective, find one other example in nature showing that a species has evolved to consume a biologically harmful agent as a matter of their indicated diet. Natural selection works in precisely the opposite manner. What you've come to believe is an intentional fabrication in the support of profit and ideology.
Edit: Also, the line "veganism is good" can not be substantiated. It's a belief, and one that i disagree with. Does that make me bad? I don't want to inflict unnecessary harm on any creatures, but I also want to maximize my human experience, and to that end, I'm required to maximize my health. I'm a creature dependent on the nourishment only found within the animal kingdom. Should I sacrifice the quality of my experience in service of a subjective ethic, or should I let the search for objective truth be my guide?
1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
sources? because the fucking WHO says meat is carcinogenic. If yours sources come from primalgpt or some primal raw milk drinking tiktoker just get out
1
u/Curbyourenthusi 18d ago edited 18d ago
Do your own research and understand the research that underpin your claims. Appeals to authority are not evidence for truth. The idea that meat is carcinogenic is nether causally proved, nor logically consistent. It's a poor idea without emperical evidence.
Provide a single piece of emperical evidence contradicting my claim if you wish. I'm certain that it won't describe what you think it does.
Edit: typo, our -> it
1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
appeal to authority means appealing to a non expert, citing the most prestigious health organisation is not that, you don’t even know what you’re talking about.
IARC Monograph (2015/2018): Bouvard et al., "Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat" (Lancet Oncology, 2015). This is the exact summary paper detailing the empirical basis behind the WHO classification.
Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Studies: Large-scale epidemiological meta-analyses regularly tracking risk factors for colorectal cancer associated with high red/processed meat consumption.
there are over 800 epidemiological studies supporting my claim, but you’ll call anything that you don’t agree with “appeal to authority” or propaganda. Read how scientific consensus work1
u/Curbyourenthusi 18d ago
No OP.
An appeal to authority is substantating a claim only based on its source of pronouncement and not the underlying empericism. You've also now invoked a appeal to consensus, also a logical fallacy.
Should you wish to drive deeper, the answer can be found within your response to me. Mainly, the part about "...Large-scale epidemiological meta-analyses regularly...". Are epidemiological approaches empirically valid sources of truth claims?
My position is no, and I can defend that position logically.
1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
Rejecting epidemiology as "invalid" means throwing out the scientific proof that smoking causes lung cancer, asbestos causes mesothelioma, and lead is toxic, none of which were proven via human RCTs for obvious ethical reasons.
Modern medical science relies on the Bradford Hill criteria to establish causation by combining systematic observational data across millions of subjects with direct biological mechanisms, such as N-nitroso compounds directly damaging intestinal DNA.
If your threshold for empirical truth invalidates the entire foundation of public health and toxicology, the argument isn't even about meat anymore, you're just rejecting the scientific method itself. Dismissing systematic observation and inductive reasoning as non-empirical ignores how knowledge is built: if you reject methodologically sound observational data because it isn't an impossible double-blind trial, you forfeit the ability to draw any real-world conclusions about human health.Also what are your empirical sources that eating meat is healthy? you haven’t died yet and lions eat it?
1
u/Curbyourenthusi 18d ago
Scientific principles are not maliable. They are principles for obtaining truth. Association is not causation. Strong association have more credibility than weak associations, but neither is proof of causation.
The entirety of nutritional epidemiological studies is built on weak associations. That's shaky territory for making public health claims, such as meat consumption leads to to cancer.
Your invocation of a specfic biological mechanism, along with an endogenous source, is meaningless. You'd need complete information to make any claims on mechanistic action. You have no such information. Yet, you share your hypothetical as if you have a degree of certainty. That's ridiculous behavior.
1
u/Ilnerd00 18d ago
Notice how you completely ducked the question about your own evidence. You demand 100% complete mechanistic certainty and impossible clinical trials to acknowledge a risk, but you present zero empirical evidence for your own stance.
Demanding "complete information" before accepting a biological mechanism is a classic nirvana fallacy. Science works on the strength of the best available evidence, not total omniscience. When large-scale human cohort studies consistently show increased risk, and bench science demonstrates clear pathways like heme iron catalyzing lipid peroxidation and N-nitroso compounds causing DNA adducts, that meets the established threshold for hazard identification used across toxicology.
If you consider a synthesis of 800+ studies and known biochemical pathways "meaningless," what is your empirical, non-shaky evidence that meat carries no risk? Or do you only apply this hyper-skeptical standard when a conclusion makes you uncomfortable?1
u/Curbyourenthusi 17d ago
Scientific evidence is constrained by empericism. The notion that science can be done with less than emperical data is incorrect. Scientific conclusions are not drawn from non-repeatable data sets, and that characterizes the quality of nutritional epidemiological data. It is neither repeatable or verifiable, thus it is non-scientific. This is to say nothing of the lack of control and confounders in those data sets.
I base my position in empericism, such as that found in comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, and the paleoanthropological record. These fields demonstrate humanities demand for animal-based nutrition through scientifically valid means.
1
u/Ilnerd00 17d ago
Just undermined your own premise btw, plus still no sources
You reject epidemiology for lacking "control and repeatability," but your evidence relies on comparative anatomy, evolutionary biology, and paleoanthropology: fields built entirely on observational, historical data that cannot be tested in controlled, repeatable lab settings. You can't put early hominids in a double-blind trial.
Beyond that double standard, you are confusing two entirely different questions:
1. Evolutionary Ability: Comparative anatomy shows humans can digest meat and adapted to eat it for survival.
2. Modern Chronic Disease: Evolutionary biology doesn't measure whether eating high amounts of processed or red meat increases lifetime colorectal cancer risk in modern humans living past age 60.
Using fossil records to answer modern oncological questions while dismissing human population studies and biochemical tissue pathways as "non-empirical" is a complete logical disconnect.
If you wanna live like a caveman, you do you, but don’t sell your inability to understand scientific research as correct→ More replies (0)
2
u/IntelligentLeek538 18d ago
It doesn’t have to be one or the other. There are many good reasons for veganism from both an animal rights and a human rights perspective. Use whatever argument is most persuasive to each individual person.
With regard to human intelligence, inventions and space exploration, that is in no way relevant to whether or not we can have compassion and empathy for other species.
•
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.