Philosophy: Should we eat meat?

[physicsisphirst]

The problem I have is that so many people are spending so much time on this topic. Whether to save the whales or not...come on! There are people dying every day from more ridiculous things. Shouldn't we focus our priorities on people first, then animals?

This is a common argument and certainly not an unimportant one. Should we be focussing our attention on helping animals when there is so much to do to help people?

Is it possible that the two ideas are more closely intertwined than it may appear on the surface? May it be that when we can show compassion to a sentient non-human, we are better able to do the same for one of our own kind?

It is a conjecture which I am making for consideration, but here are some quotations from people who are fairly well-known in history who have said similar things:

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men."
Francis of Assisi, saint

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."
Pythagoras, philosopher and mathematician

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Thomas Edison, inventor

"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
Albert Schweitzer, missionary and statesman, Nobel 1952


Perhaps it is only by acquiring compassion for and showing compassion to, the helpless who can least ask for it, that we can achieve the integrity our own species is capable of.

In friendship,
prad

 

[darkmage]

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

 

[motai]

Do humans not also have minds?

 

[loseyourname]

Before I actually read through all 11 pages, can I ask if anyone has presented an ecological argument for vegetarianism?

 

[darkmage]

Do humans not also have minds?

I'm not sure I know what you're getting at, but yes humans have minds (and humans don't eat humans). In addition, I never said it was right to kill other humans. I said that humans most likely won't live in peace because the nature of humans is to fight.

 

[Les Sleeth]

When I first became vegetarian, I did not find it wrong to raise animals for slaughter in general, but I found that our system of production is so horrible that I could not fathom further supporting the system. . . . I do not believe that those who raise animals for food will give much concern to animal welfare. This is especially true given the trend towards larger and larger corporate operations.

dan, so should we stop the cheetah from eating rabbits and other rodents? should we stop the eagle from eating fish from the rivers? can i ask how you feel about darwinism? in a sense, you are putting humans up on a pedestal by claiming we have the ability to think of the animals' feelings, which i think is modestly arrogant...we are animals ourselves, probably not much different then any other, thus it is instinctual for some of us to desire to eat meat...we are within the food chain, and as darwinism states, it's survival of the fittest...

I thought the arguments presented by Dissident Dan and Kerrie well represented two sides of the moral vegetarian debate. Since I agree and disagree with both of them, I used their general beliefs as a foundation to bounce my comments off of.

I've been a vegetarian for about 32 years, and I can assure you Kerrie neither you nor your children need meat to be healthy. Most doctors who recommend meat are counseling you as meat eaters, and from traditional "food groups" training. For example, when they say meat helps you to absorb certain nutrients you need, they mean that the fat soluable vitamins need fat to be asborbed; other basic principles are that meat has the eight essential amino acids, more iron than most vegetable sources, vitamin b-12, etc. Meat covers several bases nutritionally, but only on the front end. For that convenience, you may pay dearly down the road.

Before I move on to what I disagree with about Dissident Dan's reasons for why we "should" be vegetarians, there is one more reason besides overall health benefits why I like not eating meat: it is easier to digest non-meat stuff. If you know that digestion costs energy, and that what you eat gives energy, then the difference between the energy needed for digestion and the energy you end up with is important. I've have found ways to eat that minimizes the energy of digestion, such as eating sprouted bread made with the combination of sprouts that form a complete protein (check out "Food for Life" sprouted breads).

Even though I can whole-heartedly recommend the vegetarian diet, it isn't because of why Dan says so. Well, some of it is, like the utterly inhumane way slaughter animals are treated. I wish humans would boycott meat eating until both the way animals are raised/kept and how they are slaughtered are done with compassion.

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten. If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

So, I cannot see the moral "should" in meat eating if humane treatment of slaughter animals is factored in. However, I do see an "inner" sort of reason to not eat meat, something that goes beyond health and humane treatment issues.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

So for me, the bottom line for being a vegetarian is, first, the heightened sensitivity not killing gives me; and then, how much easier it is to extract energy from non-dead-rotting-flesh food , along with the healthier life it gives.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Mankind will always be violent. There will always be useless fighting and killing, because this is simply the nature of man.

Things can always improve. People have used such arguments to justify all sorts of the things (slavery, monarchism), but we've progressed passed them.

Moving on to a different point, I don't think there is anything wrong with eating meat. Killing a plant is almost no different from killing an animal (the only difference being that an animal has a mind). So why not kill an animal instead of a plant? The fact that an animal has a mind is not a strong enough argument to persuade me.

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

 

[Dissident Dan]

But beyond that, as hard as I've tried I cannot come up with a moral reason why animals shouldn't be killed and eaten.

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

If you are a Darwinist, then you can see killing and eating animals is quite the way things are done in the natural world. If you believe in God, then you can see God created things so that animals eat each other, so obviously God isn't all that worried about it (both possibililties make it VERY difficult to watch nature shows featuring carnivores because sometimes they start eating their victims while they are still alive).

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I grew up around people who were used to slaughtering, and I saw in them a certain insensitivity to other living beings that seems to be what Dan talks about. I think you have to be that way to slaughter. If you've ever seen a pig slaughtered, his throat cut, hung upside down by his feet so the blood drips out, the pig squealing the whole time . . . well, it's not pretty. I know we get to remain unaware of that when we shop at the supermarket, but even that's a kind of deadness. Personally, I prefer to be more sensitive. I don't want to have to shut off my sensitivity for any reason.

I've heard stories about people who work in slaughterhouses who became abusive of their families.

 

[darkmage]

Killing a plant is completely different from killing an animal. The existence of sentience (the ability to experience) is the ONLY legitimate basis for ethics. We know what it is to suffer (bad) and to experience pleasure (good). Everything else is arbitrary.

That's what I essentially mean when I say "an animal has a mind". And still, I do not find this a sufficient reason as to why one would not eat meat.

 

[Dissident Dan]

That's interesting. I hold the ability to experience as the only legitimate basis for any ethics.

For any linguistic explanation you attempt to give someone as to why something is right or wrong, bad or good, should be done or should be not done, they can always ask, "Why?" There is only one way to get past the infinite string of "Why?"s. That is to invoke the knowledge of experience of the person whom you are talking to. Each of us has experienced. We know what it is to suffer and to experience pleasure. We know the badness of suffering and the goodness of pleasure. It cannot be explained, because language has limitations, but each of us knows this because we know the qualities of these experiences.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I do not make a strong distinction between humans and other species. We are just another species.

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

I am a Darwinist, but not a Social Darwinist. Evolution and natural selection say nothing of ethics, only how things have occurred. They do not say what is right or wrong or good or bad. They are not things to revere.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics. It is one thing to determine what is ethical for yourself, but this thread is about what is "right" overall, and therefore for the rest of us. For that you need to something more than your compassionate beliefs (besides, if slaughter animals were given a good life, and killed humanely, we've actually improved the way most prey animals die). So I still cannot see the moral/ethic issue here, even if I personally agree with you about killing animals.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

Sometime in the past year, I have stopped being a preservationist. Applying the idea of morality to other creatures is more limited than application to humans, because the other creatures do not think or communicate on the levels that we do. You can't expect a cat to know why it is wrong to eat a gopher. I find the killing or suffering of any creature unfortunate and saddening, and would do what I could to reduce suffering. I would stop the cat from eating the gophers if able.

I know you're not a Social Darwinist, but my point was to ask what natural or universal conditions you are relying on to derive your ethics.
...

Read my last post (at the end of the last page). You were probably typing this up as I was typing mine.

 

[LuciferPrometheus]

This is my first post. Great topic. It is a topic that only a human would have. Other animals do not concern themselves with the impact of their actions on the rest of the world. Of course, it could be argued that we are the only ones who impact the world enough to unbalance it.

I finally finshed all 11 pages and have a few points.

I do agree that the raising of meat as opposed to plants for consumption is wasteful. Cattle filter the food energy (most easily expressed as calories) that we could be receiving. It takes multiple pounds of grain to produce a pound of meat (aprox. ratios 10:1/cow 6:1/chicken). Not to mention that just by virtue of their stationary position plants are a wiser use of land for food production. Cattle require acres to roam. This is an issue which has to do with global starvation.

My probelem with vegetarians bringing up this reasoning is that they are not too sincere. As a general rule they don't eat foods which necessarily promote global food development. Most "veggie" items are wasteful themselves. Especially the burgers, hot dogs, and other processed "veggie" foods. Also, if you are concerned for global hunger you should boycott organic foods, as this way of creating food energy is less productive.

The probelem is not that we eat meat. It's that we eat too much meat. Even if you believe in the 4 basic food groups, it should be noted that almost everyone eats primarily meat. Our portions our half a plate of meat, some veggies, and some carbs. This is excessive by anyones standards. It is my opinion that if we still had to hunt & gather, we would primarily eat plants peppered with meats. I do not think it is ethical to eat something you would not get yourself. If you can't stomach killing & gutting a cow, then you have no business grabbing a burger. Luckily for me if I was hunting and gathering I'd grab some apples and broccoli on my way to kill/skin/roast a rabbit for dinner.

 

[motai]

Okay, but lots of "other species" eat each other, and would eat us too. Are those species behaving immorally? And then, I don't eat meat. However, I do let my cat eat the gophers she catches (actually, as much as I hate what those little devils do to my garden , I do try to save them). What is the extent of my responsibility? Should I interfer with other animals killing and eating each other?

As for the responsibility thing; I am not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

This is my first post. Great topic. It is a topic that only a human would have.

Welcome to PF forums!

 

[Dissident Dan]

When I think about the eating of animals, I wonder why it is such a contentious issue. Is it really such a detestable request that we extend some basic compassion to our fellow creatures? These animals feel and think as we do. For the sake of taste and texture, we subject them to horrors that would elicit immediate, impassioned, nearly-unanimous outcry had humans been subjected to them.

The suffer. They long for their families. They are diseased. They are malnourished. Their bodies are deformed and often unable to support them. Many cannot move. They cannot roam, for they are confined to small stalls, pens, or cages or are cramped in a huge, dark room with thousands of others. They stand or lie in their own excrement on metal or concrete.

Merely so we can satisfy our cravings they endure all this. It is unending for them until they die. What will it take for us to have some mercy? What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?

Is it so radical that think that we should exhibit some decency in how we treat other animals?

 

[russ_watters]

When I think about the eating of animals, I wonder why it is such a contentious issue. Is it really such a detestable request that we extend some basic compassion to our fellow creatures? These animals feel and think as we do. For the sake of taste and texture, we subject them to horrors that would elicit immediate, impassioned, nearly-unanimous outcry had humans been subjected to them.

The suffer. They long for their families. They are diseased. They are malnourished. Their bodies are deformed and often unable to support them. Many cannot move. They cannot roam, for they are confined to small stalls, pens, or cages or are cramped in a huge, dark room with thousands of others. They stand or lie in their own excrement on metal or concrete.

Merely so we can satisfy our cravings they endure all this. It is unending for them until they die. What will it take for us to have some mercy? What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?

Is it so radical that think that we should exhibit some decency in how we treat other animals?

"Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

To answer this one thouh: "What will it take for us to respect other creatures as individuals?" At the very least, evidence that they qualify for rights. Sentience, intelligence, etc. Ie, some reason to consider them equals to us.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

 

[Dissident Dan]

"Detestable request?" I wouldn't characterize it like that. Shortsighted, unrealistic, irrelevant, overly emotional maybe. There's probably another one, but I can't think of the right word. The issue here is simple: the animal kingdom is violent. To pretend otherwise is... see above.

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA.
It is not short-sighted.
Unrealistic? only history can tell. Saying such now is to have a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Irrelevant? It is only the most important thing I know of.
Overly emotional? It is not any more emotional than saying the same things regarding other human beings. What is overly emotional is letting our prejudices overcome the realizations of how similar we all really are and how irrelevant our differences are.

If you personally feel uncomfortable with it, fine. But I don't consider your opinion all that reasonable here. It requires a lot of unreasonable logical leaps and assumptions:

-Animals have feelings: do they?
-We are causing unnecessary pain: are we causing any more pain than already exists? Have you ever watched National Geographic?
-We're better than the animals so we should treat them better: I don't see a logical connection there.
-And the biggie: animals have rights (not sure if you're suggesting that or not): no animals do not have rights.

1) Animals definitely do feel. Ignoring this, or claiming it as unproven is an unfortunate product of our prejudicial society. Behavior, biology, and evolution all demonstrate that they do feel.
2) We are causing unnecessary pain, because (a) that suffering would not otherwise occur, and (b) eating them is not necessary for our nutritional needs. I understand that there are saddening violences in the wild, which is why I am not a preservationist. However, one misfortune does not justify another misfortune.
3) I don't recall ever saying that we are "better" than animals. All I've said is that we have great abilities to comprehend, and we should use them to understand the moral obligations to other creatures. I'm not sure if I've even said this in a recent post.
4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it.

edit: slight clarification - I'm not a big fan of the way calves for veal are treated. I think its unnecessary and unreasonable. But the general raising and kiling for food, no.

Givent that we do not need to eat them, and even more animals suffer just as much as veal calves (egg-laying chickens, sows, etc.), I find it very unneccesary and unreasonable.

It is not such a very hard thing to do to give up meat, either, provided you don't mind the occasional joke. Hopefully, any adult could deal with that. It really is amazing how quickly one becomes used to a non-animal diet such that hardly does it even feel like restricting oneself.

 

[Rader]

Dissident Dan you got my vote, i agree whith most of what you said. This sounds like the end of the thread. But there is one more consideration, what do we do with all the animals we do not eat. You know they would starve if there was no predators. So what do we do? Ask the predators. The problem does not end with us resolving the problem.

 

[Dayle Record]

The stomach dumps refined sugar, but hangs onto fruit sugar, and fruit, my guess is that it really wants to get at those minerals in the fruit. Coronary ICU's all over our nation are chock full of individuals on the Adkins diet. There were days in the last year where, 1/2 of the individuals I interviewed in the Coronary ICU, were on Adkins. A healthy diet has at least 2 whole fruits a day, and 3-5 servings of vegetables, and not much more than 6 oz of high protein food. The fuel foods, grains, need to be added last and in accordance with activity level. The grains need to be whole.
The number one solvent to facilitate all bodily functions is water, and we should make it easy on the body, by taking that on in pure water form. It is possible to live very well as a vegetarian, and as we move more into the genetic manipulation of animals for transplant tissue, and higher production of milk, and greater muscle mass, we have to remember that the animals that have our genetic material, might engender even more capable viral predators to our species. An example of this is the work done with pigs. Pigs are scavenging animals and therefore have super hardy immune systems. When we lend our wimpy genetic material to them, then their predators have a stab at gearing up to attack our tissues. The pigs might do alright with this, but we might not. The effects of BGH on humans who consume milk, are already showing, up because there are many other imitators of estrogen in the environment now. Very young girls are starting to menstruate, some of these estrogen imitators are in sunscreen, shampoo, cadmium from batteries in the groundwater, so the lower you eat on the food chain, the better off you will be. Even Salmon has gotten into the act now, with GM Farm Salmon, and dyed Salmon. So as in all matters, name your poison. Or name your Poisson.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Dissident Dan you got my vote, i agree whith most of what you said. This sounds like the end of the thread. But there is one more consideration, what do we do with all the animals we do not eat. You know they would starve if there was no predators. So what do we do? Ask the predators. The problem does not end with us resolving the problem.

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

 

[Rader]

Well, the fact is that the whole country won't go vegetarian overnight. There would be a tapering off, if people are to leave off eating animals, as demand decreases in a more-or-less smooth fashion. There would be fewer and fewer animals bred to replace the ones slaughtered.

While I agree with your philosophy, when making philosophical decisions, you have to really think things out. A wrong decision could create more pain and suffering than it was suppose to elimate. Change must be gradual, as abrupt decisions can be catastrophic. Have you seen the data studies if everyone stopped smoking all at once. Half of the planet smokes and from the PF survery 3/4 of us eat meat, so if that is any indication of what the rest of the world does. If we stopped eating meat all at once, the world economy would collapse. It would take a gradual redistribution of weath in other sectors or the decision to stop eating meat would do more harm than good.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm sure that people said all the same things about those who supported the abolition of human slavery in the USA.

I'm sure that's not even close to the same thing.

4) If humans have rights, then animals have rights. There are no relevant differences. Animals have sentience. There is no question about it.

And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I have never seen such stupidity in my life as is in this thread. For all of you vegans, do you know how many acres of rain forests have been cleared in South America for guess what: Soybeans. That's right. Thousands of thousands of acres have been cleared for soybeans. South America has lines of trucks hundreds of miles long to dump grain at the terminals. Human life as we know it cannot exist without the consumption of animals. We have socially evolved by moving into cities, getting our food at the supermarket, having the conveniences of computers, automobiles, a pretty damn cushy lifestyle all because of the consumption of animals. So unless you vegans plan on moving out to the middle of nowhere and becoming gatherers that live in grass huts, shut up already. I live and work in ag country. Most land that is suitable for raising crops is used for that. Livestock graze on what we call waste-land. Land that is not suitable for raising crops. So until you agree to move onto this 'wasteland' and become a gatherer of berries and such, cattle will roam on it. They are not all 'couped up' as you would believe. They also don't come close to thinking like a human being. Most of the time they would rather trample you if you get to close to their calf. They don't 'give you the benefit of the doubt' like it is assumed we should give them. I agree, animals should be treated humanly unlike the chickens that are raised nowadays. Until people agree to pay more for their food, that is the way it is going to be.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I'm sure that's not even close to the same thing.

What makes you say that? You don't think that people called abolitionists unrealistic? Ridding ourselves of human slavery was a revolutionary change. Such revolutionary talk necessarily was called unrealistic. There used to be people who said that black people didn't have feelings. Such people surely called people advocating for black slaves "emotional" or "sentimental".

And you base this on what exactly? Most animals can't even recognize their reflection in a mirror. That's one of the simpler tests of self-awareness.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.
2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.
3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

As for rights, have you discussed rights with your cat? How can you be sure your cat's idea of rights is the same as yours? Your cat clearly doesn't see a moral issue with killing and dismembering that mouse for sport - yet you do. What gives you the right to decide for your cat what is right and wrong for it?

Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

No, Dan, rights were invented by humans for humans. They most certainly were not intended to extend to animals. Though there are a lot of people who think they should be extended to animals, that they were not intended for animals when they were thought up is simply a matter of historical/literary fact: ie, find me a pasage in one of Locke's books about rights where he talks about animal rights.

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights. As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society. In this case, you would not see the conditional that I stated as applying, since no one really has rights in the first place.

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals. We all have interests. While the nature of those interests have variations between species, the fact that all these different species have the capacities for positive and negative experiences renders us all relatively equal.

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation. The facts of behavior, biology (structure and process), and common heritage (evolution) show the link between oneself and other animals. These are the same facts upon which we believe in sentience in other humans (although the heritage link was not obvious until about a century and a half ago, and much knowledge of neurology is pretty recent). One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I have never seen such stupidity in my life as is in this thread. For all of you vegans, do you know how many acres of rain forests have been cleared in South America for guess what: Soybeans. That's right. Thousands of thousands of acres have been cleared for soybeans. South America has lines of trucks hundreds of miles long to dump grain at the terminals.

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

BTW, soybeans aren't grains.

Human life as we know it cannot exist without the consumption of animals. We have socially evolved by moving into cities, getting our food at the supermarket, having the conveniences of computers, automobiles, a pretty damn cushy lifestyle all because of the consumption of animals.

This is just not true. Eating animals is much less efficient than eating plants. This would allow more resources to be available for improving living conditions.

Most land that is suitable for raising crops is used for that. Livestock graze on what we call waste-land. Land that is not suitable for raising crops. So until you agree to move onto this 'wasteland' and become a gatherer of berries and such, cattle will roam on it. They are not all 'couped up' as you would believe.

Most of the agricultural land in the USA was once considered "wasteland". Then the "Reclamation of the West" (irrigation) came about. In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant. Also, notice that even grazing animals are fed bundles of hay, which had to be grown in fields elsewhere.

Beef cattle are often allowed to graze before being slaughtered. I live in Florida, where there are many pasture farms. However, I seriously doubt that grazing makes up the majority of the beef industry. Most other animals, including cows used for dairy, are kept in confinement. Birds and pigs get the worst of it. Dairy cows are in pretty bad shape. Here is a link that states that in Minnesota, only a small percentage of dairies graze their cows: http://www.extension.umn.edu/mnimpacts/impact.asp?projectID=2802

For animal welfare, if one is going to eat meat, it seems that eating beef would be the best, both because of the high amount of flesh per animal and the conditions of the animals. However, even many cattle "farms" keep the animals very closely packed, often in dirt or mud, as the following website shows: http://www.factoryfarm.org/resources/photos/cattle/

40% of all beef production comes from two percent of the feedlots, with three companies (IBP, ConAgra and Cargill) having market shares of 35%, 21% and 20% respectively.8

http://www.factoryfarm.org/topics/cattle/facts/

There is also great suffering due to feeding animals drugs and synthetic growth hormones and selective breeding.

I could go on and on, but it is easy to do the research. Tell me if you find any facts contrary to what I'm saying.

They also don't come close to thinking like a human being. Most of the time they would rather trample you if you get to close to their calf. They don't 'give you the benefit of the doubt' like it is assumed we should give them. I agree, animals should be treated humanly unlike the chickens that are raised nowadays. Until people agree to pay more for their food, that is the way it is going to be.

I'm glad that you think that chickens should be treated better, but that does not make it so. As long as there is demand, great suffering will happen. Also, I find it interesting that you try to refute the vegetarian argument using one type of animal (cattle) while acknowledging the confinement the argument regarding birds.

Firstly, a person does not have to treat you well in order for you to treat that person well (a person not necessarily being a human). Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same. Our moral appraisal of the animals doesn't matter. We cannot expect less intelligent creatures to be as good as we are. All that is relevant is that they can experience. Because they can experience, we should extend consideration for them. Due to this consideration, we should stop eating them.

 

[Dissident Dan]

I just dug up the following document: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/nassr/livestock/pct-bb/catl0104.txt

It states that in Texas, Kansas, and Oklahoma (ranked 1, 3, and 4 in cattle population in 1998 according to http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/ranking/lrank97.htm#allcattle), only 2.9 million (down from 3.7 million in 2003) cattle and cavles are estimated to be grazing on "Small Grain Pasture" in 2004. These states are estimated to have 26.65 million cattle and calves. That means that only 11% are "Grazing on Small Grain Pasture".

 

[Les Sleeth]

As for the responsibility thing; I am not sure that interfering another animals' dinner is necessary (they are doing their instinctive thing), but we as humans should probably stop raising animals for the sole purpose of killing them.

Sorry, I just saw your response. As I said, I personally cannot bear to participate in killing and eating animals. It is the "should" in your statement that makes me hesitate. Killing animials is how the universe works here on planet Earth. I can't see how to derive some morality for all humans from the nature of things, or (especially) from what I find repusive.

 

[Averagesupernova]

First, please stop and ask yourself why are you so angry and antagonistic.
Why human activity necessarily uses resources, the production of plants uses far less in land, energy, and water than the production of animals, especially in the USA, where most animals are no longer grazed, but are kept confined and fed cash crops.

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

In addition, synthetic fertilizers have rendered soil quality irrelevant.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

Secondly, if a creature that you perceived as potentially-threatening approached your child, I'm sure that you would do the same.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless. Let me clue you in about beef cattle: I own them and as we speak their calves are being born. They choose to drop them out in the dirt. They have the choice to go inside on clean concrete lined with nice fresh straw if they want. They have been inside but still choose the calve elsewhere. As we speak, it is raining. Guess where all the calves are? That's right, outside. Do you feel sorry for them? I do sort of, but not really. Ever hear the phrase 'not smart enough to come in out of the rain'? How about you come out here and convince my cattle to get their calves into the barn? You will soon realize just how different humans are from other animals. For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Why am I being angry? Because while you sit by spouting off this BS in your (appearing to be--->) Burger King crown, you are attacking the very well being of myself and family. Remember I said I live and work in an ag community.

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

If you actually knew anything about agriculture you wouldn't have made that comment. Believe me, certain land will only produce so much product. There are HUGE differences in the soil and no amount of fertilizer can make poor land good.

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

I'll remember that when I see some goofy looking idiot in a Burger King crown come near my family.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Dan, to the majority of the people here you may appear to have valid points. But to someone who actually lives and works in ag, you seem completely clueless
...
For someone who has not likely ever dragged a calf out of the mud and wondered why the cow didn't drop it in the dry dirt or grass you sure seem to be an expert.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

When we can all live in harmony with the animals and let them have their way and not keep them confined, you can deal with all of them that kill people on the highways each year. It won't be long though, because the domesticated cow cannot live in the wild any easier than you can. Neither can chickens. Through selective breeding chickens have been developed to grow so fast (not from drugs) that if they are not butchered within a certain amount of time their legs will break under their own weight. Believe me, the animals are better off either where they are or extinct.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

 

[russ_watters]

...[re: racism]

The only possible way to connect racism to animal rights is the fact that racism is not now, nor was it ever based on science. It was an emotional issue only. Animal rights is not based on science or philosophy. It is also strictly an emotional issue.

1) "Self-awareness" is not the correct criterion upon which to extend consideration. The ability to feel is the criterion. This ability to feel is commonly called sentience.

Awareness is the other half of the definition of sentience - the part that enables you to have feelings. Otherwise, feelings are indistinguishable from stimulus-response.

2) The mirror test isn't a good test. It is a test of intelligence, not a test of whether or not one knows of one's own existence. You have to understand the idea of reflection, which is beyond merely knowing of one's existence. I am continually astounded by the belief that the mirror test is so significant.

So how exactly do you test for sentience? Remember: now you are arguing real science. You cannot just assume animals to be senteint. You have to prove it scientifically. From what I understand, there is not much debate about animal sentience in the scientific community (ie, the scientific community does not accept that animals are sentient) except in the case of a handful of higher level mammals. Scientists consider the mirror test to be one of very few valid ones for self-awareness.

3) As you implied yourself, some animals, such as nonhuman primates, do pass the mirror test. Should they, at least, be afforded rights?

Quite possibly - and we already do treat them different in a lot of cases. But you wouldn't want to draw a line, would you...? Feel free to argue where that line should be though, if you want.

[re:cats and mice] Any creature has an interest in not being harmed.

Ok, so you're saying cats are immoral. Good. Now, how did you punish this cat for these atrocious acts of immorality? Does your state have a death penalty for example? While we're at it, any animal that has ever killed another animal is guilty of murder, right? They all need to be executed then, don't they? Am I starting to sound at all absurd to you? (I sure hope so)

Well, I said If humans have rights, then animals have rights.

And you base this on what exactly? Which of the great philosophers discussed this issue? AFAIK, the principle authority on rights (Locke) never mentioned animal rights.

As is apparent from your post, you do not believe in rights as an inherent characteristic of a person. You believe in them as some made-up part of society.

That is not what I said. Have you read any of the philosophy of rights? Learning the modern understanding of rights would be a good place to start before deciding these concepts can be extended to animals. A little taste: According to Locke, rights are inherrent in humans and are endowed by 'nature' - natural law. To some, that may imply God, to others, it may sound like the laws of science...

My whole point is that there are no relevant differences between humans and many other species of animals.

I pointed out several differences - whether you consider them relevant or not, philosophers considered them relevant enough to not even consider the possibility that animals have rights. In order to change that, you will need to come up with some good philosophy/science of your own. Good luck though - part of my cat exercise that you ignored was critical: You certainly have not ever discussed rights with a cat. What if the cat disagrees with you? No, that's not meant to be funny - it really is critical. You want to say animals have rights, yet at the same time you want to force your interpretation of rights on both us and them. It's a catch-22: if they are sentient and therefore worthy of rights, then their opinion matters (and guess what - they outnumber us).

It would be sticking one's head in the sand in one instance, and opening one's eyes in another (an inconsistency) to say that other humans can feel and nonhuman animals cannot. It would also be taking the more dangerous side of any error in calculation.

All I want you to do is prove it. Prove they are sentient. Prove they are worthy of rights. Prove they will agree with us on what rights are.

One of the many facts showing animal sentience is the fact that basic emotions like fear, anger, and lust are based in the hind- and mid-brain, present in mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and fish.

Interesting that you'd bring that up: the part of the brain where conscious thought resides is the cerebrum. The front. You just gave an important piece of evidence against those emotions being connected with conscious thought but rather just being pre-programmed stimulus-response. The cerebral cortex is what makes humans different from other animals.

There is a great Far Side cartoon where a wife paramecium is nagging her husband: 'stimulus/response, stimulus/response - don't you ever think?!' Important question and you are assuming the answer to be yes.

 

[Averagesupernova]

What are probably hurting your family's pocket books even more are foreign competition and large-scale agribusiness. It is an unfortunate situation that your income depends on poor treatment of animals. However, the fact that some people will have to find new jobs pales in importance compared to the suffering that animals endure. These jobs will diminish anyway as agriculture consolidates. I prefer open-range raising of animals to intensive confinement, but since World War II, intensive confinement has been overtaking open-range raising.

I realize what large scale ag does to the economy and I also realize what foreign competition does. But to completely ELIMINATE a legititmate market is a completely different thing. It takes a lot of balls on your part to ASSUME my livestock are treated poorly. BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

I would argue this point more, but it's not relevant to the issue of animal suffering in agriculture, so I'll leave it alone.

Nice way to skirt the fact that you know nothing about ag.

You were using that as a distinction by which you could justify the cruel treatment of cows, and when I made a statement denying that distinction, you resorted to personal attacks.

Ok, maybe I shouldn't have used the idiot comment, but the whole argument still stands up. I have never justified cruel treatment. I am arguing about what actually IS cruel treatment.

All these statements point to the fact that cows are not as intelligent as normal human beings. But so what? Neither are mentally-handicapped people. Are mentally-handicapped people not deserving of good treatment?

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

If we don't raise them in agriculture, they will be extinct. There will not be former farm animals running around the country. That's a hypothetical situation that will never happen.

If you listen to a lot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations. The US imported an insect that looks a lot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back. Don't argue about genetically modified crops that stand up to things like corn borers because what the GM crop actually does is kill the invader. The corn borer doesn't simply decide he doesn't like the taste, he eats it without knowing and it kills him. You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

 

[Dayle Record]

Here is an interesting link to personal consumption habits and how many Earth's we would need to support us, if the resources were doled out according to how we use them. http://myfootprint.org/

There is a religion in India called the Jains, who even wear little cards in front of their mouths lest they inhale flies and harm them. They have a long history from 6th century BC until now, and number at approximately 6.5 million individuals, mostly in the business class. Meat is very high on the food chain, we all know this, and takes a lot of resources to make, that could make us, and take the pressures off the Oceans, and plains and rivers, and ultimately take the pressure off our DNA. Predator viruses arise in us, go out into other hosts, and return to us with a vengeance. Like begets like, so if we ate far less animal protein, we would be exponentially safer from food borne predators. Other animal proteins also trigger immune responses in us, there was some discussion a few years ago regarding the onset of Type 1 diabetes, and consumption of cows milk before the second year of human life, there was a strong auto immune link indicated.

Anyway, that is my fourty cent continuum of commentary on this issue. I had a bacon and egg and potato burrito for breakfast and chicken at lunch. If only I had more compassion, I would be vegetarian again, I was for seven years, and ran a vegetarian restaurant during that time. It will come back to me.

 

[Dissident Dan]

BTW, consolidating ag is not necessarily a good thing. Do you really want a handful of companies controlling the whole food supply?

No, I don't. If you read my whole post, you will see that I stated that I prefer small-scale agriculture.

Mentally handicapped people are at least in the human race.

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

If you listen to a lot of PETA people they would have you believe otherwise. You say it will never happen, so are you admitting to fighting a losing battle?

Not at all. The extinction or near extinction of farmed animals would be a good thing, because they no longer have any niche other than being raised for slaughter and milk. There would no longer animals born only to live short lives of misery on farms. I do not care so much about the preservation of species. I care about the reduction of suffering.

You also realize that the balance of nature that is OUT OF THE HANDS OF HUMANS relies on animals eating the 'less fortunate ones'? Look at the fish populations in rivers, lakes and streams. Look at the insect populations.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural...but it's not acceptable.

The US imported an insect that looks a lot like the ladybug. Do you know why? To eat soybean beetles. To raise your precious crops for human consumption, lots of insecticide has to be dumped on the ground as well as rely on the ladybugs to eat the beetles which destroy the crop. If american farmers quit using insecticides yields would drop tremendously. Incidentally, soybeans take more nutrients out of the soil than about any other crop grown in the US. All nutrients that need to be put back.
...
You need to learn that life involves death on many scales. Are you not worried about the insects or will you start to preach about the senseless killings of bugs? Maybe since cows are furry and cuddly looking to you they are more important?

It is sad that pesticides are used so gratuitously in plant agriculture. However, most crops consumed in the USA are actually fed to animals raised for food--mainly soybeans, corn, and grains. By reducing consumption of animals, we are reducing consumption of crops, and therefore pesticide use, drastically. BTW, I'm very interested in something called Aeroponics. It could eliminate the "need" for pesticides.

According to http://www.populationconnection.org/Communications/ED2002WEB/demfactsf.PDF , the animal feed makes up 66% of the USA's grain consumption.

One last thing, do you know what happens to a cow or about any farm animal who is allowed to die a natural death? Basically they starve to death. Most farm animals teeth get bad to the point that they are unable to eat. My sister had a horse which she was unable to part with and we watched it slowly die off.

What are you argueing with this?

YOU are fighting in a battle in which you know nothing about. It would be comparable to me arguing with an airline pilot about why I think it is possible to land a 747 on a small grass airstrip that is only a couple of hundred feet long, and I will plainly admit that I know NOTHING about landing a 747.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

Also, many, if not all, the arguments that you have brought up have already been addressed in previous posts.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

 

[loseyourname]

Dan, you're really going to run into problems here arguing from animal suffering, given that we just don't know what animals are even capable of suffering. There can be no doubt that they respond to stimuli, as the mentor (I forget his name) continually points out, but this doesn't mean that they are actually experiencing any pain. Even single celled organisms move away from harmful factors, but I think we can be pretty certain that they experience nothing when they are being attacked. It should be obvious that some animals that are not human do experience consciousness, if not to the same degree as us, at least in that they experience pain and can suffer. I have no idea where to draw the line, and much as I do when arguing against abortion, I would say that this is sufficient to justify not inflicting the negative stimuli on these animals the way we do. It seems to me that if they may be experiencing pain, and certainly most birds and mammals are high enough on the evolutionary path that it is fairly likely, then we should not take the chance, but no one seems to buy into this. They would rather make an error than play it safe morally.

I think it would be more fruitful for you to argue from an ecological standpoint. The energy used when we move up the trophic chain is immense. If the entire world were to convert to vegetarianism, the reduction of ecological footprint would be huge. As it stands now, we are already past carrying capacity given the footprint we have, and this is with most underdeveloped and developing nations eating a mostly vegetarian diet. As they advance in wealth and acquire our eating habits, the strain put on the biosphere will increase a great deal. You can also argue from air pollution. Currently, the second most prevalent pollutant behind carbon dioxide is methane, and the number one methane producer in the world are methanogens that exist within the digestive cavities of cattle. A vegetarian world would put far less strain on the land, would use less land, produce more calories (which in turn would feed more people), be more cost-efficient, and reduce air pollution. These are not as vague as the ethical issues you might have. No one can argue against the fact that vegetarianism is the way to go in terms of conservation.

 

[Dissident Dan]

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

I have no doubt that other animals experience pleasure and pain. The first and most obvious measure is behavior. Other animals' behavior is similar to my own to such a degree that it would be ludicrous to suggest that they don't experience. Their behavior is much more complex than that of any microscopic organism.

The second measure is structure. They have brains very similar to our own. The most glaring difference in nervous systems is our enlarged and wrinkled forebrains. However, basic emotions have long been known to be based in the midbrain and hindbrain, which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have (although I'm not quite sure of how similar the fish brain is).
The third "measure" is evolution. We come from a common background at some point. The fact that humans weren't just dropped down from the sky by god, separate from other animals, indicates that other animals have mental capacities similar to my own.

I do not find the evidence for animal sentience any less strong than the evidence for human sentience.

The distinctions that people draw in their minds between humans and other animals are mostly religious or cultural, not scientific.

 

[Dayle Record]

People who state that there is some question as to animals ability to suffer, are simply not doing their research. There is plenty of research, to back up unpleasant stimulus, vs pleasant. Oh come on, almost all behavioral research uses pain, or threat of pain to some extent; as the opposite of pleasure to control behavior.

I saw this Nova about the goings on at a set of springs somewhere in Africa. The discussion was about Hippopotamai, and how fierce they are. No one at the water hole messes with them, including the Crocs. In this vignette, one Hippo has passed away, and you see its companion, open its mouth, and grieve. The Hippo is crying, and crying, and you see the pathos plainly, the tears are abundant. Even the Crocs understand that, because they wait for that to pass. Only after the Hippo has grieved, does it move on, and leave the Crocs to ravage the carcass.

There is sentience at every level of the equation that is Earth, and we are simply the most viscious, and capable of the predators here. We could choose to be the conservators, of life, and many cases, we do just that. Every life form feels pain, it is a part of our basic aversion to damage, mechanism. If animals felt no pain, then they would not protect their bodies from harm. That is why pain exists in the first place.

Let me help you with this, it hurts like hell when some human hits you over the head with a sledge hammer, whether you are a cow, horse, human, bird, or fish. It really hurts when they begin to dismember you, before you are dead. This is how the meat is kept fresh, by the meat industry, and how labor cost is kept to a minimum.

The technology is abundantly available, to end life painlessly. We just don't afford that courtesy to our prey, nor to our enemies.

 

[Averagesupernova]

First, you stated that they don't deserve consideration because they're dumb. Now you're saying that it depends on whether or not they're human. What is your criterion changing?

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

Suffering in one situation does not justify violence in another. It's not all-or-nothing. Just because something's natural does not mean that it's acceptable. Hell, rape is natural...but it's not acceptable.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

What are you argueing with this?

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I do not have to have a career in agriculture in order to form a valid opinion regarding it. I have seen the statistics. I have seen the videos and the photographs. Argueing expertise isn't a good argument. I hope that not many people here would think, "He works in agriculture, so I should never question anything he says regarding agriculture."

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers. At first I thought this was a completely horrible thing and still do. But the instinct of survival kicks in when a little 10 year old pulls the pin and tosses one at you. The next 10 year old you see who is looking right at you and ready to pull the pin is going to get wasted. I'm not condoning wasting little kids, but the whole opinion can change when you actually are educated with experience of those who were there or actually were there yourself. You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Lastly, I would like to say that, out of all animal agriculture, cattle is the lowest on my concern list. Birds and pigs are treated far worse and in far greater numbers. I would prefer that people eat beef to chicken or pork.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Quit putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that they don't deserve consideration because they are dumb. I was simply correcting your assumption that they DO think like humans.

It seemed to me that you implying that their not being very intelligent was a reason to disregard them. Perhaps I was wrong. I don't think that I stated that their thoughts are almost just like human thoughts. I've stated that, like humans, they can think and feel emotions.

Do you remember my comment about the idiot in the Burger King crown coming near my family? Well, the rape comment certainly justifies my position on that. Incidentally, I DON'T find rape to be natural. You sicken me.

Please, let's keep personal attacks out of this. Those get us nowhere. I didn't state that I find a natural rape urge. I was speaking historically. After all, what is considered natural is history; natural usually just means "the way that things have been for a long time".

Just a point I was trying to make concerning an animal 'living a natural life'. It may not be you that said it, but my point is still valid.

I would prefer to die a painful death than live an entire life in agony.

I can argue that the same way. I could tell you all about statistics on how US soldiers shot and killed young children in Vietnam. That seems completely horrible. But unless you were a soldier there (I wasn't but know people who were), you really can't say much until you've talked to those soldiers.
...
You seem unable to accept true facts given by those who are actually in the experience.

Firstly, there are no farmed animals throwing grenades at anyone,. There are no real reasons to consume meat other than preference and societal influences.
Also, just as I cannot pretend to know exactly how your particular farm operates, you would be assuming too much to think that most farms operate however yours is. I've seen stuff from many different farms and slaughterhouses, and I've seen statistics. Checking valid statistics in combination with a wide enough personal sampling of "farms" and slaughterhouses is a very good, if not the only, way to determine this.

I couldn't agree more. Pigs are not that high of a concern to me, but chickens are treated horribly. Where you and I agree is that while the animal is alive, it should not be treated poorly. Where we start to disagree is what exactly is considered poor. I will agree that chickens and turkeys have horrible lives.

I'm glad that we agree in some areas. Please don't take anything I say to necessarily refer to the conditions of your animals. I can only make general statements on what is common in the industry or comments on specific things that I have seen and/or heard. The things that I have seen and read about are quite appalling. There are many websites, books, and videos detailing the situations.

 

[loseyourname]

The environmental argument is a very good one. However, the animal suffering aspect is more important. Whether more people will care about environment or animal suffering, it is hard to say.

Well, to begin with, I'm not really sure that animal suffering, or anybody's suffering, is more important than conserving the biosphere that supports all life. But that isn't really my point anyway.

What I'm saying is that your argument from animal suffering can be disputed, and will be disputed, no matter how obvious it is that livestock experience suffering, simply because people will always point out that we can't talk to them and ask them. The argument from ecosystem conservation can't be disputed. No one can argue with the fact that filtering the energy from the sun through several layers, or even just one layer, of livestock, greatly reduces the amount that makes it to us, and so greatly increases the volume of the crops we must grow and the land we must use. It is just an extremely inefficient way to utilize photosynthesis when we can simply get the calories straight from the plants. Doing so would go a very great distance toward lessening the strain we place on ecosystems, do away with a great deal of deforestation, and decrease air pollution and increase the productivity of agriculture. A small lifestyle change could very nearly cut in half the impact we have on the planet, if only everyone would make the switch. One step up the trophic change entails a tenfold increase in the amount of total calories consumed, by both livestock and humans. That means ten times as much grain is needed to feed livestock that will then feed us than would be needed simply to feed us. Imagine the difference that could be made.

Let us not forget how much of an impact agriculture has. As a case in point, take the Salton Sea. As of right now, the Salton Sea stands as the only refuge for about 300 species of birds that migrate south through California every winter. The coastal wetlands are all but gone due to development. Eutrophication through agricultural runoff causes immense algal blooms that suck all of the oxygen out of the water, killing all the fish, and periodically leaving the migrating birds with nothing to eat. If this continues at the rate it is currently moving in, within ten years there will be no more fish, and the last refuge for these birds will be gone. This is the only place on the entire west coast that they can go to, and destroying it will effectively end the existence of 300 species west of the Rockies. This is only one example. If the land used was cut by a factor of ten, the problem would all but disappear. Another large problem is the need of agriculture for water. The Colorado river right now stands as the only source of water for three huge metropolitan areas: Phoenix, San Diego, and Los Angeles, none of which have their own water. The strain put on natural resources by the size of the populations, and by the amount of farm land that exists out in Riverside County, is devastating. Removal of livestock in favor of exclusively vegetable and grain crops would not do away with the this problem entirely, as overpopulation of a basically desert environment is a large part of it as well, but it would be a great start.

 

[cragwolf]

I'm too lazy to read this long thread, so I'm sorry if I raise issues that have already been raised. I'll just state my opinion here.

I'm a hypocrite. I eat meat, but I recognise that there really is no valid reason for my doing so. Why should animals die just to satisfy my taste for their BBQ'd flesh? A proper vegetarian diet would provide all the necessary nutrients I need. There certainly are some people who live in some places in the world where a meat diet is justified. Meat for these people might be the only way they can obtain their required nutrients. But in my first-world society of plenty, that is not an applicable argument.

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

 

[Galatea]

In a rather perverse way, I admire animal hunters who eat their victims. Unlike shoppers like me who buy their pre-packaged meat at a supermarket, these hunters have fully faced up to what they are doing: participating in the slaughter of an innocent animal. Better still, the animals they've killed have likely led far better lives then the animals who find their way into supermarkets. Now this doesn't mean I propose that people go out and hunt for their food. But it does lead nicely to my next point.

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior. I fear anyone who will end a living creatures life for any reason besides minimizing its suffering.

That point is about suffering. OK, so if I'm going to be a hypocrite, and support an animal-murdering industry, then at least I should do everything in my power (as a consumer and as a voter) to see to it that this industry treats these animals humanely. This means I should support an end to so-called factory farming, or at the very least, support a set of strict regulations that would totally transform the practice.

Even devout meat eaters feel a twinge in their conscience when they think about factory farming. I've yet to meet anyone who says, "Yeah, factory farming is great. I think they treat these animals just fine." I think that more humane ways of killing them are certainly a step in the right direction - at the very least, it might at least indicate an evolution of thought about these issues.

Of course, it would be a lot better if we all just went vegan. But that would require some intellectual or rational consistency that people like me are too cowardly to implement in our lives.

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

 

[Dayle Record]

I saw this study regarding empathy, and animals.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994901

 

[cragwolf]

I can't say I admire hunters more than the average consumer; ignorance is generally better than malicious behavior.

But it isn't ignorance. Everyone knows that animals are killed before they reach the supermarket. Everyone knows that such animals are raised in less than ideal circumstances. Consumers can't use the excuse of ignorance. They are just as malicious as hunters. The main difference is that they let others do the dirty work for them, and so they avoid witnessing the suffering that they are causing. They are cowards and hypocrites (that includes me).

The first step is to stop thinking animals are food. After that, it's all just details.

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

 

[loseyourname]

At least the hunter does not hurt the environment. If he is skilled, he will also inflict no suffering on the animal he kills.

 

[TheBestOfMe]

Wow, First off, I'd like to commend all these agruments and points you all place. You really think outside the box.

But, as it goes, I take a postion, I stand on the side of Dan(whom is doing a very good job on his own).

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

 

[KingNothing]

I think vegetarianism as a form of protest has a great heart and goal in mind but is a horrible attempt at making progress. It's not the facts like "the animals are being so mistreated" that really relate, so much, its more the issue of "how much does this accomplish?"

For me, I couldn't become a vegetarian because of my weighlifting and powerbuilding/boxing. It truly is detrimental to you physically in that respect.

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Humans are quite obviously the top of the 'chain' when it comes to planet earth...by that I mean, we have basic control over the populations of all other animals...we are the king animals of the earth. Why not let us be the top of the food chain, too? I'm sure animals don't like being killing...buut, animals are killed no matter what.

Also on another note, if a person is vegetarian for religious reasons, that's fine with me, no questions asked.

I'm not trying to make a 'barbaric' argument...it may be mistaken as that. I really think protestant vegetarianism is futile. There are much greater things you can do to help out.

 

[russ_watters]

Now, can we put 'humane' back into human? First, we can realize that we are not the only one's who have feelings. ^_^

Ironic choice of words: DD is trying to take the "human" out of the "humane."

That's not good enough. Why can I think of plants as food? Why is it better to eat an insect than a pig? Why is it OK to swipe at a mosquito but not OK to smash a baseball bat over the head of a kangaroo? There must be well-reasoned answers to such questions. I don't want to do things just because they feel good. That's why I continue to be a meat eater today.

Agreed. Until I see an argument based on science: evidence, logic, reason, I won't be swayed either. There are a lot of glossed-over questions by the vegitarians.

 

[Yossarian]

i think this is a bad idea, it could disrupt the food chain if everyone on Earth stopped eating meat.

earth worked perfectly fine without humans eating meat. Earth will alwasy adjust itself to the population fluctuations whether it is a few hundred amamals one way or the other or, millions of anamals. the foodchain will always readjust itself.

 

[Yossarian]

I have been a vegitarian my entire life and am the prosses of going vegan. I am an athlete as well and workout. i have never encountered any physical problems with my being a vegitarian. it is quite easy to get all that is required for a healthy diet.

I am also quite curious to see what you so aptly called other things that one must take into consideration. i agree that you must be more carful but it is quite easy to do.

I would also like to know what other things you would suggest to do. and in respose to what.

 

[Les Sleeth]

It really is unhealthier to be vegetarian. Those people who say "yeah well you get the smae amount of proteins from bla bla bla" don't know enough about nutrition. It's not *just* some number you can compare like that. There are many many other things to know, other than what the food label has to tell you.

Be careful there . . . I don't think you can make your case when you say it is less healthy to be vegetarian. I know nutrition quite well, and I also can compare the first 25 years of my life as a meat eater, and the last 32 years as a vegetarian. I can report there is no comparison, not even close! I feel much better, digest food easier, have more energy (e.g., I play racquetball for 3 hours without a break, not bad for a 57 yo), get over the few colds I ever get faster, and more.

Healthwise, I am convinced the vegetarian diet wins hands down (obviously it has to be eating good food and a well-rounded diet . . . an all Twinkie diet is vegetarian). But I still can't see how it is anybody's business whether others eat meat or not, and so cannot be considered a "should" socially. If you want to eat dead, rotting flesh and have it sit around in your gut for days, weeks, even years . . . be my guest! One thing I can agree with Dan about is to work for more compassionate treatment of slaughter animals.