• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evil carnivores

Read scenario 1st: In the meat free society of 2100, how should we view the meat-eaters of the past?

  • They are evil. No meat eater can ever be viewed in a favourable light and must be cancelled.

  • Deeply flawed. They are guilty of a terrible crime, but we can also acknowledge some minor good

  • Complex. Blame them for their crime, but we can still see them as admirable for other qualities

  • They were a product of their time. Meat-eating was ok then so shouldn't count against them


Results are only viewable after voting.
Scenario:

It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.

The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.

The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.

Question:

How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)

Should they be seen as:

1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.

2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.

3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities

4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.

Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I doubt very much that we will judge the morality of people of the past, at all. What would be the point? People have always lived as they felt they must.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Scenario:

It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.

The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.

The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.

Question:

How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)

Should they be seen as:

1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.

2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.

3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities

4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.

Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?

"It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals."

And deer, elk, turkey, squirrel, etc all become over populated, dying from starvation and disease.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Scenario:

It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.

The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.

The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.

Question:

How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)

Should they be seen as:

1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.

2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.

3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities

4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.

Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?
I would have a clandestine, underground meat farm - au natural. :D
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I voted product of their time. Tobacco used to be popular...
I don't think words such as evil and crime are appropriate. Pedant note: humans are omnivorous not carnivorous.

Bonus answer: Depending on what is meant by "future"....it depends! :)Globally meat consumption is increasing and is projected to increase for the foreseeable. Increasing affluence in developing countries is associated with increased meat consumption. This is compared to say the UK where red and processed meat consumption is decreasing:

"From 2008 to 2019, average meat consumption per capita per day decreased from 103·7 g (SE 2·3) to 86·3 g (2·9) per day (ptrend<0·0001), including an absolute reduction in red-meat consumption of 13·7 g (ptrend<0·0001), an absolute reduction in processed meat consumption of 7·0 g (ptrend<0·0001), and a 3·2 g increase (ptrend=0·0027) in white-meat consumption."

- Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme

But then with climate change, overpopulation and destruction of the biosphere (with the breaking of food chains that involve humans) and whatever other disasters we're concocting, meat consumption globally may perhaps reduce severely in a short time because of...who knows....plague...war...societal collapse (it doesn't take much - solid looking empires of the past crumbled in a relatively short time scale).

Food for thought:
"Meat production is one of the largest contributors to global warming and environmental degradation. The livestock sector is responsible for about 15% of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions (GHGE), while also driving deforestation, land degradation, and biodiversity loss." (Same link as above)

19E39D09-0B00-42C2-9FDB-3D98B62F7205.jpeg
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Scenario:

It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.

The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.

The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.

Question:

How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)

Should they be seen as:

1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.

2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.

3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities

4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.

Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?
We are evolved to eat meat as omnivores to survive. There is no choice, and it has nothing to do with evil or the like.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
As per most, I think we are products of our time mostly, but that doesn't mean that we will not be judged harshly (in the future), and one can see this as to so many things currently - as to cancelling certain forms of humour or expressions used in the past and in all sorts of other ways. Context tends to be important, so judging others is a bit rash if one can't put people in the time within which they lived.

But I would like to see the (filthy) rich seen for what they are - compared with the poor - if such ever happens. :oops:
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Scenario:

It's the year 2100 and all meat is now lab grown without harming any animals.

The global trade in animal meats was unanimously outlawed by global treaty in 2060, and eating animal meat is today viewed as being almost as bad as eating human flesh. As with cannibalism today, outside of a few weirdos, there is universal agreement that eating animal meats is a repulsive and egregious crime.

The historical trade in animal meats is seen as one of humanity's most harmful and immoral actions.

Question:

How should people in this hypothetical society view the meat eaters eaters of the past? (Your answer should be contingent on all of the above being true, not your current view of meat eating)

Should they be seen as:

1. Evil/deeply immoral, no meat eater can be viewed in a favourable light no matter how great their other achievements. There have always been vegetarians after all, and we can see animals do suffer so there is no excuse. They should be cancelled.

2. Deeply flawed. They are complicit in a terrible crime, so while we can still accept they did some good, they can never be admirable people overall.

3. Complex characters. We blame them for their crime of meat-eating for which they should have known better, but we can still see them as admirable overall based on other qualities

4. A product of their time. Values change and it is silly to blame people for being socialised from birth into a system that found meat eating perfectly normal. They should be judged by the standards of their time so their meat-eating is not something that should be held against them as a moral failing.

Bonus question: How likely do you think it is that something approaching the above scenario will happen in the future?
Good people with common sense. And it's not going to happen. Meat is still best.
 
I don't think words such as evil and crime are appropriate.

Historical actions that we consider immoral today are often thought about in those terms, slavery for example.

I personally don't think we should use anachronistic moral values when evaluating the past, but in the scenario eating meat would be something similar to slavery in terms of how it is viewed and terms would reflect this.

Pedant note: humans are omnivorous not carnivorous.

Evil omnivores isn't as good a title though :D
 
Last edited:
I doubt very much that we will judge the morality of people of the past, at all. What would be the point? People have always lived as they felt they must.

Why do you doubt it? We've done it ever since record began.

Much of the modern "culture wars" are about how we should judge the morality fo the past and what it means for the present.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
In developed countries I think that is quite likely to happen within the next 100 years. I think 2060 is too early though.

I am going to be the dissenting voice here though. I have voted for "Complex".

A question to everyone that voted for the last alternative: Why does abiding by collective values grants a free pass but individual values don't?

Also, what model for moral responsibility are you all using, as in what makes a moral agent culpable for what he has done?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Why do you doubt it? We've done it ever since record began.

Much of the modern "culture wars" are about how we should judge the morality fo the past and what it means for the present.
This is a unique time, of great changes. Changes that some embrace while others fight against them. Some are looking forward while others are desperately looking back. It's a threshold between relativism and absolutism, philosophically. Something that has never happened before.

But hopefully, this will be more resolved by 2100, as the younger generations take over. And they will not long for a past that was never theirs. Nor will they bemoan relativism the way the old authorities still living, now, do.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
If they're still eating meat, isn't the simplest explanation to suggest they knew we didn't have the technology to produce lab-grown meat? They'd still agree to having meat in one's diet, they're not vegetarians, it just doesn't come from living animals. We might see this in the same way we see mass illiteracy prior to the 16th c. - it's not that people thought poor people shouldn't read, but that the technology to produce books en mass simply didn't exist.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
If they're still eating meat, isn't the simplest explanation to suggest they knew we didn't have the technology to produce lab-grown meat? They'd still agree to having meat in one's diet, they're not vegetarians, it just doesn't come from living animals. We might see this in the same way we see mass illiteracy - it's not that people thought poor people shouldn't read, but that the technology to produce books en mass simply didn't exist.
This is kinda what popped in my mind but I couldn't figure out how to word it
 
This is a unique time, of great changes. Changes that some embrace while others fight against them. Some are looking forward while others are desperately looking back. It's a threshold between relativism and absolutism, philosophically. Something that has never happened before.

But hopefully, this will be more resolved by 2100, as the younger generations take over. And they will not long for a past that was never theirs. Nor will they bemoan relativism the way the old authorities still living, now, do.

We've certainly done it before, whether that be looking back at the past nostalgically as a time of greater morality or looking back to criticise immorality and to aggrandise ourselves in the present.
 
Top