Some Observations...(all are welcomed)

[Wade]

-----It is generally accepted that we have a higher level of intelligence and consciousness than the life forms that we eat; yes, including plants. Thus, it would stand to reason that some where in the universe there are life forms with a higher level of intelligence and consciousness than us that might want to eat us.
Unless...they have evolved or developed a biological or technological means of consuming energy directly.
I believe that this will be the future of ours and of others.

-Wade

[narf poit chez BOOM]

The general arguement for eating animals is their lack of sapience - Ie., lack of awareness of themselves and others as entities.

[Wade]

I used consciousness as a general term. Sapience also comes in varying levels. We humans eat a huge variety of life forms. I argue that many, if not most, of them have a level of sapience; awareness of themselves and others as entities.
*I eat meat also*. I'm just saying that what's out there in space could be quite bad for us. That's why we should strive to develop research, space travel, colonization, and defenses.

Regarding "sapience":awareness of themselves and others as entities: *putting aside all the cultural differences between people and nations*.
Do these life forms, for example, have *any level* of awareness of themselves and others as entities?

Dog, Cat, Cow, Pig, sheep, rat, fish, octopus, squid, horse, monkey, ape(chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutang,etc.), tuna(yes, I know I already put fish), dolphin, whale, crab, snake, lizard, chicken (and other birds, how about parrots?), deer, elephant, turtle...(I guess those are good enough.)

Words like sapience and consciousness are all creations of language. What it all generallizes to is "intelligence level". There will be many life forms with a higher intelligence level than ours. Hopefully they will have advanced to direct energy consumption.

-Wade

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Emotions are certainly possible without sapience.

[capnq]

The general argument for eating animals is that they taste good, and provide a few nutrients that plants don't.

[Caduceus]

“It's easy to quit Space Empires. I've done it hundreds of times.”

- Mark Twain

[Renegade 13]

capnq said:
The general argument for eating animals is that they taste good, and provide a few nutrients that plants don't.

Wow. If you read some of the emails that guy got, it really is amazing how many total fools are in the world, thinking the way they do. "Animals have never done anything to hurt you" indeed! What about the people bitten by a dog, mauled by a cougar, killed by a bear, kicked in the groin by a cow? *Yep, that did happen to me* Haven't hurt people...give me a break!

Sorry, I just get a little annoyed by animal rights activists...

[PvK]

Renegade 13 said:
Wow. If you read some of the emails that guy got, it really is amazing how many total fools are in the world, thinking the way they do. "Animals have never done anything to hurt you" indeed! What about the people bitten by a dog, mauled by a cougar, killed by a bear, kicked in the groin by a cow? *Yep, that did happen to me* Haven't hurt people...give me a break!

Sorry, I just get a little annoyed by animal rights activists...

So...
1. Some humans at some point were attacked by some animals for reasons some humans saw as unprovoked.
2. Therefore all humans, even those never attacked by any animal in any circumstance, have (by virtue of some sort of species self-defense?) the right to kill (and maybe eat, or just eat animals killed by others in some unseen factory somewhere) any animals they want (as long as they aren't owned or protected by some other humans...)?

I think "because they're tasty" is more like the actual reason people decide to eat animals. That, and they don't have to face and kill (or "clean", or even cook) them themselves.

PvK