Nothing special here, just a random article: http://www.livescience.com/animals/09111...sushi.html

"When you eat sushi, you can unknowingly get a critically endangered species on your plate," said Jacob Lowenstein, a graduate student affiliated with the American Museum of Natural History in New York and Columbia University. "But with an increasingly popular technique, DNA barcoding, it is a simple process for researchers to see just what species are eaten at a sushi bar."

I have a feeling I'm not getting endangered tuna at either the 100 yen sushi joint or at my local supermarket.

That article is about American restaurants mislabeling tuna btw.

Go and watch The Cove (http://thecovemovie.com/). Nothing to add.

@Yoga: The only reason not to eat dolphin is the high mercury content.

Is mercury ferrous? maybe strong electromagnets can make it nomnom good.

I disagree. You may have philosophical reason, as well as ecological reason too.
Another thing you may know is that doplhin is illegally sold under under product names in Japan, not to scare people with the idea of eating Japanese. I'd better stop here coz such debates are too complex and exciting not to spend the whole day defending one point of view or the other.

Philosophical reasons are personal and thus should be kept to oneself. I can tell you to stop drinking water because I worship it as a god for example. As I said in the whale discussion, objecting to the eating of one type of meat and not another (for philosophical reasons) is hypocrisy. I hope you're a vegan.

Ecological reasons are valid, if there actually are ecological reasons. The dolphins (and whales) that Japan hunts are not endangered according to wiki (all rated Least Concern).

Food for thought: should someone have a philosophy that goes against slavery keep that philosophy for himself? I'm glad that our ancestors did not do it that way. That's only one example.

dolphins aren't people

YogaSpirit Wrote:Food for thought: should someone have a philosophy that goes against slavery keep that philosophy for himself? I'm glad that our ancestors did not do it that way. That's only one example.

For that analogy to be worth anything, that someone would have to be against slavery of one race (whites), but pro (or apathetic about) slavery of another race (blacks).

..and that just proves my point for me.

You can either accept that you kill living things for sustenance (cows/chickens/pigs/dolphins), or you can pretend that you are morally superior by killing only the non-cute/non-lovable animals. The third option is to be vegan. I can respect that position. I don't like the fact that animals die to feed me, but meat is so delicious and nutritious.

For the analogy equivalent of that conclusion, a person who believes in slavery of only "inferior races" is worse than a person who believes in slavery for all, since they are not just a slaver but also a racist making judgements about which life is worth more.. The third option is to not have any slaves. I can respect that position. I don't like the fact that slaves pick my cotton, but it's so cheap and efficient.

Yes the universal slaver/universal eater isn't the most moral of the three, but at least they aren't immoral AND hypocritical.

(I couldnt find actual footage of the simpsons episode wtf @ youtube)

But yes they are shady, they're going to take over

Not having played a 3d game in 3 years or so, I forgot how awful the cameras are in most platformers. ugh

I feel bad eating any animal with a central nervous system personally.

But, since I absolutely adore French cuisine, my morality on the issue goes out the window whenever I go to a nice restaurant

Jarvik7, it makes perfect sense to have different standards for different categories of living things. A bacteria is a living organism too, just because I think it's OK to kill bacterias doesn't mean I think it's OK to kill all living creatures. Ultimately all morality is arbitrary.

As for the hypocrisy argument, that's also very weak. First, why is hypocrisy considered the ultimate flaw? Should we all be carrying our ideas to the extreme just to avoid being 'hypocrites' ? Nope, it's just a convenient way to attack someone else beliefs, since it's impossible in practice to reasonably apply a single standard to everything you can always just point out an incoherence, say that's hypocrisy and avoid debating the real issues.

Codexus Wrote:Jarvik7, it makes perfect sense to have different standards for different categories of living things. A bacteria is a living organism too, just because I think it's OK to kill bacterias doesn't mean I think it's OK to kill all living creatures. Ultimately all morality is arbitrary.

We already have some sort of different standards. I would say we make a big difference between vertebrates (especially mammals) and invertebrates. No one cares about dead invertebrates (e.g. your bacterias) but does it really make sense to make a big distinction between the different mammals because some are more intelligent than others (the looking cute factor aside)?

Besides that, the classification is already flawed. Some of the most intelligent species in the ocean and the most intelligent invertebrates are the octopuses and most people don't know or don't care. There are only few laws that give them some sort of special status comparable to the one vertebrates have.

Codexus Wrote:First, why is hypocrisy considered the ultimate flaw?

I didn't say it was the ultimate flaw, it just compounds the other flaw.

You can be a vegan.
You can be a killer.
You can be a killer AND a hypocrite.

Rank those as you wish.

*Note: I am not vegan nor vegetarian. Meat nomnomnom

People don't care about dead bacteria because they cannot be seen. You cannot tell if you've killed one or not. Your immune system is killing hundreds of them every second. You crush a good number to death just by walking or touching things or blinking or breathing. They are for all intents and purposes, non-existant (unless they start killing you).

Insects would be a better example, but killing insects seems to be instinctual. We are hard-wired to fear them since a good percentage of them either spread disease (rodents count here too since they bear insects) or are poisonous. That said, there are those who will not kill them for moral reasons (ex: serious Buddhists). Anything bigger gets you into omnivore territory.

If classifying animals into "ok to eat" and "not ok to eat", the classification should at least not be arbitrary. Pigs are smart too, so are crows. Sure people don't really eat crows, but would you throw a fit if people in Lithuania were chowing down? Isn't your classification really just "loveable" and "not loveable"? If so, that's subjective. I don't have any special love for dolphins, so I should have your blessing to eat them yes?

Eating monkey would probably throw me the most, since they are just a couple steps down from human. But I'd just find it creepy/gross, not immoral (though many monkey species are endangered so it wouldn't be eco).

IceCream Wrote:im not sure if killing insects is instinctual at all. Most insects aren't a risk to humans at all. And, they are the most useful living beings on the earth (aside from bacteria maybe). If there were no insects, the world would be a total state.

I think the majority of the "EEEEK, KILL IT QUICK!" bugs are of the disease spreading or poisonous varieties.

Most spiders aren't poisonous to humans, but most people don't know which are and which aren't (I certainly don't), so they tend to kill them on sight.

Any insect that bites or stings humans can spread disease, either blood borne (ex: mosquitoes) or bacteria borne (ex: ticks). Butterflies, ladybugs, and grasshoppers are harmless. No one really shrieks and rushes to kill them. Bugs certainly aren't cute or super intelligent, but we aren't killing them for food (usually), we just don't like them.

IceCream Wrote:I do totally support the idea of killing of all wasps however. Horrible parasitic evil things.

... which for some of us can potentially be deadly.

I try not to kill any insects, the only ones I do kill are flies, only when they're in my room whilst studying.

If someone kills a bee I start crying. I love bees and ants, they are so adorable. Cockroaches are cute sometimes.

When I was taking care of a pet lizard for a few months, I learnt to catch cockroaches and other pests quite well. After that I grew fond of them.

I only ever met one wasp, and I killed it, when I was young I thought wasps made syrup because my powerful 6 year old brain deduced that if bees make honey, wasps must make syrup.


Life story.

Goodness, I didn't realize this thread would take such a tangent.

Save a dolphin. Eat baby.

I don't understand the all or nothing perspective: that it's hypocrisy to be selective in what animals we eat. I also don't understand the idea that one's opinions should be kept private.

For some, reason and ethics are factors in their food decisions and in possible advocacy. One doesn't have to believe that all killing of animals is wrong in order to be selective and recommend better solutions for the what, when, how, who and how much. People are capable of balancing cultural, economic, health, ecological, animal rights, etc. (ie. the conclusions are usually based on more than just cuteness or intelligence.) Without discussion of these often competing interests, there would be no improvements in any areas. We should be grateful that some people raise awareness of, for example, the human health hazards and animal treatment issues involved in modern factory farming. Or fishing methods that needlessly waste other animal lives. Trying to silence them with cocky condescension, a flabby argument and oversimplification doesn't add much value imo.

I eat less meat than the average Canadian primarily for health reasons. But I'm also concerned on a more macro level about environmental, public health and animal treatment issues. I support local farmers who treat animals better, don't inject them with garbage and minimize waste. I stopped eating fois gras after learning how it's being produced (unnecessary suffering for unnecessary food.) I ate dog with a Burmese tribe, but I won't eat veal in Canada. The list goes on... you get the idea.

We take into account the type of animal when we decide the appropriate way to kill them. It's not such a stretch to consider suffering in determining which animals we want to eat and under what circumstances. It's also reasonable to elect not to eat certain animals if obtaining them requires the killing of other animals. I don't consider myself a hypocrite for making such informed decisions. It has nothing to do with veganism or vegetarianism.

From what I can interpret, it is not hypocrisy to select what you eat. And presenting your options to others regarding what we eat may or may not be hypocritical.

The line of hypocrisy depends on a simple thing: with what attitude, and reasoning, do we present our views of the world to others? In the act of presenting them, do we end up demeaning or censoring different views, or are we willing to listen to them in the same amount as we expect them to listen to us?

Killing a whale, or a bacteria, or a convicted criminal, or an innocent bystander does not cease to be killing. The only thing that changes is the justifications that are presented for each of these killings.

Since human beings often act based on previous training, cultural brainwash, or instinct/impulse/emotion, obviously they have to find a logical reasoning later to support these largely irrational and emotional acts. This leads to inconsistencies, contradictions, and fractured points of view.

If we analyse things from a broad perspective, most human actions, when taken as a whole, are quite contradictory from a purely logical point of view. The idea of having integrity, of keeping a consistent principle in motion during the course of one`s life, is impossible (in my view) to truly realise in practice. It is often the smallest, most apparently innocuous actions, that reveal contradictions regarding some big principle that we chose to follow. Everything can change, if the contextual circumstances change.

Why am I even mentioning this? Because of the attitude that too many of us will carry along, when entering a debate. There`s a lot of negative energy, because people seem to imply that their reasoning for consuming certain types of food instead of others is universally right.

The problem with this is that people naturally change, and have the right to. I am not the same person as I was 5 years ago, and in 5 years` time, I hope I am not exactly the same person I am today.

But I see so many enter these types of debates with a righteous attitude. They will completely defend their point of view to the bone, in a desperate attempt to prove "they are right", completely oblivious to the fact that in 5 years time, they might completely change their mind. And in the meantime, so much negative energy has been created and wasted in pointless debates that lead to nowhere. Because people can either choose to "be right, and have the last word", or demonstrate sympathy, affection and a willingness to truly listen.

Therefore, if we have principles, great, state them to the world, but even as we pronounce them, let`s not condemn others for choosing differently, especially if our own logic is contradictory and potentially flawed. The very moment that I decide to claim fault on another country or culture, my own cultural inconsistencies will become tremendously apparent to others. Especially when we try to cast blame.

The reality is, we are all co-creating, directly or indirectly, a great amount of damage to living species. Even many of those who are vegan will make use of services or industries that themselves, create poisonous substances, modify the land, or interfere with hundreds of thousands of ecosystems and living species. If we use paper, if we use the very internet, we are indirectly inflicting damage, because of all the infrastructures that had to be placed to make this a reality.

Seeing things from this global perspective, it makes things particularly frustrating, if in a debate we continuously blame another culture or person for the problems which, in a very concrete way, we are also responsible as well. While bashing others, failure to acknowledge the things that we ourselves might do as well to help will inevitably expose our inconsistencies and render our point moot. The people who might be willing to work with us will now work against us, because we isolated them.

If we don`t want to eat carrot, and our parents say "you should eat carrot because it`s healthy", and they say this in context of having just eaten really unhealthy things, and having a generally unhealthy lifestyle, that completely undermines the original effort, its hard not to pinpoint the contradiction inherent in such a statement. This is the trap that most debates fall into.

For a debate to be successful, both parties must assume that they individually do not hold all the answers, that their views are inherently incomplete, that there is something to be learned, that extends both of their reasonings. And they must be willing to listen.

If these factors are not present, then most of the debates end up becoming quite obvious displays of hypocrisy in bigger or smaller amounts.

Debate on consumption of meat is a difficult topic, which makes me all the more surprised to see the righteous manner in which is approached by so many people.

however, I am happy that in this forum, people really try to be civil most of the time, compared to most other places.

I would eat a baby if I could get away with it, and I knew it taste like bacon.

Dolphins eat fish, and whales eat krill, they obviously don't give a shit. In fact, killer whales (orcas) will eat YOU, given a chance,

I think the distinction is that dolphins are carnivorous, therefore they are not an easily sustainable type of meat. People usually only farm herbivorous (or omnivorous) animals because they require less energy to provide the same amount of meat. That's why even in cultures where they eat carnivores, it is a delicacy and not an everyday staple, like dogs in Korea. If people wanted to eat dog all day they would first have to farm some different kind of meat animal to feed to the dogs.

Anyway, I agree it's a bit different in the sea, however dolphins are pretty high in the food chain, I suspect they eat tuna which in turn eat smaller fish. So it's probably not very sustainable to eat dolphins, and if you allow it pretty quickly they will be gone I think.

bebio Wrote:Debate on consumption of meat is a difficult topic, which makes me all the more surprised to see the righteous manner in which is approached by so many people.

however, I am happy that in this forum, people really try to be civil most of the time, compared to most other places.

Romeo slew him, he slew Mercutio. Who now the price of his dear blood doth owe?

SB Wrote:Dolphins eat fish, and whales eat krill, they obviously don't give a shit. In fact, killer whales (orcas) will eat YOU, given a chance,

Mercy but murders, pardoning those that kill.

sempai Wrote:I don't understand the all or nothing perspective:

Go vegan... or don't complain. One hypocrisy in no greater or worse than another... is what he's saying. One might find dolphins friendly where as another completely idolized and worship a cow. Then both these individuals will sit down and enjoy the flesh of some other animal. That's nature.