Vegetarianism and veganism, an urban trend?

Vegetarians and vegans aim to reduce what they call exploitation and abuse of animals by adopting another diet, or at least it appears to be their main goal. Vegetarians don't eat any meat, but vegans' case is even more extreme because they don't consume any animal related aliments. I also took note people who support vegetarianism sometimes adopt the lifestyle partially, and they eat meat once in a while. There's absolutely nothing wrong with it since meat is delicious. However, I wouldn't call them vegetarians, but they're supporters nonetheless. I have no bias towards these people, but I always had a feeling this is only an urban trend. Did their efforts deliver results?



According to this data it seems like the complete opposite of their goal is happening, and that could be tied to factors such as world population growing, and mass consumption, which clearly is one of the causes of morbid obesity.

It is indeed an urban trend, as shown by the overrepresentation of vegetarians in urban areas as well as rich countries. Not that they don't make valid points on certain topics, for example on the environmental impact of meat consumption, even though the true underlying issue here is overpopulation and nothing else, there just shouldn't be so many humans on the planet. I disagree however on the ethical aspect of the debate, as I believe it's in the natural order of things for us to eat animals as long as we avoid any unnecessary cruelty, of course.

I think veganism especially is pretty urban too, even just this year so many chains have tried their hand in joining in on Veganuary and giving some interesting vegan options. Like apparently dehydrating a piece of watermelon can somehow taste like a type of tuna. Or how some KFC branches in the UK now have a vegan option, meaning it was the first time I ate a main in a KFC since 2002 (yep, been a vegetarian for that long). I'm fascinated by the science in the way some alternative ingredients are made and how cheap they're slowly getting, like aquafaba for example. I don't hold it against people who do still enjoy meat and I give my partner the choice on whether he'd want me to cook him something like tacos with chicken or with jackfruit or whatever, but at the same time I've straight up been told by meat eaters that they prefer using say Quorn mince over regular beef mince for various reasons.

I don't intend on going full on vegan anytime soon but I do like to experiment with vegan alternatives now that they're there and getting cheaper.

Too much junk food, meat or no meat, piles on the pounds though!

I'm curious as to whether one day it'll be possible to grow cultured meat that tastes the same as the real thing, and at a reasonable cost. There may be a few relatively acceptable substitutes for well cooked minced meat, but when you're used to having your steak extra-rare, it's a whole different story!

I get asked this quite a lot and I'd probably only decide to try a lab grown "meat" if we can all be assured it really did come from say a stem cell and not a whole carcass, and if it's completely safe to eat down the line (ie won't poison, set off digestive disorders etc).

If I can give my views on it.
I think veganism/vegetarianism is a very important principle.
As pointed out I think the trend won't get mainstream anytime soon. There are a lot of borders too. Money, places to get vegan products. etc.

I also think the moral aspect is justified. Saying "it's just natural for us" is appeal to nature and it's a very popular argument. We actually have instincts which are rather bad. Jealousy and here and there wishes to lie or some even wish to kill under certain cases. No one tries to say "well it's natural, therefore morally ok". We managed to get some under control. Well... crime rates and war exist xd.

There is also a giant double standard/double moral almost everyone uses. cognitive dissonance is the norm here, not the exception. (even vegans and vegetarians but lesser). Assuming current meat sources.

I ate a vegetarian burger and it tasted really good. I also think animals that simply died (road death or age idk) are ok to eat as it is about efficiency. So I don't think meat will vanish but hopefully a more human approach is done.

I think biggest success will be when it doesn't threaten to remove all meat, just replace it with ethical sources. This could solve moral issues.

I hope one day to be in a position to freely choose my eat plan. Atm, not the case...

I find the sheer concept of birthing tens of millions of chickens just to fatten them up and slaughter them really, really, really ethically questionable from the ground up, despite the fact we've been doing it for a long time. It's the furthest extreme to which you can go with the idea...

But I love meat and have no plans on ever becoming vegetarian until it's possible to synthesise the meat accurately... then I'd jump on it right away. I can't see any reason why I wouldn't. Am I bad for still choosing to eat meat? I don't know, maybe! If any of the animals we eat were smart enough, we should ask them. So... why isn't it okay to eat very mentally disabled people then? What about injecting a neurotoxin into the womb to birth thousands of pre-lobotomised girls and traffick them...? Oh, but wait, apparently having sex with animals is unconditionally wrong, because suddenly now it's exploitation. Sorry for assaulting you darling, I should've just eaten your flesh~

There are no thoughts to be gotten straight on the issue, I think appeals to nature are dishonest, because to me, that requires it be something you don't have much agency in (as most animals don't), and when it gets to the point where a human can actually appeal to nature as an argument for anything, it's very clear-cut, such as cases of self defence (the desire to survive) or reflexive accidents.


To answer the thread, totally. The vast majority of people I know (in Vancouver) don't do it for ethical reasons (though they admit to them being a "side bonus"), they do it because newly developed urban communities are filled with alternatives now, and it's the hip new thing to try - I think this is a good thing by all means. I like the bean burgers I've started making more than beef, chicken or fish patties if I'm totally honest. Bean patties are the best. So insanely delicious and filling, with a glorious, juicy, layered texture only the best beef could strive to have.

Additionally, yeah, you really don't question it unless you're gonna get some personal satisfaction out of doing so (like preferring the taste of bean burgers), but as soon as I found I did, I felt the smallest bit satisfied I wasn't eating an animal anymore every time I made a burger. Just beans! And that animal gets to live... probably horribly, but live... for two more seconds >.> I guess lol

I actually don't even know if I have ever tried any substitutes for meat, I never really seen it as a problem since I don't usually think about the animal itself being slaughtered when I'm trying to eat my dinner. I don't think Christmas dinner would feel the same without turkey for example, it makes me wonder what vegetarians eat on Christmas day.

I have noticed a lot of fast food establishments have been offering meat free alternatives though, such as Subway having meat-free meatballs (which is ironic since it even has meat in the name). I don't recall trying any of these alternatives, but I never really did consider being a vegetarian in the first place is the reason. I somewhat wonder if they'd at least taste good, though I doubt they'd actually taste the same as the meat products.

I should try having a go at making bean burgers one day, like that "9p burger" that propelled Jack Monroe into the spotlight.

Typically at Christmas I could either be having a quorn roast which is meant to be an alternative to chicken or turkey I suppose. It makes a nice alternative to a chicken leftover sandwich as well though. Sometimes my grandmas have it whenever we've had family dinners too, otherwise they'd be happy to have salmon. If quorn/soy etc isn't your thing then most supermarkets sell a festive pastry based thing like these for example. Either way, it depends on how much you enjoy meat. Some types are rather convincing now, while others still look and taste like slabs of rubber. I miss real sausages but I can totally get by with quorn or Linda McCartney ones.

Yeah like I pointed out earlier there were lots more fast food places doing vegan just this year. I had the meatball one from Subway once and I thought it was pretty good; even just 4 years ago the best I could settle with was just a sub with a bit of salad in it, and that was even before they started doing stuff like cheesy garlic bread.

Adding to the urban trend, more cities have caught on I think. Back in like 2010 there'd be only one cafe in London with vegan options, and the only other UK city with a more vegan friendly approach would be Brighton. Nowadays even smaller cities like Nottingham and Derby have loads of places to choose from including the chains you thought would never have any vegetarian option, like KFC as I mentioned before. Obviously coronavirus has put a bit damper on travel and hospitality but once this is all over it'd be interesting to see how vegan alternative food progresses even more.

Well, I basically eat the same thing on Christmas as I do every other day, but that's me.

This conversation reminds me that I read in the Phoenix yesterday that the meat lobby almost got the EU to pass a regulation banning the terms "sausage" and "burger" for veggie meals. They quipped that we'd have had to say "tube" and "disc", which reminded me of this: (The "Eurosausage" scene from Yes, Minister)

Adsolution said:

I find the sheer concept of birthing tens of millions of chickens just to fatten them up and slaughter them really, really, really ethically questionable from the ground up, despite the fact we've been doing it for a long time. It's the furthest extreme to which you can go with the idea...

But I love meat and have no plans on ever becoming vegetarian until it's possible to synthesise the meat accurately... then I'd jump on it right away. I can't see any reason why I wouldn't. Am I bad for still choosing to eat meat? I don't know, maybe! If any of the animals we eat were smart enough, we should ask them. So... why isn't it okay to eat very mentally disabled people then? What about injecting a neurotoxin into the womb to birth thousands of pre-lobotomised girls and traffick them...? Oh, but wait, apparently having sex with animals is unconditionally wrong, because suddenly now it's exploitation. Sorry for assaulting you darling, I should've just eaten your flesh~

There are no thoughts to be gotten straight on the issue, I think appeals to nature are dishonest, because to me, that requires it be something you don't have much agency in (as most animals don't), and when it gets to the point where a human can actually appeal to nature as an argument for anything, it's very clear-cut, such as cases of self defence (the desire to survive) or reflexive accidents.


To answer the thread, totally. The vast majority of people I know (in Vancouver) don't do it for ethical reasons (though they admit to them being a "side bonus"), they do it because newly developed urban communities are filled with alternatives now, and it's the hip new thing to try - I think this is a good thing by all means. I like the bean burgers I've started making more than beef, chicken or fish patties if I'm totally honest. Bean patties are the best. So insanely delicious and filling, with a glorious, juicy, layered texture only the best beef could strive to have.

Additionally, yeah, you really don't question it unless you're gonna get some personal satisfaction out of doing so (like preferring the taste of bean burgers), but as soon as I found I did, I felt the smallest bit satisfied I wasn't eating an animal anymore every time I made a burger. Just beans! And that animal gets to live... probably horribly, but live... for two more seconds >.> I guess lol

Click to expand...

Very nice response. I think we all here have cognitive dissonance to some degree on this topic. Vegans in this chat maybe not on the topic, or less likely.

I don't think we should view ourselves as bad by default. A lot has to do with social environment and if we are able to get vegan products.

I think a lot here have animals they don't want to eat. Cats, Dogs and hopefully most here, if not all at best, won't eat humans xD

I could not possibly eat a Lizard. That would break my heart. This is appeal to emotion and is specieism but that's what I got xd.

I do hope it won't just stay urban but gets mainstream. If we can protect animals from ourselves, we should imo. It's nice to see a happy cow, a jumping chicken and all that stuff

ScalieDan said:

I also think the moral aspect is justified. Saying "it's just natural for us" is appeal to nature and it's a very popular argument. We actually have instincts which are rather bad. Jealousy and here and there wishes to lie or some even wish to kill under certain cases. No one tries to say "well it's natural, therefore morally ok". We managed to get some under control. Well... crime rates and war exist xd.

Click to expand...

I agree with you, saying it's natural is no justification at all. It's natural to fight, cheat, shout, steal and many other things, but these things are now rightly frowned upon in society. I'm speaking as a meat-eater though. We should all accept, meat-eater or not, that we are not whiter than white and all make transgressions in life that don't stand up to moral scrutiny.

To answer the question, I think many (NOT ALL) vegans and vegetarians use their status as a means to virtue signal, which very much IS an urban trend.

I of course agree that appeal to nature is a logical fallacy and only mentioned the natural order of things in the context of my sole opinion, and I didn't mean to pass this as a logical argument of any sort.

Now regarding the ethical aspect of meat consumption, it is quite customary to draw comparisons with the treatment of humans, but two important questions to ask ourselves here are, one, why do we consider it unethical to eat humans, and two, what separates us from the other animals? I believe it's ethical to eat animals if they're not treated with cruelty because they're absolutely clueless about their fate, and therefore cannot, unlike us, suffer from the idea that they're going to be slaughtered, and also because they do not create the same social bonds we do, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of cows aren't going to be suddenly depressed because one of them was sent to the slaughterhouse last night. That's also how I reconcile my position with not eating pets: I won't eat a pet because someone, somewhere, cares about it. I actually wouldn't mind eating a cat or a dog if they weren't somebody's pet.

I tried part-time veganism (vegan for 2 out of 3 daily meals) last year and I actually liked it more than I thought I would! I felt much healthier and it really forced me to expand my food palate so it wouldn't get boring. I don't think I could ever commit to doing it full-time though... I just like meat and animal products too much to give them up completely, and most vegan alternatives are still just a tad inferior to the real thing imo

As for the moral aspect, I mean, I think you're kind of deluding yourself if you think people's personal consumption choices are really gonna change anything on a meaningful scale , it's a systemic problem that requires systemic change. But I do agree with the overall philosophy of veganism and I have a lot of respect for animal rights activists who're helping to expose just how genuinely fucking evil and exploitative the factory farming industry is - not just to the animals it farms but also to the people it employs

Hunchman801 said:

I of course agree that appeal to nature is a logical fallacy and only mentioned the natural order of things in the context of my sole opinion, and I didn't mean to pass this as a logical argument of any sort.

Now regarding the ethical aspect of meat consumption, it is quite customary to draw comparisons with the treatment of humans, but two important questions to ask ourselves here are, one, why do we consider it unethical to eat humans, and two, what separates us from the other animals? I believe it's ethical to eat animals if they're not treated with cruelty because they're absolutely clueless about their fate, and therefore cannot, unlike us, suffer from the idea that they're going to be slaughtered, and also because they do not create the same social bonds we do, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of cows aren't going to be suddenly depressed because one of them was sent to the slaughterhouse last night. That's also how I reconcile my position with not eating pets: I won't eat a pet because someone, somewhere, cares about it. I actually wouldn't mind eating a cat or a dog if they weren't somebody's pet.

Click to expand...

Matt Dillahunty tried to explain his view of why eating meat is morally permissable.

as for why not humans: I think his response was social contracts, we don't want it and even after death, a lot wish to have their corpse be eaten. I mean we are social animals so yeah it is bad if your neighbor could just eat you. Kinda murder x3
not his response now:
We see pain responses in animals and especially mammals show capacity for certain emotional connections.

In certain areas cows are seen as very important so what we view as ok is already a no there.

Animal activists (some/most) care about the slaughtered amimals in factories so yeah, those people care and I think their concern are valid.

You may say the emotional connection to an individual animal wasn't strong, but this kinda just tries to argue that you should only care for your closest animal. in a way.

I was skeptical about how the moral arguments are if you use veganism as a way to express a certain moral philosophy and the most common last resort is specieism to go against veganism.
'there is no reason to extend the same kind of care to other specieses'. Which in my opinion can be countered by arguing that a more advanced life form which could just eat us make the same argument. They cannot understand us and our feelings and how strong they are. Yet we would wish they have a moral principle that wouldn't allow them to just eat us.

I think these aren't even the best points made by that position. I'm not into the philosophy of veganism as a moral view so all of this is just me listening and I mist say, veganism has the more sound bases all around and we just use personal preferences to combat a more universal approach.

but hey, what do I know

Hunchman801 said:

I of course agree that appeal to nature is a logical fallacy and only mentioned the natural order of things in the context of my sole opinion, and I didn't mean to pass this as a logical argument of any sort.

Click to expand...

Don't worry, I knew you'd be aware of it! But a lot of people do justify this behaviour by saying it's natural, so it was an opportunity for me to smack them down.

Hunchman801 said:

Now regarding the ethical aspect of meat consumption, it is quite customary to draw comparisons with the treatment of humans, but two important questions to ask ourselves here are, one, why do we consider it unethical to eat humans, and two, what separates us from the other animals? I believe it's ethical to eat animals if they're not treated with cruelty because they're absolutely clueless about their fate, and therefore cannot, unlike us, suffer from the idea that they're going to be slaughtered, and also because they do not create the same social bonds we do, and I'm pretty sure that a bunch of cows aren't going to be suddenly depressed because one of them was sent to the slaughterhouse last night. That's also how I reconcile my position with not eating pets: I won't eat a pet because someone, somewhere, cares about it. I actually wouldn't mind eating a cat or a dog if they weren't somebody's pet.

Click to expand...

I don't think you can argue that it's possible to slaughter an animal without cruelty. For me it's less about being cruel and more about the sanctity of life itself though. By eating a plant you're not really extinguishing emotions and consciousness, but by eating an animal you kind of are. And it's not like you need to, you're justifying that removal of life just because you fancy a steak.

In a hundred years when lab meat is cheap and accessible, humans will abhor times when sentient creatures were bred to be slaughtered on such a mass scale, just like we now abhor times of slavery. Trust me! Reducing the global population would probably be a good starting point from a purely ethical point of view.

ScalieDan said:

We see pain responses in animals and especially mammals show capacity for certain emotional connections.

Click to expand...

Xenon said:

I don't think you can argue that it's possible to slaughter an animal without cruelty. For me it's less about being cruel and more about the sanctity of life itself though. By eating a plant you're not really extinguishing emotions and consciousness, but by eating an animal you kind of are. And it's not like you need to, you're justifying that removal of life just because you fancy a steak.

Click to expand...

They have emotions and consciousness to a certain degree, but nothing that compares to human beings, from what we know. That's why, if they don't realize what's going on and you don't make them suffer, I don't see it as unethical.

As for the sanctity of life, it should apply to plants too, otherwise it's more like... the sanctity of emotions and consciousness?

ScalieDan said:

'there is no reason to extend the same kind of care to other specieses'. Which in my opinion can be countered by arguing that a more advanced life form which could just eat us make the same argument. They cannot understand us and our feelings and how strong they are. Yet we would wish they have a moral principle that wouldn't allow them to just eat us.

Click to expand...

I don't justify meat consumption by that fact that humans have more emotions and consciousness than the other animals, though, but rather because I believe theirs is below a certain threshold that prevents them from comprehending their situation and therefore suffering from it.

ScalieDan said:

In certain areas cows are seen as very important so what we view as ok is already a no there.

Click to expand...

Morals are relative, aren't they?

Xenon said:

In a hundred years when lab meat is cheap and accessible, humans will abhor times when sentient creatures were bred to be slaughtered on such a mass scale, just like we now abhor times of slavery. Trust me! Reducing the global population would probably be a good starting point from a purely ethical point of view.

Click to expand...

And morals are fluctuating, too.

Hunchman801 said:

I don't justify meat consumption by that fact that humans have more emotions and consciousness than the other animals, though, but rather because I believe theirs is below a certain threshold that prevents them from comprehending their situation and therefore suffering from it.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure if you go with fire towards numerous animals they feel in danger...
comprehending isn't a valid point. If you get poisoned with something that knocks you out softly before anything else you won't comprehend a thing at all. No matter your development of emotions and what not.
If the argument is that we need to avoid comprehension wlthen oh boy killing humans for food is just as justified. Yes we need more effort but really, comprehension is not an argumente.

Hunchman801 said:

Morals are relative, aren't they?

Click to expand...

point was that they would care quite a lot about the animals we like to kill. meaning they have emotional attachment to them. The pet argument reference.
Just claiming because someone cares it's wrong and if nonone does its right, doesn't help as you need to prove that no one has emotional attachment to them.
It's an idealistic argument that kinda fails given how many just by default care for animals.

Hunchman801 said:

They have emotions and consciousness to a certain degree, but nothing that compares to human beings, from what we know. That's why, if they don't realize what's going on and you don't make them suffer, I don't see it as unethical.

As for the sanctity of life, it should apply to plants too, otherwise it's more like... the sanctity of emotions and consciousness?

Click to expand...

I'm never sure why our *more complex* system is of any good indication given animals factually feel pain, factually desire to live, we can find in numerous animals states of enjoyment etc.

It's the logic of "let's put the requirement just far enough away to barely not include most or all non human animals". Also, same point as before, not beinh able to comprehend or realize is not an argumente. It's just easier to kill less developed animals in ways no realization happens. Still possible for humans though.
If you go by "but the people around them won't notice" you then looked away from individual and judge the value of the individual by the emotional attachment to the collective. Which if you extend it to extrem human cases, like how in certain areas certain human groups are not even seen as humans, might make you realise that this argument just doesn't work.

And your last part essentially beings about the point of when do we cut off things?

I mean it's evidential that animals can suffer more than plants and I think certain plants have shown some weird behaviour but in any case, it's about reduction. If no one eats plants the animal 'human' would suffer.

I mean, living itself produces suffering so if you want to minimise only that, just eliminate all. But we want to minimise suffering and maximize enjoyment.

P S. the ' ' part with extending care to another species was a paraphrasing from an argument that you might knew. I didn't inply it was your argument. I was just saying how our ability to think should make us clear that
1. we wish to not be eaten
2. We can find alternatives
3. If a being could eat us, we wish their morals would not let them do it

all of these end up as hypocrisy if you cannot show same kind of empathy, sympathy and care for animals.

If you don't want to be eaten and the cow doesn't want to be eaten, it's clear that you both have similar goals but power dynamic is different. There is also lack of consent and a lot of humans, likely you too, care about consent and not harminnlg the animal.

I think I will cut off here too. Feel free to make a point but I think people who live out veganism have a much higher desire to explain the moral arguments. Also I think this drifted of a bit from original question x3

When it comes to the moral side of meat-eating there are a huge number of angles at which you can view the topic and I think none them ultimately have any objectivity. I think appealing to nature has a number of problems, mainly because the popular definition of the word "natural" has become rather fuzzy. The word "natural" really just means anything non-human, so while it's tempting to debate whether certain human activities are natural or not, it doesn't actually make any sense. We're not special because we defy nature, rather we distinguish nature from human because we think we're special.

Most people agree that nature is objectively good - that is, the processes of life that elapse without human intervention should be left without interference. If you kept saving deer from tigers, the tigers would go hungry. Despite looking like a cruel world, natural animals have evolved to predate each other and since none of them seem to have a capacity for empathy outside of their own species, they can do no wrong. Humans have evolved to eat meat just like any other omnivore/carnivore, and our bodies are fine tuned to live on the combination of vitamins, proteins and nutrients provided by organic matter. Chemically manufactured nutrients are not as effective as natural sources of nutrition because we have adapted to absorb these nutrients in specific combinations with other nutrients and fats and so on that only occur in plants and meats. Natural animals also require nutrition and have no concern over whether their prey suffers or not, so why should we?

If you insist on appealing to nature, we shouldn't be factory farming animals but we also shouldn't be slaughtering them cruelty free - we should be running after pigs until they collapse from exhaustion, then killing them with a rock and hauling them back to the tribe. Now the appeal to nature doesn't seem so nice. Of course humans do have a capacity for complex empathy, and we treat other humans empathically because we've evolved the ability to communicate on a number of levels in order to proliferate. Treating animals with empathy is not evolutionarily advantageous, so it doesn't fit with an appeal to nature.

The desire to slaughter animals in a way that is cruelty-free is a mix of appealing to nature and appealing to strictly human affects, it's honestly a bizarre way of reconciling meat-eating by personifying creatures.

I believe the capacity for non-human animal intelligence is something we can never truly understand. You might want to believe that animals don't have the same capacity for thought that we do so they don't suffer, but clearly many animals can suffer. I think people tend to underestimate some aspects of animal intelligence and overestimate other aspects. Like any other trait that gives an animal an advantage, such as the ability to fly, to run fast, to crack open shells, to dig tunnels etc., animal intelligence is hugely varied. You might know that dolphins and octopuses are some of the most intelligent creatures on earth, but you might not know that pigs are too. Pigs are more intelligent than cows, and likely more intelligent than dogs and cats. But pigs are tasty, so we push it out of our mind and assume that all animals are just as dumb as each other, and there's some magical barrier that humans have crossed which no other animal has.

There's also the ecological argument for vegetarianism which totally side-steps most of these arguments. The amount of pollutants released and carbon emissions as a result of ferrying meat across the globe, as well as the destruction of natural habitats and water consumed to keep farm animals alive and growing, are causing significant harm to the planet. If we want to keep it human-habitable, diminishing the meat industry would be a good start.

I eat meat, and like many people I don't have a valid way of justifying it, nor a concrete reason to condemn it. But I do hope some day vegetarianism becomes the norm, and to be honest I think it's pretty much inevitable. Whether we should bother with the whole synthetic meat substitute thing I don't know, I feel like you could probably just lean-in to the fact that it's not meat and as long as it tastes nice and provides the nutrition you're missing out from, why bother making it look like a bloody burger patty?

Ambidextroid said:

I eat meat, and like many people I don't have a valid way of justifying it, nor a concrete reason to condemn it. But I do hope some day vegetarianism becomes the norm, and to be honest I think it's pretty much inevitable. Whether we should bother with the whole synthetic meat substitute thing I don't know, I feel like you could probably just lean-in to the fact that it's not meat and as long as it tastes nice and provides the nutrition you're missing out from, why bother making it look like a bloody burger patty?

Click to expand...

I think the last part speaks for most. Though possibly veganism rather than vegetarianism might be the last thing we end up with. Assuming we don't eliminate ourselves before.

Since quote is long I cut that part as you mentioned moral argument on the bases of "nature is good"
However, this doesn't seem to be the most popular moral base. It's mostly "well being" that is aimed for.
Appeal to nature is always bad as once you tell people "medicine is unnatural" they start thinking. Oh and in colloquial usage it's non-human caused things, biology and other areas don't really have THE definition. It's something to keep in mind, I looked into how it is often defined a while back. What a read.

With the moral base of well being, one must justify the limit to which it gets extended to. Which I haven't been convinced of that humans deserve to be included and close to all other animals don't.

If you don't have a moral system that cares, eating meat can have the valid and sound argument "because I'm hungry".