failures art wrote:
But that's also a natural behavior as well. Animals 'prepare' their food all the time using different methods - cracking food open using tools is no different than using fire to prepare meat.
If you're going to discuss behavior factors in animals, then choose an example that demonstrates an animal augmenting its digestive ability. The only example that comes to mind is that rabbits eat, then ****, then eat their ****. They get their nutrients the second time around. If rabbits where to be able to manage tools that allowed for them to digest their food on the first pass, that would be a decent example. It would however be a demonstration of augmentation and would be a hard sell in terms of natural behavior.
Many different birds use rocks to break open shells, or drop shells from a height to make them accessible. That's an example of food preparation in the natural world right there.
That's not really food prep. If what they did made it so they ate the shell as well. What you're talking about is more about fitness in terms of accessibility to a food source. If the bird is in competition for a food supply with another animal that cannot crack open the shell, then that is it's fitness. It's not food prep as much as defeating the creature's defense (the shell). Should we consider food prep as a means to bypass a creatures defense? If so, then do we consider our uncooked selves to be a part of our natural defenses?
Nothing that humans do - nothing - is 'unnatural.' All of our abilities and decisions are expressions of who we are as animals. If other animals knew how to use fire to cook food, they'd do it too. I think what you are pointing out here is a false distinction.
If nothing can be unnatural, then the word natural loses all meaning. Why say that eating meat is natural? The term is meaningless. Eating cardboard is then natural.
Yes, you're correct. Nothing is unnatural. The word HAS no meaning. It is an artifice, a false construction, designed to draw a distinction which really doesn't exist.
If you've listened to my reasoning, I'm not basing my choice on natural/unnatural. It simply is unnecessary to eat, and I find no further desire to. There is no imperative that I must eat animals and given that, along with the reality that to eat something I don't need something must suffer and die, I don't.
If other animals knew how to use fire they would. This is essentially what I said RE: a deer eating you or I. I think you downplay the role tech augmentation plays in our ability to digest meat. I'm not really on board to call that natural. That said, I don't think that something by virtue of being unnatural excludes us from use. Certainly the internet augments our communication abilities far beyond our ability to speak and hear. That said, it would be absurd to say that we are designed for the internet.
Why? The internet is a technological advancement of our natural monkey tendency to blather and babble at each other all day. It is fundamentally no different than any other information stream. I think we ARE designed for the internet; the fact that within 20 years of its' inception, the entire modern world is completely and totally dependent on it, is proof enough of that. It's like we were waiting for it all along.
But this frames the relationship backwards. We aren't designed for the internet, the internet was designed to us. We can agree we has a neccesity to communicate, but if a person was to reject the internet because they found it unnecessary, they would not be doing an action that is adverse to their nature.
Only if you somehow attempt to divorce animal behaviors from the animals who engage in them.
Can you reiterate? I couldn't quite follow how this fit in regards to what I wrote. Thanks.
It's not un-natural to eat meat, even if you have to cook it first. It's perfectly natural.
You just addressed the weakness of the distinction of natural and unnatural.
There's plenty of evidence that humans were cooking and eating meat dozens of thousands of years before writing or communication. It is a fundamental part of who our species is.
"Who our species is" is a interesting phrase. I'm not sure what to make of it. I think you refer to adaptations made to a environment so radically different than our own. Certainly our environment should factor into such a philosophical entity as "who we are."
Besides, it's not just 'meat' we're talking about here. What about Eggs? You can eat them raw without much problem, and those are by any measurement, meat.
Meat is very specifically muscle tissue. Eggs have animal protein, but should not be called meat. That said, I don't eat eggs. I'd have no issue with free range eggs on a moral level, but my exclusion is based more on health. The same applies for dairy.
I think that part of this conversation revolves around the idea that there is some sort of universal moral standard that we have to live up to, which I don't really agree with.
I don't think there is a universal moral standard. This is where I disagree with big stew. For example, the Native Americans relationship with animals was one where they did give animals moral standing. They treated animals as scared and thought they had to share the land equally with them. The natives did still eat meat. The idea the moral standing alone leads to vegetarianism is not something I've endorsed.
Every bit of evidence we can see shows that animals eat each other on a regular basis, and predators - such as, say, me - eat meat on a regular basis. I don't know what could be more moral than following the course of nature and continuing to do what I evolved to do.
Suggesting that there is a course, or that by only eating plants we are off course is a hard sell. You are correct that many animals have a predatory relationship. Only one animal has a mercenary relationship with other though. Viewing ourselves as predators is one thing, but we still are using our gathering skills to acquire meat in a grocery. Very few humans feed themselves using these predatory skills.