Eating meat if you had to kill your intake?

I don't eat that much meat now, so it probably wouldn't change that much. I'd be eating more chicken then beef, as they are quicker to clean and more of a meal for my family. Say 4-6 oz twice a day, per person.

That said, my parents lived by this rule most of their lives. Pickling, salting, canning, were a seasonal activity. I wouldn't mind it a bit. I butchered the hog at our last family reunion, and we used everything but the squeal. I thought it was very educational, and you learn new uses for things that you might once have thrown away.
 
Let me rephrase then. Assume I stay within my caloric intake for the day - but I eat four servings of chicken - when I could have gotten the same amount of protein and calories from non animal sources. Isn't the killing of the animal involved the difference and does that have ethical ramifications?
I think it does - thus why I am trying to estimate how much I would eat if I was in a situation where I had to kill my prey.
TF

Ok, I understand the situation better.
Assuming - No waste of food - you can preserve it in some way and the above information.
I do not see any ethical ramification.

To have an ethical ramification in this instance; I think some sort of priority would need to be assigned to animals over other sources of food.

If, in some way your perferance for meat had a negative affect on the ecosystem (and possibly your health), then ethics would come into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
Ethics is the major branch of philosophy, encompassing proper conduct and good living. It is significantly broader than the common conception of ethics as the analyzing of right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or that is simply satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct.
 
I would probably eat just as much meat as I do currently if not more. However, I would not kill as much due to the fact that I would have more available if I was doing the butchering.
 
If I had to kill and prepare my own, assuming constant availability, I would probably eat less. I also would probably eat less vegetables too, less food over all. The reason is, if I were farming and hunting, butchering etc., I would not be eating out of boredom. I would be too busy, and I have found that when I am out working hard for extended amounts of time, I eat less.
 
I think that the answer depends on many variables. Weather, the season, your health, number of mouths to feed, availability of food in a given geographic location and if on the move, the unknown area your heading to. So many things factor into this.
I would obviously eat less. I wouldn't take a large animal and waste food knowing I only need a small meal x 3 unless I could keep the excess fresh and safe to eat.

I suspect that our "Hunter/Gatherer" instincts would kick in and all thought of ethics would be out of mind should we be suddenly cast into the wild.

This thread will probably get some to think about the amount they are consuming each day. We tend to eat twice what we really need at a sitting. Cutting back is not good for the beef and poultry industries but good for our wastelines!
 
20 years ago I raised all my own, Beef, Pork, Rabbit, Goose, and Turkey and while I also raised chickens I could sell one and get enough cash to buy more than ten pounds of store bought for the price of one that I sold.

I did not eat much chicken but I did tend to eat meat three or four times a day as did my Wife and Kids.

Since I moved to town and started buying just store bought, I tend to eat prolly 80% less meat, it just does not taste like I want it to.

Wild meat I eat when I get the chance but I do not at this time hunt enough to just put it in the Freezer and eat it till it's gone.

Better to butcher in cool to cold weather, better with less flies.

Tougher to not cut your self butchering large animals in cold weather, you do lose fine motor control in your fingers and do not think quite so well two or three hours into the job.

I tended to kill, clean, halve and skin the first day and cut meat the next day for a pig, for a beef it takes me two days to cut and wrap the meat.
 
I have to also say, I've cut down drastically on my eating of wild meat lately, but if I were hunting for subsistence, that would probably go up. CWD is a major concern for me, I don't think that we still know enough about it. But if it comes to a choice between that and starvation, ...
 
....How many of you would eat the same amount of meat?...

I'd eat exactly the same amount I do now, which is none. I've been a vegetarian my whole life, and am very healthy, so you certainly don't NEED meat to live.

There are many (most) who choose to eat meat, and that's their privilege. If I was faced with a survival situation where I had to kill something in order to live, I would do that. For people who need to supplement their diet by hunting as a necessity, I can understand that too.

As a general choice, I don't want something to have to die so I can eat. Just because meat tastes good is not a valid reason for raising and slaughtering animals for food. Whoever wants to can flame away at me for being a PETA lover or whatever -- I don't care. This is how I feel.

I do understand that hunting is needed to regulate animal populations. If that was the only way animals were killed, I could understand. I personally know people who just like to hunt and kill, and have mutliple freezers stocked with meat that's several years old, and never gets eaten.

I feel that since I don't have the power to give life, I do everything I can to not have to take it away.

Thanks for bringing this topic up in a thoughtful way, Talfuchre.

I like this question! And its so rare to see a question like this asked and all the answers being intelligent and non-criticizing. But I dont think asking this board is accurate. Firstly, this board is mainly men and all are outdoors people, the crowd where hunting and butchering game is common. I think the answers would be very different if you asked a "normal" person from the city. Also, I think a lot of people who are possibly even vegetarian would not respond. ( I have nothing against vegetarians - I respect someone who is willing to give something up because they have "ethics" against it, no matter how much I disagree with them ).
ChrisN

Edited to respond to ChrisN: I guess I'm your odd man out, then. As a vegetarian city dweller who appreciates the need to carry appropriate tools every day (gun, knife, light), and gets outside to hike/bike/climb whenever I can, it looks like my perspective is rather different than any of the posts so far. I was raised in the country, where we had vegetable gardens every summer, as well as an orchard that we planted, and we canned fruit and vegetables every year, too. We just didn't have meat, but found our protein in other sources.

As for the poster who commented on the Atkins Diet -- please do some careful research before you embark on that shipwreck. Massive amounts of protein in your diet causes the pH of your blood to shift to the acid side, requiring a base to bring it back to the correct level. The calcium is a good base, but you can only take so much as a supplement before your body starts to simply pass it on through. The balance then comes from that large reserve you have -- your skeletal system. This leads to weakening of your bones, and a host of other problems, eventual organ failure among them.

If you want to lose weight, eat a balanced diet high in fiber and fresh fruits vegetables, and get more exercise. This is the same diet recommended by doctors over and over again, and it works.
 
Last edited:
I think the ethics only comes in for me because I likely eat more meat than 1) I need and 2) I would eat if I had to kill it on my own.

I agree the gun is more ethical - however - that removes people from the killing from those that have never done it.

Many people have dismissed this being an ethical question at all. I believe that the taking of life is ALWAYS an ethical issue. Every hunter I have known simply doesn't take any life it sees while hunting - in any fashion they feel. All hunters I have known consider the ethical ramifications of the life they take.

In this thread we have brought up: The method for killing, the storage of the meat, how much the person needs, waste of meat. I think these are all ethical considerations.

I don't think, like Mountainman does, that this completely overrides the eating of meat - but I am trying to be cognizant of that situation.

I am simply trying to measure this for myself when I am not the one taking the life and thus divorced from the process.

Mountainman,

Let me ask what has been brought up in this thread. If you were in a SHTF situation - would you kill and eat meat if it was your only caloric intake available? Or would you not eat meat and face the consequences? I am, in now way, attempting to trap you or judge you - I just wanted you to speak to this concept.

I know THIS - if I could not find meat in a SHTF situation - I would certainly become a vegetarian pretty quickly to survive! ;)

TF
 
Wouldnt change for me at all, my family owns a beef farm, I hunt, fish. I have killed and slaughtered my own food many times over.I have killed pigs and other animals with a knife. It just wouldnt change that much for me. Growing crops I find harder to do, just dont have the green thumb. As long as I had storage for the kill I wouldnt be changing the amount I eat. I was brought up around it, it was never "wrong" or anything, just what you did cuz we needed to eat.
 
As a younger guy, I probably ate a lot more meat that i needed because I hunted every species of wild game in our area and didn't want to waste it. As I grew older and now, I eat less that half of all foods than I used to. As far aas killing my own or buying it at the store, that makes no difference. If I am short of money, I will eat what is on sale until payday. Killing animals with a knife just is not very practical to me.
 
Jim,

Perhaps that is not a fair parameter for this board. I think many suburban hunters simply kill their deer from long range, have a buddy gut it, and bring it to a processor. Still fairly divorced.

I brought this parameter in the thread just to keep it personal.

TF
 
I have no qualms about butchering and preparing my own meat. The hard bit I imagine would be where to get the animals from. It not going to be cheap for people to ship in animals to eat and if you don't the local animal supply would be eradicated quickly. I also would think that there be much more sharing of meat to avoid waste or stocking up supplies over the winter. I can see how many people would have trouble with preparing meat from an animal. They never seen it happen nor done the task and the meat mysteriously appears on the supermarket shelf, but really I think many of the people in this forum aren't going to have that problem.

I just don't see it all that practical anymore since the country's population is far too urbanised and large to support such an endeavor and would probably end up very much like the diet of say WW2 rationing in the UK more than anything with meat becoming a rarity due to the sheer cost of raising live animals or their transport over long distances and that poaching would quickly eradicate any local species in a majority of areas.
 
...If I was faced with a survival situation where I had to kill something in order to live, I would do that. For people who need to supplement their diet by hunting as a necessity, I can understand that too...

...Mountainman,

Let me ask what has been brought up in this thread. If you were in a SHTF situation - would you kill and eat meat if it was your only caloric intake available? Or would you not eat meat and face the consequences? I am, in now way, attempting to trap you or judge you - I just wanted you to speak to this concept.

I know THIS - if I could not find meat in a SHTF situation - I would certainly become a vegetarian pretty quickly to survive! ;)

TF

Talfuchre,

Yes, I believe that to sustain life, hunting is appropriate and necessary. It would be very distasteful for me, and I WOULD have an issue with killing/butchering something (plus it would be hard to get down), but I certainly would do whatever it took to stay alive. This is why I carry a gun -- not because I have any desire to shoot someone or something, but because I want that option should the need arise. I guess my philosophy is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

Thanks for being open-minded on this subject. I was raised much differently than most here, so I have a rather different mindset than most on this forum.

As for the ethics of the situation, I have a feeling that convenience plays a major role in what people eat. If I had to grow and harvest everything I ate, I would certainly have a far simpler diet than I do now. If I was reduced to a primitive level, such as how the native americans lived, then I would probably have to hunt to have protein to survive. Believe me, I'm very appreciative of the ability to go to the store and browse an immense selection of readily available food! Does this mean my ethic would bend to fit the circumstance? I don't think so. I think that we have ethics that are inviolate (respect for others, care for our families and our environment, for me a respect for God), and we have what are more like strong preferences -- such as eating meat or not. I've eaten the odd bit of beef in a Taco Bell burrito, and I didn't feel like a failure as a human. I have yelled at my kids out of anger and frustration, and felt bad about that.
 
Last edited:
Mountainman,

I challenge my ideas and ideals for a living so often I forget that no one does this daily!

I think you are used to being attacked for not eating meat - as if you are an idiot and should.

I think hunters and meat eaters are used to being attacked for doing so - as if they are an idiot and should not.

I had to edit my original post with a caveat because I forgot I was likely treading on sensitive ground. That was not my point - I just think we can have this discussion without being silly! So far so good.

I think there are many things I would have trouble getting down in a survival situation. ;)

TF
 
I have killed using knives and guns. I prefer using a very sharp knife for a painless kill, by slitting the animal's throat. I have killed hogs, goats, chickens this way all my life. Catch the animal, hold on to it, let it relax and calm down- and then procede with the knife. Then let the animal bleed out in peace, the meat turns out tender and tasteful every time this way.

When I hunt, the rifle is the practical way. Its effective too, but the bullet produces an explosion and trauma on impact, so I find that bow hunted animals are generally better than gunshot animals. Bullet/arrow placement is very important, the better the shot, the better the meat.

If freezers are not available, I would dry the meat for storage, and also use the salting method for preservation if salt is available.
 
Many people have dismissed this being an ethical question at all. I believe that the taking of life is ALWAYS an ethical issue. Every hunter I have known simply doesn't take any life it sees while hunting - in any fashion they feel. All hunters I have known consider the ethical ramifications of the life they take.

I stated I do not think there is an ethical issue involved.

You stated that taking of life is ALWAYS an ethical issue. But you haven't stated why taking the life of an animal is more, less, or the same as taking the life of other forms of nutrition.

So why do you raise this issue in terms of an animal but do not include other nutritional sources?
 
Dexter,

I usually make the distinction of other sources of nutrition that animals are capable of feeling pain in the same way we are. I know the argument can be made that plants do respond to attacks - but they do not have nervous systems like we do, nor feel pain, like we do. In a way, I am trying to treat others like I would like to be treated.

This is why I feel people who have been in accidents and are 'brain dead' should have decisions made for them in an expeditious manner. They may not be human (in the rational sense) but they are still capable of feeling pain (if their lower brain is still operating). I don't think it is ethical to cause pain without good reasons.

Eating, is a very good reason. This is the same reason why I don't blame animals for attacking humans. They need to eat too. I will try and dissuade them, of course, but they are not ethically wrong for attacking humans.

However, 'good reasons' should not include 'because I can' and 'because I don't think about it'.

So, if I am going to cause an animal pain (the slaughtering process) I would like to decrease the amount of pain to include what I need to stay healthy and what I would kill were doing the killing. I am trying to decide for me, within what I think it right, how much meat I should eat.

I don't want to turn this into a debate over when life begins, who has rational powers (animals or humans), or when life should be ended. I just wanted to ask the question: How much would you eat if you were the one doing all of the killing.

I know that opens another can of worms - but to keep the debate simplistic and civil - I hoped to restrict the debate to these parameters. I know this is a touchy subject for some - but no one has done any attacking nor should anyone return attacks.

Bufford,

I need to learn more about survival preservation - in particular - salting. I don't know enough.

TF
 
As for the poster who commented on the Atkins Diet -- please do some careful research before you embark on that shipwreck. Massive amounts of protein in your diet causes the pH of your blood to shift to the acid side, requiring a base to bring it back to the correct level. The calcium is a good base, but you can only take so much as a supplement before your body starts to simply pass it on through. The balance then comes from that large reserve you have -- your skeletal system. This leads to weakening of your bones, and a host of other problems, eventual organ failure among them.

If you want to lose weight, eat a balanced diet high in fiber and fresh fruits vegetables, and get more exercise. This is the same diet recommended by doctors over and over again, and it works.

I have read studies on both sides of the coin that are very convincing. Recently I have been reading about primitive diets and find it very interesting reading, most of these diets are very rich in lean meats. As I said before, it makes sense to me to eat a diet we evolved eating and ate for thousands of years. I will agree that americans eat WAY to much fatty meat and processed foods.

I have no problem with you being a vegetarian, as long as you do not have a problem with me being a meat eater or try to ram your morals and ideals down my throat, which it seems a lot of vegetarians try to do.

The part about you thinking it is wrong for something having to die for you to live. That statement IMO reflects a brainwashing that has happened in the USA by the media.

Animals are food, regardless of cute talking mice and rabbits that frolic on saturday morning cartoon shows. Chris
 
Dexter,

I usually make the distinction of other sources of nutrition that animals are capable of feeling pain in the same way we are. I know the argument can be made that plants do respond to attacks - but they do not have nervous systems like we do, nor feel pain, like we do. In a way, I am trying to treat others like I would like to be treated.

That is an important assumption that I was not using in my perspective.

Based upon what has been said; I would frame the ethical action in this situation something like:

Your actions and what you expect of other should be guided by what you would be willing to do.
++++++++
In the situation you mention - I wouldn't hunt - too much work and time - so I wouldn't eat meat.

If the animal was hunted and all I had to do was clean, butcher and preserve - I would eat the same amount of meat.

====
Good question.
Thanks for bringing it up.
 
Back
Top