I believe yes, because killing is itself a violent act and if it is involved in the process of making food, it will definitely makes them more violent.
Violence isn't inherently bad. Animals fight and kill each other all the time and in their own way it is to honor their spirit. It is to be what they are meant to be and it is partly the way that they build strength into their species.
I don't think there are very many people who kill animals, whether farmers or hunters, who feel any wickedness in their hearts for what they do. In fact, I know a lot of hunters who have and feel a special bond with the animals they hunt and kill.
Also, vegetables aren't blood free. Factory farming plant food requires diversions of water, applications of pesticides and fertilizers, energy for farm machinery, transportation, etc. all of which causes significant environmental harm (including killing creatures). Your vegetarian meal kills animals too, you just don't have any direct evidence of it.
None of this means we can't and shouldn't talk about limiting the damage we do to the world via food production, but some of the more 'natural' ways of producing food, in my opinion, include free range grazing and permaculture, both of which would use and kill animals.
The world is a place of brutal competition. As living creatures we all take up space and that bubble of space is maintained with violence. There is no way to avoid it. Many of us don't see it though because we exist so far inside a greater bubble of 'civilization' that we have no connection to the violent edge. That doesn't mean it isn't there. Heck, even the energy to power our computers to talk about this causes pollution that kills life. It is just out of site and easy to ignore.
Violence is entirely bad we accepting it or not is our choice. Animals are designed that way to kill animals and there anatomy describes it all. It is actually punishment given to them by the god for there bad deeds in there pre birth.
how can someone kill the one to whom he has special affection inspite the other option (plants and trees) available for food,excluding exception like antartica which is not a ideal habitat. Without bringing wickedness and violence you can't kill.
Main purpose in applying fertilizer and pesticides is to protect crops not killing pests. it is similar to condition in which a person attack someone for protecting himself whereas if you go for killing for fulfilling your needs then it is just reverse.
True, there is no way to avoid killing, we walk several insects get killed, even breathing result in killing of micro organism, all this things do not have the purpose for killing but actually it is for survival, purpose in this situation is entirely different whereas meat eaters are aware that brutal killing is involved in the type of food they eat , plant base food is available but then also they go for that. Most of people raise the question that plant also has life, true, but they don't move like animals , they have less senses lesser the number of senses least you will sense them or feel them, they are harvested when they are ripened (last stage of there life) unlike animals which are killed when they are flesh full and young, fruits even do not require cutting tree we just have to go for ripened fruit, all this reason are sufficient to put them in the minimum violence category. I think that should be our approach in life, we should survive destroying the survival of the least .Our approach should be always for non violence, the maximum violence you can avoid, better you are doing for others creature of the ecosystem
Live and let other live
If that is your faith, than so be it. I am not going to argue about faith. A lot of people, including me, believe differently.The main purpose in hunting and slaughtering animals isn't to kill animals. It is to provide sustenance to maintain life. The death of the animal is incidental. Things like pesticides may not be MEANT to kill animals, they still do. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Both are food production systems meant to provide food that incidentally kills animals.
I don't really disagree with your ultimate conclusion. I cringe when people stomp on bugs for no reason and when I live on my own and buy/prepare my own food I am largely vegetarian. I like the idea of lowering the impact we have on the world, I just don't agree that limiting violence necessarily limits that impact. People do all sorts of things that are entirely non-violent but have significant consequences on the environment. Mostly I think this is a result of being completely disconnected from activities and the ultimate consequence of those activities. We use lots of energy, we don't really directly see the consequence of air pollution. We eat lots of plant food, we don't really see the consequence of run-off from agricultural lands that pollute and kill lakes and rivers, etc.
I also think it is relatively futile to focus too much on individual interactions. What we really need to compare is entire food production SYSTEMS. Only by looking at systems can we begin to compare costs and benefits of different systems. I would much rather, for instance, eat meat from free-range animals than eat factory farmed vegetables. In my opinion, the more natural system is better for the world and for the animals that live in it.
If we were to compare systems, perhaps we find that the free-range grazing system kills 80 animals and the factory farmed vegetable system kills 100. Wouldn't the grazing system, then be better? You still may not agree because you evidently believe that the face-to-face killing of an animal contains some form of moral evil. Not everyone does. I find far more nobility in looking a beast in the eye and taking its life than I do in watching an animal waste away from drinking water that I poisoned. That is a kind of violence too.
The death of animal will be incidental only if you don't mean to kill them. There is a big difference between prevention and attacking. Applying pesticide is for preventing crop from damaging,slaughtering involves direct killing. Intention are different in both cases and that only is the biggest difference. A lie said for good cause is not that bad compared to said intentionally for protection and selfishness. Our intentions makes our reality. Vegetarians also sustain there life without slaughtering animal, only thing required is the sacrifice, thinking something about the other creature as.well. They are not sent for your food actually you adapted it. If we can survive by plants easily and efficiently then why go for animal killing.
Pollution is a big problem for whole world, even livestock farming causes pollution, scientist are trying there best to limit these problem.Such problem are not under our control, minimizing can be done although if we go for natural techniques for farming plants.
Slaughtering animal for food is disturbing the natural system the most, because it not only increases the grazing animal population by livestock farming but it is also limiting the land for plantation by limiting the demand of plant based food which is ultimately causing global warming. Our natural food is the plant based and it is also more efficient too. Our digestive system is designed similar to a herbivore, eating non veg stuff makes your digestive system adapt that food which is the reason why one feels heavy and passive after eating non veg.if you want to know more visit on hub Humans Were Not Created To Eat Meat - Vegetarian Diet Is Healthier.
how nobility can be seen in killing animal for the selfishness. If one cares for that animal then why he is killing that creature. He is killing for his own sake, there are plant based food available go for those if you care for that creature, save him. Nobility is in protecting the creature not in killing.Nobility is in applying effort to prevent the water pollution and protect that animal if one feels so. Also number of animal that dies due to pollution are much lesser compared to slaughtering process.
sorry, but that's just scientifically silly - the natural world is full of violence, and humans evovled as carnvores - an indivudual's choice not to eat meat is just that, but it certainly doesnt place them on any higher moral plane.
I disagree with you, I know some vegans that hate humans, I know some omni's that love humans.
I'm vegan but that doesn't mean my hands are free of bloodshed.
Very true. Quite frankly, there are too many people in the world who have nothing to eat to be harping on WHAT people eat.
When you think about it. The privilege to live a purely vegan lifestyle is a uniquely first-world perk. In other places you eat what you can get. If goat meat is the only locally available source of protein then you eat goat. If you're lucky it won't turn you into a ravenous blood-drinking caveman.
Very true and people don't think about it or choose to just ignore it but we have a lot of people here in this country who have to eat what they can get. If one chooses to be a vegetarian that's fine but we have millions of people here in the USA who don't have that choice.
They either eat what is put in front of them or go to bed hungry. I personally would get damn angry if I had nothing to eat. And I see these people every day. I'm saddened by it and work hard just to feed as many people a day as we can.
Actually i said that killing makes them more violent, i didn't said that it makes them violent. there is a difference in both the statement and that difference is actually my question. Its possible that vegan may also have violent nature but its actually there choice, its similar to brahmans in our country who goes for meat eating in spite the fact that in there religion meat eating is prohibited.
I still disagree with your premise, It's a non sequitur.
Omni's know that when projecting violence on a human that they are being violent with a cognitve, self aware, sentient being, when being violent towards non human food animals, they don't think of them as cognitive, thinking, self aware etc, for omni's there's no difference between bacon or a potato.
First of all i would like to say that human are not omnivore s they are herbivores. Some facts relating to this can be found in
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html . You can not say that animals cannot think or they are not self aware. Every creature has brain and they knows how to survive and what is good for them. Point is you don't think of them as cognitive, thinking, self aware etc They oppose your actions of killing them with there best efforts which is sufficient for you to realize that you are doing wrong. We do not understand there language doesn't mean that we can't feel them. We use animal as a pet which describes our cognitive behavior towards animal.
I'm going to point you to a fellow hubber. They have a series of hubs on this topic. http://wildrosebeef.hubpages.com/hub/Th … ate-Part-5
As with many of your posts here you are completely off base, making claims that may make you feel better but are false.
You do not have the teeth of a herbivore and you don't have the digestive system of a herbivore. While it is possible to survive on a vegan diet, it is quite difficult and if you had to grow it all yourself it would probably be impossible.
Man is an omnivore, whether that makes you feel bad about your humanity or not.
It's just instinct, plants have been shown to signal each other using various chemicals and also react negaticely to being cut, an air conditioner reacts to the warm weather outside by switching to a colder regulated preset temperature, does that make the air conditioner cognitive? food animals are the same they may look like they are afraid of being killed but they are just automatonic, they don't understand the ending of thier life, they just go through the motions by instinct.
Humans are omnivores, we have the ability to process small amounts of animal product without any significant negative side effects, for instance are you telling me that if someone ate bacon twice a week (say 3 slices each time) that they will go out and murder someone?
I don't think that in itself would make a human more violent.
I don't eat a lot of meat. I think the way animals are kept, fed and slaughtered affects the quality and safety of the food.
So does that mean surgeons who cut people open are more likely to be violent, too?
Actually, the jury is still out on this one.
There have been studies that have shown that excess consumption of red meat can cause increased violence, but it was due to the chemical content of the meat.
There have also been studies showing that it makes no difference at all.
However, last week a Harvard University Study was released that revealed that those who eat only red meat with the meals as opposed to white meat (fish, poultry) have a 12% shorter life expectancy.
How shall I encourage meaningful discussion and garner respect for my vegan worldview?
I know! I'll harshly judge the other 97% of the population based on a vague philosophical argument with no basis in fact!
You ever try to kill something to eat. You can't just walk up and finesse it into steaks, chops and hamburger. One question. If we are intended to be vegetarians, why do we have canines which are made for rending meat?
All answers required to change your conception is present in this website in a descriptive way. http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html.. Waiting for ur response
When I pass a farm, I begin to salivate uncontrollably, and all I wanna do is jump out, attack the nearest living thing and devour it on the spot. Mmmmm. If a vegetarian dies...what kind of zombie do they make?
Maybe not, we are responsible for our violent acts, so we can process the consequences of our action! Are there scientific researches about predisposition of non vegetarian people to be more violent?
I get cranky if I eat too much meat. There must be a happy meatium.
And I get cranky if I don't get enough. I'm with you - there is a happy meatium between carnivore and herbivore.
lol I need meat....I tried going vegetarian and couldn't handle it
I'm in the same boat. I literally don't feel satisfied if I go without animal protein for too long, even if I eat other protein sources like nuts and beans.
But I'm eating a lot leaner meat than I used to, and I haven't beaten an innocent man to death and drank his blood in several days so I think I have my primitive meat-eating barbarian urges well under control.
I'll be eating meat until the day I die, which should be at about the same age as a vegan, all other factors being the same.
Yep. We used to have some vegetarian friends who would invite us for dinner occasionally. I always had to stop at Mickie D's on the way home for supper - a dinner without dead animal isn't a meal and I just stay hungry.
I may be bloated with rabbit food, barely able to walk and loosening my belt, but still hungry.
I would say that even if there were a proven link between vegetarianism and non-violence it's probably because people who choose vegetarianism may do so as part of an overall peaceful or pacifistic lifestyle. A correlation doesn't imply a cause-effect relationship.
Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian?
That is irrelevant . We grow them men.we don't eat all there food. We eat that much which is sufficient for our survival. Also I don't think you are concerned about animals so your link makes very little sense. Knowledge is better caught then taught.....
Our intention makes our reality. Reason for which most of the Vegan don't go for meat is because they find animal killing inappropriate. Many non vegan turn into vegan for the same reason. This is, cause effect relationship. If any body do not see any bad in killing animal for food then that is actually a violent behavior. Adolf Hitler may have believed that a vegetarian diet could both alleviate personal health problems and bring about a spiritual regeneration. Even it is also said that he is very concerned about animals. But his goal in life, to be a dictator, made him brutal. His choice made him violent and to go for killing human like non vegans choice making them to go for animal killing
Hitler was a vegetarian. Martin Luther King ate meat There may be arguments for vegetarianis, but nonviolence isn't one of them
of course, as would any of our australopithicene ancestors up through nomadic societies around the world. very few societies have the comfortable option of forgoing meat, [while most also consumed less than the American meat heavy diet]. today, it is a serious option, but arguing on moral or ethical grounds doesnt hold up
by Michelle Zunter2 years ago
More gun violence very close to where I live yesterday. Most weapons, including guns, are available to anyone in this country at any given time. But what about the people who are using the guns? Are they mentally ill?...
by Uplifterx5 years ago
I never figured out, despite my experience of living a lifespan of 45 years, why humans kill and torture animals for food. Why do Muslims and Christians still practice killing animals for meat? Is that allowed in their...
by crankalicious4 weeks ago
We've had three mass killings (that we've heard about) in the last month. Here they are:1. Las Vegas - Oct. 1 - a man using various guns kills 58 people and injures another 546.2. New York - Oct. 31 - a man uses a truck...
by hinckles koma8 years ago
Can someone explain the difference, and what is actually better for health?
by abentley6 years ago
I had never had non-vegeterian diet as my parents were vegeterian. So, I would like to ask here that whether eating non-vegetarian diet would be okay for me or would it harm my digestive system any ways.
by Medkh97 years ago
There is so much violence in our movies now than ever before , so much horror , killing and blood , what do you expect from a society whose kids are exposed to all these kinds of threats ? we are looking at future...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.