Anything about anthropocentrism

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,336
Florania
#32
Yep I'm from a hunting family,wanna come along?

Sent from my victara using Tapatalk
Want for the freshest meat and seafood has continued, especially the live seafoods!
OK, I'm not a vegetarian yet, but I still have some tendencies towards going vegetarian.
 
Jul 2016
181
Somewhere far, far away...
#33
Well, anthropocentrism is kind of right in a biological sense, as well. After all, the law of nature is basically "what's strongest, what's fittest, what's best survives". The fact that humans tick all the boxes there would be what justifies a "human-centric world".

I mean, even other animals and plants are politically and socially represented by humans. It's actually only humans, not even other organisms, that oppose the anthropocentric view. Perhaps that in of itself is proof of human "superiority".

At the end of the day, humans were just by far the most successful at nature's game. Humans have a choice about what they do, and other organisms for the most part don't. That's why humans take more than they need from the environment. That's about it, really.
 
#35
Why do all discussions about animal welfare turn into discussions about different kinds of meat dishes? I think it's rather immature. If we were having a discussion about Bangladeshi sweatshops, would you make light of it and start talking about your favourite brands of running shoes and baseball caps?

To be honest I have much respect for people who are raised in a rural background and know how their food gets onto their plate, I went to school with them and I've been out in the hills and forests with them. I disagree with them on the matter of animal treatment but otherwise I can get on with them. But it's 'macho' city types who can go a year without ever seeing any animal other than a rat, pigeon or chihuahua, who would burst into tears if they ever saw how their Bolognese was made, and have no concept of the lives of people less priveleged than themselves (human or animal) that I find rather pathetic.
 

Von Ranke

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
6,377
Thistleland
#36
Why do all discussions about animal welfare turn into discussions about different kinds of meat dishes? I think it's rather immature. If we were having a discussion about Bangladeshi sweatshops, would you make light of it and start talking about your favourite brands of running shoes and baseball caps?

To be honest I have much respect for people who are raised in a rural background and know how their food gets onto their plate, I went to school with them and I've been out in the hills and forests with them. I disagree with them on the matter of animal treatment but otherwise I can get on with them. But it's 'macho' city types who can go a year without ever seeing any animal other than a rat, pigeon or chihuahua, who would burst into tears if they ever saw how their Bolognese was made, and have no concept of the lives of people less priveleged than themselves (human or animal) that I find rather pathetic.
Animal welfare is obviously a very important issue for you and while I do eat meat and fish I actually care about how they are treated before they end up on my plate. While I respect your views and empathise with them, up to a point, I do not see how throwing two straw men, sweatshop labour and the dichotomy of attitudes between metropolitan and rural, into the debate advances your cause. Mankind has always had an ambivalent relationship with animals and our favourable treatment of dogs, horses and hawks were borne out of our need to employ them in the hunt. Eating meat is in our DNA and none of us would be here today if our ancestors relied on a vegetarian diet for their subsistence. So, while I agree that the improvement of farming techniques in the West has allowed us the luxury of a choice in what we eat, I cannot ever envision us choosing en masse a herbivorian alternative.
 
#38
Animal welfare is obviously a very important issue for you and while I do eat meat and fish I actually care about how they are treated before they end up on my plate. While I respect your views and empathise with them, up to a point, I do not see how throwing two straw men, sweatshop labour and the dichotomy of attitudes between metropolitan and rural, into the debate advances your cause. Mankind has always had an ambivalent relationship with animals and our favourable treatment of dogs, horses and hawks were borne out of our need to employ them in the hunt. Eating meat is in our DNA and none of us would be here today if our ancestors relied on a vegetarian diet for their subsistence.
Speak for yourself, my ancestors lived in India and subsisted on a vegetarian diet for centuries. Actually in the past meat was not eaten nearly as regularly as it is now, after the invention of agriculture sedentary peoples cut most of the meat from their diets, with the exception of the idle rich. Apart from anything else, the average peasant could grow their own crops, but often had to pay for meat, notwithstanding the odd rabbit, fish or gamebird that they caught. Plus there were religious restrictions in various places at various times. Not just in India but also in Medieval Europe, when hundreds of days in the year were fast days where eating meat other than fish was not permitted.

Eating meat is not hugely healthy, we can't actually digest it fully because we are not really natural carnivores. It's quite recently in our evolutionary history that we (hominids) started eating meat, and we are far from being 'designed' with it in mind. We just have the minor adaptations needed to allow us to cope with it. Compare us to any obligate carnivore, like cats, and we come out very badly. We can't even eat raw meat: imagine explaining to a tiger that you are a carnivore who can't eat raw meat. They'd laugh you out of the room.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions