Veganism and ethics
At the heart of many a vegan message is that animals have emotions, can suffer, and that we should not be complicit in that if we can avoid it. Vegans claim that we are completely detached from where meat comes from and from the value of animal lives because meat is innocuous looking, clean, neatly packaged and not recognisable as anything living by the time it reaches the supermarket shelves. That is convenient for us who don't want to acknowledge what occurred in order to get it there. And it is also convenient then to justify eating it whenever and in whatever quantity we feel like.
I am neither a proponent for or against veganism I'm merely going to highlight what I understand about the two sides of the argument.
On the other side, people enjo? meat. It's delicious, it's one of the many food sources nature has given us that we are able to easily digest, its filling and prevents overeating, a source of fully rounded complete protein, and B12 vitamins and minerals. It is needed in higher amounts when we are sick to overcome illness. It is something we see other animals eat. And we acknowledge that we too have canine teeth - understood to be for eating meat. And because people enjoy the taste of it, it brings people together, elevates their mood through eating, helps form social bonds, serving as the center stage of any large meal or family celebration.
What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat?
Question 1: if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it?
Question 2: Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores)
I am neither a proponent for or against veganism I'm merely going to highlight what I understand about the two sides of the argument.
On the other side, people enjo? meat. It's delicious, it's one of the many food sources nature has given us that we are able to easily digest, its filling and prevents overeating, a source of fully rounded complete protein, and B12 vitamins and minerals. It is needed in higher amounts when we are sick to overcome illness. It is something we see other animals eat. And we acknowledge that we too have canine teeth - understood to be for eating meat. And because people enjoy the taste of it, it brings people together, elevates their mood through eating, helps form social bonds, serving as the center stage of any large meal or family celebration.
What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat?
Question 1: if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it?
Question 2: Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores)
Comments (140)
We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be.
Quoting Benj96
Pre-modern cultures learn to treat animals as more like objects to detach. Im sure slaughterhouses do the same. Is this process a sociopathic trait that we cultivate at a cultural level? Militaries must do this to soldiers. Its depersonalizing. I see it as a kind of cultural learning and not an instinct per se.
You can argue that animals aren't like "persons" so the same things don't apply to them. They aren't capable of being self-aware. There is nothing about them that makes them particularly distinct as an individual that has goals other than to follow instincts to survive. However, it is still putting cart before horse. The onus is still on us, because we know them as at least sentient beings who most likely feel pain, fear, and do we want to be in the business of othering something of the point of extreme aggression towards them? We can't use the excuse it's either them or us, because it is not in self-defense, unlike say a predatory animal attacking us. We obviously can live without eating meat.
It's a naturalistic fallacy to use things like canine teeth and tastiness of meats to affirm that this is the right course of action.
Interesting arguments. I am not really sure if every human knows what is he doing when he is doing it because there are exceptional cases. For example: a schizophrenic doesn't distinguish between reality and his "world". Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing.
I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans.
So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me).
Quoting javi2541997
Possibly. Seems to be making the case for vegetarianism stronger if that were the case. At least if you respect that aspect.
Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man.
Yes, I was just trying to show the analogy of an attacking animal to those who might say.. well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? There are some people who have an odd, "If you don't eat them, they will eat you" kind of thing. Clearly not the case with most animals we eat, and part of the reason we do kill certain animals that harm us unintentionally (rats, spiders, etc.).
It would seem there is a difference in defense against disease and defending your home/city from invasion from a small rodent compared to killing for consumption of a larger grazing animal that is not invading your city, and one can avoid harming them, especially if they are quite sentient beings (at the level of domestic pets we'll say). And I don't think the other extreme of not categorizing animals in terms of sentient capacity is good either. Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality.
I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I am agree. It is true that vegans forget the basic notion that we need to "kill" cows or pigs because it is needed to get feed. We don't do it because of lust.
According to who? Oh right, ourselves. Isn't that sort of self referential bias? Haha what has you believe that "instinct" isn't "knowing what you're doing".
When a newborn mammal looks to feed from their mothers milk is that not a priori knowledge ? Ingrained in their dna the knowledge of what to do when born in order to survive.
I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. It may look simple to us with our complex philosophical dicourses but simplicity doesn't mean ignorance or lack of awareness of what one is doing or why. It just means that they rely on instincts they evolved for millions of years while we have the ability to reason about hypothetical situations, many of which may still refer to instinct for example hypothetical moral dilemmas - "what would you do?" or "what woukd be your instinct in such a case"?
I think a species destroying the planet that keeps them alive by tipping the balances and measures all off in skewed ways from equilibrium doesn't sound like one that knows what it's doing.
You are of course free to disagree and explain your point of view more.
Quite right Tzeentch. I think veganism has some unfortunate plot holes. I do admire the intent of vegans to speak on behalf of the other animals on earth but let's indulge a situation for a moment where everyone is suddenly vegan.
In the vegan world a few things could happen.
Option 1: Domestic animals normally used for meat will live by instinct and breed excessively and unabated. We would soon be overrun by chickens, and pigs and cattle etc. Because no one is killing them. They would soon run out of resources in competition with one another and would thus starve and succumb to all sorts of nasty illnesses - viruses, bacteria etc which may be transmitted to humans (like coromavirus likely was). Think of India with its cow problem because cows are considered sacred there and its shunned upon to kill them.
Option 2: we neuter all domestic animals so they don't overpopulate and in doing so they go extinct in one generation. We lose biodiversity needlessly, also quite tragic I suspect.
Option 3: we return them to the wild but being domestic animals they will surely be easy picking for wild predators - us having tamed them beyond their innate threat perception skills. Perhaps some would learn quickly and be able to carve out a living but most would likely die.
So it seems that veganism has its own set of issues.
Vegetarianism or limited meat consumption seems like the most balanced way humans could prevent interfering with nature's balance. In a vegetarian world animals would live and die in balance while always producing useful products - dairy eggs etc - good sources of protein. And only killed for essential reasons - things that can only be practically made from leather instead of plastic, for social festivities, and perhaps transplantations in medicine. Not only would we minimise the carbon emissions from the meat industry but we would stave off the illnesses that come with high intensity farming and the lack of hygiene and easy transmissibility of disease that comes with it.
Well killing spiders may seem trivial. But we must always consider the purpose of spiders. They produce silk - one of the strongest natural substances known and a possible source of ropes stronger than steel. They also predate pests that eat our crops and also feed on us - mosquitoes etc. Every animal and insect has a niche and a purpose in the balance of nature. The minute we assume they don't we are precariously close to disregarding their importance and causing problems for ourselves in the future.
Sure being told not to kill a spider in your house because it'll cause all sorts of problems seems extreme. But widespread use of insecticides on farmland... Now that is a problem for spider populations.
We must pursue an understanding of mother nature and live by her rules. Empathise with her because we are natural. We are born from her ecosystem. To commit mutiny against it is to commit mutiny against ourselves and opens up a world of pain. Pain that can be avoided.
Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think theres a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. And no doubt, Im not an animal egalitarian. Humans then become the most important to not unnecessarily harm if faced between human and animal. If not because of sentience then from ties of relations.
Because they are in order of what is most different (spider) to what is most similar (ape) - close to self? If self preservation is your motto is it not the same instinct as all of these animals: spiders, rats, cows and apes?
And if so, if they all have the same will to survive and reproduce who are we to determine which do and which don't? Is it balanced to only consider what is in it for us (humans)? Is all of nature (us included) not mutually dependent on one another for the skills, the niches, we offer in service to a greater good - an ecosystem?
Well interestingly enough there is a case of an animal that has the ability to kill us as we did it - the wolf. But it seems instead something our ancestors saw in this predator was relatable and so we offered sharing of resources, of food, in pursuit of companionship. And thus we got "man's best friend" in return - the humble and loyal dog. The animal we hunted with, part of our united interspecial "pack".
Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.
By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one?
Another example: cows, bulls, lambs, etc all of them depend on us because we have managed their nature and development for centuries.
Perhaps you're right. In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. Such is the case when one takes over control of natural selection and polarises it.
When we take the kindest and softest natured dogs and breed them we get pups that carry those good genetics traits.
But if we dont kill off the lesser preferred dogs they breed with one another by exclusion and instinct and simultaneously create pups that are more unfavourable.
By extension of the process we get the cutest, most affable and tame creatures and simultaneously their opposite: seething and aggressive unsafe canines
By making it in vats in a factory. We can do that now. That would address the ethical concern, though not necessarily all other concerns.
But there are vested commercial and political interests pitted against the new technology, so it's taking longer to develop on a commercially sustainable scale.
Quoting Benj96
If the confrontation between the meat-eating human and his prey takes place in slaughterhouse, it's very likely to put the human off his meat, for a while anyway. But it's not a setting that engenders respect: by the time it arrives at there, the animal is already degraded, traumatized and reduced to the status of a commodity. The ethical wrong is not in the ending of a life, but in the method of production and destruction that takes an individual entity from its artificial inception through its miserable short life to its ignominious end. I doubt gratitude enters this scenario.
Quoting Benj96
No, I don't think so. Vegans who make that decision on ethical grounds are reacting, not to natural hunting but to modern life and food-production. They're not rejecting a lifestyle where eight men go out with spears and bring home two or three caribou to feed the clan all winter, in favour of relying on the roots and dried berries the women had been able to gather.
They're rejecting the factory farms that raise billions of artificially bred and enhanced sentient individuals and torture them for the single purpose of being slaughtered, so that obese humans can throw away 26% of the meat and hasten their own heart disease with the rest.
And they're not rejecting meat in the stone age, when the balance between humans and other animals might have been sustainable; they're doing it now, when alternatives are readily available and the status quo is fast driving the rest of the world to extinction, with ourselves not far behind.
Quoting javi2541997
In that case, his legal defense is "Not guilty, due to diminished capacity".
So we might also overlook it if he eats goats, grasshoppers, newspapers or mud.
Only those of us who do understand our actions and are free to choose what we eat are held responsible and subjected to judgment.
Quoting Tzeentch
The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain.
Quoting Benj96
The more we learn about animal behaviour and intelligence, the more evident this becomes.
Quoting javi2541997
Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? How about a nice bowl of cereal instead? Moussaka? Bean soup?
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is an instinctive range of sympathy from least to most likeness to ourselves. But that's sentiment, not obligation - not reliable, either, as we learn that outward appearance is a poor indicator of sentience.
As far as our moral and legal codes go, the cutoff is Human/Other. In different periods and regions, parts of the human population have been designated Other, so as to withdraw legal protection from that group. But no Other ever gets elevated to the Human category. The closes we come to that is exempting what we designate "companion animals" from the kind of treatment to which "food animals" are subjected.
Vegetarians of different types draw the line at what they consider distinguishable levels of sentience; some eat fish and crustaceans; some eat dairy and eggs. Vegans just rule out the killing and exploitation of all animals.
Quoting Benj96
There was nothing inadvertent about it. We bred all domestic animals to serve our purposes. Pit bulls were bred to fight for the entertainment of spectators. Wolfhounds, terrier and beagles were bred for hunting. Some for sniffing, some for racing, some for rescue work and some for guarding. Since most of the vicious animal sports have been outlawed, some of those breeds pose a problem. But we still breed dangerous dogs for guarding our valuables.
But thats a different example. It is not the same being a primitive hunters than defending myself of an attack. If I kill an animal because I want to eat it, I am acting with premeditation, so yes I am totally aware about my own actions. Nevertheless, when I must make a choice in seconds related to survive or die I wouldnt know If I would be aware at all. As I said, it is a reflex action not based on full awareness.
Yes. The OP was about killing to eat. Killing in self-defense is exempted from murder involving a human, as well. The reason you'd get away with it is not that you may have been unaware of a reflex action, but that whether aware or not, the manslaughter was justified.
In the case of modern man killing animals for food, it is done with full awareness. It may be justified if it's a matter of life and death, but not justified when there are other choices. Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species.
I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would.
Can something that does not feel pain (in a way us humans recognize it) simply be killed with impunity? I think not.
Because they all have the same motive: feed the humans. It is not about being moral/legal but an action of survival. If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. I see simplistic but thats how the world works. If someone tells you that is possible to live without cattle raising, he is lying.
A lot to unpack.
So I consider it similar to a Trolley Problem. If you were to either save a close relative/friend or several strangers, what would you do? I think it quite sociopathic to ignore the relations you have with someone, so I wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to choose someone who was close to them. Similarly, I think there is something about not wanting to hurt those which we can identify with more as closer to us and which we can at least estimate by behavior is closer to how we react to pain, fear, harm, etc.. I see it as maybe part of some moral sense, or sense of some kind we seem to react to regarding relations and harm.
As for the ecosystem, etc. That is more abstract, but that is the difference between killing a spider and completely eradicating a species that might be integrated into an ecosystem.
I again see this as a relations things. Since we do have self-awareness, we can see that this person is still someone like us and thus we should treat them with dignity as we would want to be treated if we were in their position. If a minimal standard to strive for is not unnecessarily harming anyone/beings why would we unnecessarily put animals with lesser self-awareness/sentience through unnecessary harms when it can be prevented? Surely, there are alternatives, no? Is it only simply, "It feels good, so it is right"? That seems off too. If you simply can't stand not eating beans and vegetables because it's less tasty, I am not sure how that is living up to that standard. If you don't agree that unnecessary harm is something to live by, then it may be questionable standards. However, if it is simply that there is no consideration of unnecessary harms for other animals, we must ask why this is the case.
I am wary of trying to corner the argument into a slippery slope fallacy.. Why stop at "higher" sentient beings, etc. Well, then I would agree with an earlier sentiment you have that it's a tragedy of life that some beings will be grist for the mill in the name of "cycle of life". However, this can be posed the other way, of why NOT prevent the higher sentience from that suffering?
Quoting Benj96
For what it's worth, I am more on board with this than any veganism or extreme veganism. As someone was stating earlier, it's mainly about the conditions of the animals, though I think there is something odd about going up to an animal and killing it when there are alternatives. Although I understand that we can't let the farm animals breeding forever, it may simply be a solution like not introducing males and females together or something like that. Stop it at the breeding part so it doesn't have to get to the killing part. They would still have to be domesticated though. Just how they are now and that can't be factored out. We are inextricably tied with these domesticated species for good or bad. The problem though is so systemic and consuming it is more of a feel good way of dealing with it for oneself rather than actually getting much done consequentially.. But as a deontological point, it makes sense.. do no harm unnecessarily if you can help it.
My gripe was with the idea that there exists a heirarchy of sentience by which we can decide what is moral to eat (or harm) and what is not.
To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc.
To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really?
The screaming.
That's simplistic, but that's the thing in a nutshell: not to kill that which expresses a desire to live; not to hurt that which responds to pain. If trees are shown to have a nervous system, I'd have to rethink whether I should use lumber.
We cannot live without compromises: there is no purity for a high-maintenance, highly perceptive species. Algae can be more innocent than earthworms; spiders more innocent than hyenas. None of them have a choice, and Evolution has passed all of their characteristics and needs down to us.
But we are no longer subject to nature; we developed the ability to subjugate nature. To destroy it, to replicate or alter its processes, to dig up the distant past and burn it, to turn valleys into radioactive waste dumps and jungles into grazing land for disabled species that belong on plains which no longer exist.
Collectively, we could become far more benign, had we the will and leadership. The Earth would last longer and we would survive both longer and with a better quality of life.
Individually, we have only a limited choice in how we live and how much we contribute to the destruction.
Vegans try to do as little harm as possible. They can't do zero harm, because they are human in a world that is now 100% human-owned and operated.
Other groups of people try to minimize the harm in other ways: they build tiny houses, or eat only locally produced food, or build their own greenhouse, or stop using plastic, or put solar panels on their roof or recycle water.
I don't think there is anything to gain by saying: If you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try at all.
That's an opinion many humans share. Not all, however.
Quoting Tzeentch
Insects do; they have a nervous system. When caught in a trap, they try to escape. Broccoli doesn't. I eat broccoli, but not spiders. Quoting javi2541997
How long does it take, usually? I haven't fed myself with the flesh of mammal, birds or sea-creatures for 30-odd years. So far, feeling fine.
We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - hence the multi-billion dollar supplement industry.
Domestic animals don't control their breeding anyway. The farmers do. Much of it - cattle in particular - is done artificially. To stop it, all we have to do is stop. Inducing milk production in a cow that has not given birth is more complex, but already within reach. Should work on goats, too. Free-range egg sellers regularly keep all-hen flocks: a calmer barnyard and no risk of an embryo plopping into a customer's frying pan. Sheep, also goats, rabbits and llamas) could still be kept for the wool - when you don't want an increase in the herd, just sequester the rams. Pigs have no other use, except rototilling vegetable patches and cleaning up the floor of orchards and permaculture gardens and sniffing out the odd $1000 truffle.
Humans have choices about what they eat and how they produce it.
(And - Shhhh, don't spook the elephant! - about how many of us need feeding.)
Quoting Tzeentch
:up:
Quoting Tzeentch
:up: :up:
I think that is a good response.
That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. I respect the technology and pharmaceutical products to help us to get a better life. Nevertheless, those tablets never will be a real substitute of a bistec.
True it seems an ever more possible option with the advancement in technology and bioengineering. My only question here is that this process of synthesising meat surely demands a lot of electricity in these factories. And that electricity has to come from somewhere - currently not renewable energy so this solution to eating meat must come simultaneously with a change over to renewables otherwise it won't solve the fossil fuel - climate change dilemma.
Current natural sources of meat are based on renewable energy - photosynthesis of sunlight by plants which are then eaten by animals. This is nature's way and doesn't disturb the balanced ecosystem: the atmosphere, carbon cycle etc.
and keeps our climate in equilibrium.
Synthesising meat seems a perfectly acceptable solution to eating animals as long as it mimics nature in full - powered by renewable healthy clean energy.
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/electric-power-and-natural-gas/our-insights/renewable-energy-development-in-a-net-zero-world
I also found this recent comparative study encouraging:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2019.00005/full
We can walk and chew gum at the same time, Ben. "Veganism", to me, is a luddite stop-gap whose time has come and gone. We don't need to eat like cows or eat cows themselves or wind up with "soylent green is people" ... :smirk:
Be that as it may I do admire vegans for the basic principles of their beliefs - that we ought respect animals more than we do. They have highlighted a conundrum that we face in daily life by acting as an extreme. Considering extremes are often the best way to establish the full extent of a problem and find a "middle ground".
Should we see eye to eye with animals, to really be friend not foe or do we objectify them and enslave them to our whims? As you pointed out there is always a third option which satisfies our desire to eat meat while not subjugating other animals.
It seems that all we need to do to approach an appropriate solution is to keep an open mind and tread lightly with the options presented. I for one am eager to see where synthetic meat tech goes. In the meantime we can only make decisions based off the current model/tech that we have available to us, but hope for a better one to come along.
And I do think renewable energy is entirely within our grasp. Considering how capitalism and the open market works if we increase the supply of renewables and make it competitive (in other words trust in them as the future) then they will naturally fall in price through investment and innovation. And eventually overtake fossil fuels both in desirability and cost efficiency.
We must never underestimate our intelligence in the face of fear and uncertainty. We can make things certain through cooperation and trust.
And yet I continue to thrive! There are no real and false nutrients, just molecules! Chemical compounds that an organism requires to function, not a magic elixir for supernatural beings. There is no mystique to feeding humans. Vitamins and supplements are already used in vast quantities by prosperous western nations - which consume the overwhelming majority of the world's animal products: meat+dairy+plant+supplements - yet we keep getting fatter and less healthy.
Quoting Benj96
That's right. It's not a complete solution yet; it's a step in the right direction. Can you calculate the production of feed and the butchering, processing, packaging, transportation and refrigeration of the meat already use a considerable amount of coal- and nuclear- generated energy, plus the land use (cutting down carbon-capturing trees to make room for cattle) plus the waste methane of cattle and waste products of the associated industries? And weigh that total against the energy needed for vat propagation of meat? They can:
The net gain is even bigger, since the meat factories can be located in the cities where the meat is consumed: Tiny footprint on the land; inside a contained and controlled environment, in which the CO2 can be easily captured and recycled. Further advantages: no disease, no hormones, no antibiotics: 100% pure meat, made to taste specifications.
Set 'em up next to the neighbourhood greenhouse/hydroponic installation/mushroom bunker and use the byproducts for heat and fertilizer; open a food outlet on the same premises, so people can get their fresh meat and veg within walking distance of their home.
All of these 'problems' are solvable with existing technology.
Only two obstacles: vested financial interest and popular prejudice. (You can bet the former is promoting the latter with every resource they have.)
Currently I cannot. If I'm truly honest Vera. I'm not sure whether artifical meat manufacturing will outcompete natural processes that have evolved for millenia in the use of energy. But id love to know. Its a great point you've made and one due serious consideration.
If this is the case it's truly remarkable. It would have great power to resolve many of the current issues facing humanity. I hope then that this is the case. Fingers crossed.
Quoting Vera Mont
Quite right Vera. A spot on analysis. Broad consideration, logical and succinct. Brava. I think such a case is the way forward.
Now all that stands in the way is issues of doubt as to the lucrative nature of such an undertaking (the securing of investment) and prejudice (beliefs that it is unnatural and harmful or whatever the case may be). Education and inspiration are most needed here indeed.
But after reading your arguments, I think you still defend that we consume animals just for fun or greed. Like we don't replace them with tablets or pills because we are assassins. It is more complex than we are debating here and I think it is not possible at all to completely substitute the nutrients of animals with some chemical stuff. They help us, for real but they are far of being a "real" steak.
Is that to say that animals are not made of chemical stuff? What is the difference between a carbon in my body and a carbon in the body of a cow?
And if a cow or plant for that matter, are not made of the same chemicals as I am what's the point in eating them? Why eat a collection of chemicals that are not the same as the chemicals in one's own body? Eating in this case would be useless/pointless as there's no useful way to use chemicals that are different in a cow to make parts of my own body.
All food is chemical. And all of my body parts are chemical. Regardless of whether those chemicals are artificial or natural, if they are the same then my body knows how to digest and metabolise them.
Quoting Benj96
You would not be able to eat them because it would be dangerous to our organism
What natural processes? Buffalo grazing over vast unfenced prairies and a few wolf-packs picking off the stragglers and weak calves at the edge of the herd? We disrupted that cycle around 30,000 BCE when humans moved into agricultural settlements. All of our present food production is artificial; we don't compete with nature; we eliminate competition and alter the life and reproduction of other species to suit our own requirements. What's produced in the vats is not artificial meat* but actual cloned muscle tissue from live animals. The only difference is that you can get many tons of clean, healthy meat from a single cow, without injuring her.
* There is also something to be said for plant-based meat substitutes. There is more processing involved and the nutrient value needs to be monitored, and sometimes enhanced, in order to make these foods part of a healthy diet. They do serve, however, as an intermediate stage for people who want to change their eating habits but have difficulty breaking old habits.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, the important thing is never what's good for the world or the people, but what's good for the morbidly obese bank accounts of the ultra-wealthy.
I despair. This is all coming far too late, in the looming shadow of a retrograde political swing and closing-panic. Half a century ago, we might have been able to avert destruction; even two or three decades' head-start might have mitigated the coming disaster.
Quoting javi2541997
No, I condemn it. But I acknowledge that it's one of our species' less endearing traits.
Quoting javi2541997
You're the only one talking about tablets. Nobody's replacing a dripping pink slab of flesh with a pill. In fact, the cultured meat is just that: meat. The DNA comes from a cow, a chicken, a fish or a pig. You can adjust the fat content and texture; you can have a dripping pink steak that contains all of the same nutrients as the one chopped out of the flank of an animal.
What we can do instead, or in the meantime, is eat a vegetarian diet, and if necessary, add in whatever mineral, vitamin or amino acid may be insufficient. The Hindu population of India has managed to keep up its numbers, in spite of wars, foreign occupation and droughts, for a few thousand years with no pills at all.
PS - that's where I had my Damascus moment, at a buffet dinner hosted by a colleague from India. The array, variety and taste of the food was astounding - without a speck of meat on the entire table.
Agreed. But it is not the same having a controlled vegetarian diet as they tend to use in India than using chemicals substitutes. At least, when you consume only vegetables you are feeding yourself with real food. That's the point I want to make. If you do not want to eat animals I respect it but I am not agree with substitute them with pills or tablets.
In the other hand, while India is a good example of veganism they also consume animals as chickens.
Yet once more again: I never have advocated substitution. I only suggested that if you think the vegetable-based diet is missing some nutrients you need for health, you can add them. It's an optional extra. I eat vegetables, grains, legumes and root-crops, supplemented by eggs (from a local free-range farm. I've met the hens; they're not just happy, they're downright feisty.) and dairy products (not currently available from a wholesome source, but my egg supplier is raising goats, so hopefully, soon).
Quoting javi2541997
That's not veganism. Not all Indians are practicing Hindus, any more than all Americans are all devout Christians; not all Indians are vegetarian, anymore than all Americans are tooth-and-claw carnivores, and not all vegetarians are vegan.
It's never been a question of replacing normal food with pills - not even for astronauts is that a current option. It's a question of changing the way we produce, distribute and consume normal foods.
I didn't say all Indians were Hindus but the fact that Indian gastronomy is based on vegetables, rice, spices, etc... So they are closer of being vegetarians rather than other cultures where the consumption of meat is pretty high.
I did a quick research on Indian gastronomy and I found out this: [i]Indian cuisine consists of a variety of regional and traditional cuisines native to India. Given the diversity in soil, climate, culture, ethnic groups, and occupations, these cuisines vary substantially and use locally available spices, herbs, vegetables, and fruits.
Some Hindu communities consider beef taboo since they believed that Hindu scriptures condemn cow slaughter. Cow slaughter has been banned in many states of India. However, these restrictions are not followed in the North-Eastern states, West Bengal and Kerala. Vaishnavism followers generally are strict lacto-vegetarians due to an emphasis on Ahimsa. They also do not consume garlic and onions.
Jains follow a strict form of lacto-vegetarianism, known as Jain vegetarianism, which in addition to being completely lacto-vegetarian, also excludes all root vegetables such as carrots and potatoes because when the root is pulled up, organisms that live around the root also die.
Muslims do not eat pork or pork products.
Except in certain North-Eastern regions, canines are not considered suitable for consumption[/i]
I meant strictly in regard to trophic levels of nature. Not whether the animal is domesticated or not. Domesticated animals still do what is natural to them within the confines and conditions we set up for them. They still eat grass/ crops that photosynthesise (uses solar energy) to generate food. Again.. Whether we feed it to them that grains directly or they are free to eat grass from the ground themselves is irrelevant to the energy source.
Artificial/synthetic meat doesnt eat. It is grown on purified minerals and exercised mechanically by machines all of which take electricity to incubate/nurture
Quoting Vera Mont
Well you might be right the system is stubborn to change and any change that is occuring certainly is tardy. But it's never too late to adapt to current conditions. If it was then we may as well be dead already. Which I disgree with. We must persevere even when the odds seem set against us. That is the survival instinct
Why can we not replace protein with source A with an identical protein from source B? I don't reallynget your argument. Substituting something with something identical is hardly a substitution of any less quality.
Animals are chemistry. They are made of molecules like anything else. For example animals make insulin, and so does genetically engineered E. coli bacteria. Does that mean that human insulin derived from bacteria is any less functional or healthy than human derived insulin in thr treatment of diabetes.
Its just a chemical. Identical in every way regardless of source. Many diabetics are alive today because of bacterial insulin production. And I don't see the difference here with eating artificial meat that has the same fat protein vitamin and mineral content as natural organic meat sources. The only difference is an animal didn't have to be slaughtered to obtain it.
I don't understand this. If we stop breeding food animals, there won't be any more of them to need the grass and grain. We can eat the grain and leafy plants directly, saving a huge amount of energy on the intermediaries.
Yes and lose biodiversity in the process. If we don't breed food animals then they will go extinct. Sure if you want to say good riddance to poultry, pigs, cattle, goats, sheep etc be my guest. But then we have no natural source of high density protein nor do we have any animals to extract stem cells from to artificially produce meat.
So we just inherit a new set of problems do we not? The density of protein in plant material never has nor likely will ever match that of meat/animal products. The human stomach is only so big we can't eat 1kg of lentils when two chicken breasts, cheese or eggs would suffice.
Maybe. Or maybe their numbers will simply decline from the expendable billions to a cherished few. To a manageable population level, where they provide milk and eggs and wool for their caregivers and stem cells for the meat factories. On a family farm with one or two cows, they would be better treated and more valued than on a factory-sized dairy farm with 2000 cows, which are slaughtered for dogfood at age 5 or 6 when their milk production falls below the financially mandated quota. Beef cattle have a life expectancy of 1-3 years. I'm pretty sure you don't want to think about the 'life' of poultry. None of them have the freedom to mate according to their natural inclination; their genetic makeup is rigidly controlled for uniformity.
Domestic animals are not contributing to biodiversity; on the contrary Grazing livestock and the specialty crops grown for feed push wildlife, as well as native plants out of their ecological niches, and thus reduce biodiversity.
Quoting Benj96
Not necessarily. We could opt to solve the present ones sensibly, with moderation and forethought.
There's no such thing as that, is there?
You sound like one of those "landing men on the moon" nay-sayers from 1950s, frank.
The way to settle it is to farm people for food also. Then let's talk ethics. People complain about overpopulation, then why not gather a group of people and hunt them for sports? Yes, this sounds crazy -- but is it really?
Early humans didn't eat meat. They were insectivores, or practiced entomophagy, besides being herbivores.
Why is it hard for humans to reconcile ethics and eating meat? Because we have the capacity to know the ethics behind it. Our desire for taste of meat overwhelms our desire to recognize the life you snuff out of that living being. Hunting animals stirs excitement in people. This could be an outlet for serial killing, but not using people. The adrenaline is the same. The highs are the same. Now of course, the added advantage is that hunters can pose with the carcass and post the picture in social media for others to admire. They get a lot of views. Short penises get a boost by the number of clicks.
Let's cut the bullshit and call it for what it is.
If that is correct, then it applies to cows and so on as well.
Veganism is, then, supererogatory. As is vegetarianism. At most we are obliged to make some dietary sacrifices, or to make some for a period and then no longer. But it seems implausible that we should be required to abandon entirely a diet we have come to be very attached to.
Have you come across a thing called "prion diseases" like kuru. They are transmitted best through cannabilism because the misfolded protein in the "food" is so similar to the protein in the person eating it that the bodies immune system finds it difficult to tackle. (As we are the same species).
It's not random that nature tends to favour predators eating other animals rather than theur own.
I also think this is more or less another manifestation of antinatalism. Undervaluing our own rights to eat or reproduce just as any other animal does unquestioningly. By that logic we might as well all be dead because no humans, no human problems. Seems a bit nonsensical. Also if we were to hunt eachother for food who has any more right than anyone else to be hunter rather than prey. This is just advocating for mass genocide rather than more humane and intelligent ways of minimising our population - like contraception, education etc.
https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001379.htm#:~:text=Causes&text=Kuru%20is%20a%20very%20rare,part%20of%20a%20funeral%20ritual.
It's hard to reconcile when we consider other animals as having sentience and emotions etc like we do. If we didn't consider this then the debate about veganism, vegetarianism, artifical meat etc woukdnt exist would it? The fact that this is still an active contentious subject is proof in itself that people do want to improve their relationship with animals and wish to debate as to how to do so.
It's hard to look at a dog and say they don't have the same basic feelings and behavior that we do: love, joy, anger, aggression, sadness, fear etc. And if dogs have those feelings it's unlikely that hundreds of not thousands of other animals also have these socially evolved interrelations with one another and with humans.
Sure we could go the opposite way and completely objectify other animals and even all other humans too and demonstrate no empathy for anything other than your own agenda and point of view - but popular opinion is that such people are most uncooperative, unpalatable and often dangerous to a society as they only consider their own goals ans are entirely self serving in everything they do.
Correct. No one is obliged to do anything for strangers. I'm not obliged to help care for the sick either, nor obliged to give to charity, I'm not obliged to be kind, respectful, considerate or help others in any way shape or form. What exactly do you think the world would look like if everyone held this attitude? Do you think it would be civil or totally barbaric/chaotic?
Most people believe what we owe extends to other animals as overconsumption of meat/animal products not only leads to health detriment in ourselves - obesity, cardiovascular disease, colon cancer, intolérances, inflammatory bowel disease to list just a few, but also aggravates the climate crisis through a number of pathways: appropriation of limited fresh water supply, deforestation for agriculture, CO2 release by the raising of ruminants, use of fossil fuels in their processing, packaging (plastic) and transport across the world to where they are consumed.
Furthermore besides health and climate issues associated with overconsumption of meat, it also encourages food provision inequality. For us to overconsume others must underconsume. Just as for some to be wealthy others must be impoverished. They are opposites and mutually dependent on one another.
I'm not advocating for completely abolishing meat from our diets. I think that would just be a severe pendular swing to thr opposite extreme with similar impacts on land use, biodiversity, and our health. I think eating meat in an appropriate balanced diet is healthy and what we evolved to do as omnivores.
Im merely highlighting the pros and cons as I understand them - of both sides of the issue in response to feedback from other contributors.
They have not perfected artifical meat products yet but technology is improving on this front and artifical meats like burgers etc are being trialled already with consumers (for texture and taste/like-ability) and in labs for nutrional value and correct portion of macronutrient, vitamins and minerals. Of course this research can be expedited by investment and positive public opinion.
Any innovations success is of course down to its lucrative nature/ usefulness to the public and whether they would consume it (capital viability) or avoid it (collapse and lack of competitiveness)
Yes I see what you mean. You're right. We could avoid total collapse of the population of domestic animals by slowly winding down the demand for their products so that just a handful are left and better cared for.
On that note regarding the strict control of genetic diversity of poultry (or any domestic animal for that matter) as you described, this doesn't fare well against transmissible infections (bird flu for example) because the resilience of a population to epidemics depends on genetic diversity of their immune systems. If they are identical clones then they will likely be equally vulnerable to a fatal disease.
So if we downsize poultry numbers we must simultaneously increase their natural genetic diversity to safeguard against extinction through a single disease. Luckily by downsizing the average distance between potentially infectious animals as well as their general well being /resilience is increased inadvertently which works in our favour to prevent the spread of animal born infections.
High intensity, poorly sanitised farming and overcrowding of animals is a condition ripe for contagion.
I think the main issue is protein. I get most of my protein from goat whey and peanut powder. I don't have any interest in the taste of meat.
It does seem to be a key issue yes. Now the following line of thinking is not intended as a personal attack, I admire the fact that you don't contribute to overconsumption of meat, but may I point out a thing:
You get your whey protein from milk (from female goats right/ the same in the case of cows or whichever animals whey is available) So buying whey increases the demand for female animals. What happens to all the male ones that are inadvertently born in the process of trying to breed females for milk?
Peanuts though are rich in protein and fat and also improve the soil where they are grown and are seen as very sustainable.
It seems there is no perfect solution to avoiding animal products and the by-products of those demands while maintaining adequate protein nutrition and vitamin intake. At least not on a global scale. At an individual level its definitely possible to minimise dependence but if everyone adapts a vegan policy the issues become apparent as they compound on themselves. Vegetarianism seems to be the closest thing to satisfying the issues that arise in a world where either of the two extremes predominate - purely carnivores or purely vegans.
I sympathise with the sentiments of vegans re: killing and torturing animals is very sad and vile. I compensate by noth thinking about that.
Killing a live thing by a human is hard for that human. For most of us, anyway. We're all different.
Plus you can get used to killing, if you do it often enough, so that you don't develop guilt or remorse. One way to do it is to be born sadistic to the max or else to be born a psychopath, with no empathy for pathological reasons. But those conditions are rare, although we read about their acts every second day in the papers. The reason we read about them is that we don't readt about the half-billion (or so) other Americas who don't do that. "Mr. John Tavernicky did not kill anyone today" would make a poor headline.
Prehistoric people have made it a habit to pray or do something spiritual after a successful kill of a large mammal. They were not able to just kill and eat it. The trend continues. We, today's people, can eat it, if we don't have to kill it first.
But once in a while a vegan rears its ugly head (figure of speech - they are not ugly) and instills in us a sense of guilt.
This is a strange and difficult world we live in.
We are self aware and so we cant escape that aspect of our nature. Hence objectifying highly sentient animals is a way we cope with the situation. This goes for any lifestyle- hunting or farming. However, with farming comes factory farming and now you have a whole other level of animal misery that you have to simply try to ignore.
Yes, I'm aware of the problem. It's just hard to get enough digestible protein from plants.
Hence the routine addition of antibiotics to their feed. Also growth hormone for a faster profit. I'm not going to research it now (got to get back to my own work sometime soon) but I've read that the incidence of hormone-related abnormalities, such as gynecomastia, early onset puberty and of course, the ubiquitous specter of obesity.
Quoting Benj96
They're not exactly that, but they are bred for specialty traits: lean ham, more milk, big brisket, tender white breast... They're commodities, not animals. They are commercial items, subject to product-design, product-modification, according to the demands of the market.
Quoting Benj96
Small, family-run, free-range farms. Apparently, the UK is moving in the right direction (Be aware, that's a PDF with lots of graphics.) Nothing like that can happen in the Republican-ridden US, where agri-business has serious political clout and zero scruples.
Quoting frank
After a period of abstinence, it becomes repugnant. Our initial decision to do without meat was due to the hypocrisy factor: if we're not willing to kill it, we should not eat it. The transition was easier than we expected; the aesthetics of food preparation are much improved.
It is indeed. We can only try our best. But personally I think that's enough. The question that really remains is are we "all" really trying our best? Do we each have the insights/wisdom and right intention available to us to do so? And if not who is to elucidate that for us with a measured and open minded approach to establishing what the facts really are? To lay all the options out for us to choose from.
In essence who's beliefs ought we to also believe? Who appreciates the true gravity of the situation and who wants to help resolve it not just for themselves but for others too? I think people with those characteristics are worthy of seeking out and hearing their say on such core matters. Afterall that is leadership quality is it not?
Yes I agree, what the majority does is not as high impacting news. Because its already expected. News is new. So the takeaway is both good and bad. That a). Most of us do what is appropriate/expected/prudent and good/acceptable to do however b). This leaves us with an obsession/fixation on what we don't understand, the things people do that seem unjust, illogical or bad.
Quoting god must be atheist
The trend does continue indeed. You're absolutely right. I suspect that is because it is proving exceedingly difficult to totally alienate ourselves from the behaviour/characteristic of other animals. And we are not sure of ethically we should alienate ourselves in the first place.
In essence we see ourselves in them. Which is a beautiful thing, we have empathy for them (animals). But it constantly fuels that dilemma that as you said vegans highlight so often, a source of guilt and shame for destroying something we empathise with.
The world is indeed strange. But it is natural. We must grip onto and really appreciate what it means to be a natural thing - a carnivore, an omnivore, a herbivore. And question what we have the power to do realistically as natural things. We need to eat. And our body has demands of us that influence our cravings for certain food sources. There must be a way to be at peace, to settle the debts we have, with what we came from - nature.
True I think their treatment of agriculture merely reflects the intense capitalism ingrained in US society. The "American dream" has become an exemplar for taking shortcuts to increase a profit margin, at least without fully considering the consequences of such actions, and at most with direct conscious ignorance of known/predicted complications/poor outcomes.
Quoting Vera Mont
Well it may not be a case of genetic identicality (cloning) but knowing that certain genes or groups of genes promote certain phenotypic expressions (more milk, bigger brisket etc as you pointed out) it seems they are not as genetically diverse as say two chickens where one is small and lean but resilient to certain diseases because of that very reason (because their small size is protective - say to viruses that are "myotropic" - as in they target chickens with large muscle mass and minimal fat reserves) as oppose to one where muscle mass is disproportionate with what their immune system can adequately protect.
So genetic diversity is directly proportionate with the holistic appearance, the final result, the chicken that is the sum of said genes.
So I still think that genetic diversity (resilience) at the expense of uniformity (commodification) needs to be implored if we are to move away from hormone injections and antibiotics and better the health of the people that consume them.
You could go with theirs...National Center for Biotechnology Information
Thanks Vera I'll have a look into it. My question for you in the meantime would be "Is veganism healthy only when a portion of humanity adopt it or would it also be the healthiest option if everyone adopted it globally? (considering the existence of those with intolerances/food allergies, illnesses, gastrointestinal diseases, muscle wasting disease or in a protein malnourished state, those who cannot monetarily afford vegan alternatives, those that simply don't have vegan products available in abundance in their local supermarkets or those advocating against plant monoculture to maintain plant diversity?)
Perhaps veganism is not the perfect fit for all currently. Individual needs considered - medical or otherwise.
The study only covered personal physical health, not any social factors. We already know, from earlier studies on agriculture, land and energy use, how much healthier a world we would have without the huge and growing meat industry.
Quoting Benj96
All of those conditions can be readily addressed within the limits of a meat-free diet.
Quoting Benj96
They can phase out the most expensive meats first and increase their intake of the cheapest vegetables. Meanwhile, the whole system of food-production and distribution can be gradually altered toward efficiency, ease of access and improved nutrition. Nobody needs to go pure vegan to be healthy or to reduce their share of the devastation of Earth. But everybody can do something better than they have been.
Nothing is carved in stone. Supermarkets are not mandated in the Ten Commandments and all those half-empty shopping malls could easily convert to hydroponic gardens. There are quite a few urban community projects already underway.
Quoting Benj96
Of course! Especially the 'otherwise'. In many countries, people already have less meat in their diets, simply because they are poor, or it's not available. But all countries have some growing land, and their capabilities can be improved with irrigation and smart farming practice. For those people, continuing and improving an omnivorous diet would be economically more feasible, and family or village farms with mixed production would be the best solution for their circumstances. However, it's the rich industrial nations that consume - and waste - a very large, overweight lion's share of all the food and other resources of the world. A change in the eating habits of North America could save South America from total destruction.
I don't know. I'm more interested in health than veganism, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the health of humans or of the world.
In the US, we need a government agency to start reorganizing the way we approach food. What we have is the result of industries that have profits on their minds instead of health.
:up: :sparkle:
Now that the deficit of supplies is approaching, the government finally will make more reasonable decisions in order to consume food. We have wasted tons of aliments for decades and the water is getting scarce more than ever.
What makes me mad is that all the governments in the world are taking too late these solutions.
I get you. You need to focus on your own health it's important. For me I think health is a collective matter because others unhealthy/ unsanitary decisions impact us. That's why public health and food hygiene regulation is such an important department in the health institutions of countries.
Take washing hands for example. Simple. Trivial. Doesn't seem like it is anyone elses business whether one washes their hands or how they do it or for how long.
But improper washing of your hands is a surefire way to spread bacterial and viral infections to others even if those don't necessarily make us sick ourselves. The same goes with sneezing and coughing, second hand cigarette smoke, how we dispose of waste, what we consume/ buy and therefore what economic pressures we exert on capitalism and what shortcuts we accept or don't - pollution of the air we breathe, the health and wholesomeness of the food we eat, what synthetic chemicals and preservatives we ingest etc.
This is about social etiquette and consideration for others health being equivalent/necessary to considering our own personal health and that of our family. We cannot be perfectly healthy in isolation when we live in society. It's as simple as that. It's just the same as a cell in your body. If a cell decides to do whatever it wants and not cooperate or obey healthy regulation like other cells (in other words if it becomes self serving and cancerous) it effects the whole system. Its toxic to the body as a whole.
If everyone around you is ill or has a weakened immune system that leaves you vulnerable to disease as they no longer offer a protective barrier between the source of the disease and your body.
Absolutely. You have quite a knack for problem resolution out of curiosity are you/were you in a management position in your career?
All the things you outlined seem very doable. I also agree that the level of food wastage is bizarre in the first world on a familial level and on a business one. Not only is it a waste of finances for individual families, but it artificially bolsters demand that isnt actually there and so makes the price of food more expensive. I can personally attest to that fact as whenever I am home there's a good deal of gone off/out of date food in our fridge (maybe 15-20%). And having worked in a huge supermarket chain the amount of perishables we dispose of at the end of a working day wasn't great. It wasn't too bad but it could have been better.
There's a lot of corruption.
There is Frank. Indeed. I think we can just as easily substitute the word corruption for "intense self interest/selfishness" but who's exactly?
I think part of the problem is that at a macroscopic scale (human systems/institutions) it appears impossible to point a finger at any one individual as the source of corruption. Especially when everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else simultaneously based on conflicts of interest.
It seems then that these systems are supposedly "blameless" and thus beyond anyone's individual attempt to resolve it. That is the culture at least. But it leads to stagnancy. An equal and opposite position cancels one another out and nothing comes of it - all the while the issues compound on one another; climate change, poverty, racism, energy crises, war - a world in division. "us" and "them".
But what we do know better than anyone else is ourselves. And we can discuss our views and bounce lines of reasoning off one another (as philosophers do). If we can somehow identify our own personal deceptions and misplaced beliefs and improve on them then the corruptions beyond ourselves become increasingly obvious.
We cannot force anyone to change, to impose on their beliefs as that would be aggressive and hostile in their view. What we can do however is lead by example. And direct people to the rigorous/thorough, well thought out and articulated conclusions we can come to through applying logic and thinking carefully. If it appeals to them and they understand it we will likely not be seen as an enemy or in conflict with them.
Good quality change never comes from rigid ideation and brute force. It comes from wisdom and patience.
No, but I've done a bit of student counseling in a multicultural city. Anyway, this aspect of the situation has been exercising my mind for many years. I rather like animals, and disapprove of cruelty for any reason. And it's so obviously avoidable! I did a bit more recent research for a novel.
I have yet to see one ethical problem raised (other than what's mistaken for pity and empathy) about eating animals.
They've been outlined several times throughout the thread but I'll condense them here for you:
Pros/considerations FOR eating meat/animal products:
Good source of high density protein, good source of fats and vitamin B12, complete amino acid profile, creates JOBS (Farmers, vets, abbatoires etc) , tastes good (subjective basis/personal opinion), diversifies cuisine, keeps you satiated for longer - less likely to overeat carbs instead which may lead to obesity and insulin resistance, meets the higher demand for protein in diseases aftering the gastrointestinal tract, in those with intolerances and allergies to alternatives (soy, peanuts etc), is cheap, competitive and widely available. Can be sourced locally almost everywhere. Leather is a biodegradable alternative to plastics. Medicine requires animal transplants - porcine heart valves for example.
Cons/considerations AGAINST meat/animal products;
Demands a lot of space - destruction of wilderness, displaces wildlife, high C02 emissions through the raising, processing, packaging (plastic) and transport (fossil fuels/often exported overseas) of meat products. Overeating meat leads to health effects - heart disease, colon cancer, etc and limits the consumption of adequate vegetables and fruit (stomach is only so big), low in vitamin C, high intensity farming leads to vulnerability to more infectious zoonotic diseases (covid, bird flu, swine flu etc), and of course the objectification/ commodification of animals often leads to feelings of guilt and shame if someone feels that other animaks are conscious and able to experience pain and suffering.
It depends on the moral code you follow, which rests on some founding principle.
If it's one of those whose founding principle is: "Pain bad; pleasure good", then its first moral tenet would logically be "Avoid causing pain."
If it's one whose founding principle is that actions rebound on the actor, either by the mechanism of "What you do to others, you do also to your own soul" or of "Whatever you do will determine your next incarnation", then the first rule is likely to be "Do to others as you would be done to".
Both of those moral positions are consistent with mercy on all feeling entities.
The sophistry of some philosophies and religions get around that by designating the vast majority of living as things.
In my code, that's labelling for one's own convenience and is morally unacceptable.
Yes, you are right. Each to his own ethics, that's perfectly true.
In my value system this topic you discuss belongs under the heading "empathy" and "pity", not under ethics. Ethics in my book, interestingly, is "sacrifice given by the self to promote others who will propagate the dna derivatives of the sacrifice giver."
So the founding principle of that system would be "The only good is survival of one's own kind" or "The ultimate good is survival of one's own genetic lineage".
In the former case, all moral precepts would serve the welfare of the tribe - OT style law. It might be enlarged into nationalism under favourable conditions. A great big aggressive religion may arise from it and attempt to include the whole of the species, but, so far, without success. We're still basically tribal.
In the latter, the welfare of the tribe or nation would be secondary, and matter only insofar as it supports one's own immediate kinship group or clan.
From one POV, either system would regard the rest of the world as objects, for use use of the agent and his next of kin, and treatment of them subject only to the agent's emotions, not his obligation.
But then again, reason might take the agent one step farther and suggest that it's not enough to leave DNA to his descendants; they'll also need a world to live in, which thought might lead him to consider preservation of the world part of his obligation to his genetic legacy. Value systems may begin with a single principle, but that principle can start chains and webs of ethical ideas.
Because, in a way, lions, tigers, tapeworms, and leechens together with firns and ameaobas, are all related to me by dna. The closer thread to my own dna, the more protection and help I am willing to give even by sacrifice. But the distance does not diminish my help to nothing... it's a function that gets closer to the x axis, but never touches it, as the x increases.
A god and creator like that is absolutely more to my taste, too. And I ain't jokin'. I don't know much about native cultures, but I listened to a chief about seven years ago and it was impressive. He did take you on a wonderous journey.
It's just the tip of the iceberg, as, like I said, I know very, very, little about native culture.
I am actually lying. Because I know even less than that.
I don't know that one! Can you remember which tribe tells that story? One of the things I like about Native folklore is that it's malleable, adaptable - nothing carved in stone. The other is their sense of fun - playfulness, humour, mischief. The Judeo-Christian tradition is based on enmity toward nature. Adam got tossed out of the nice regulated God-ruled garden into the big ugly hostile natural world, and it's all downhill from there. All of the laws arising from that attitude are about conflict, rule-breaking and retribution, not preservation, harmony and reconciliation. Jesus made a feeble effort to bend it toward the Eastern, more accepting philosophies, but it got co-opted by another militaristic regime and bent right back into the same rigid, punitive system - only bigger.
(May I recommend a book for your consideration? Thomas King is one of my favourite authors)
All that aside, I'd make a lousy Indian - or so an old Indian once told me - because I don't shoot, trap or fish.
The tale I desribed in brief I read in one of Joseph Campbell's collections.
I would love to read Thomas King, but unfortunately I've learned to abhor reading. It irritates me. I'd rather write, which I do, but reading is really an effort, a strenuous, horrid, awful effort for me.
I guess we're all different.
Divorce her!
That's the worst part! She's married to my best friend, not to me. And she's better in bed than my thesaurus or my Oxford Dictionary.
PS Trust me, Webster is even worse - can't spell worth Boston baked beans.
Thank you Agent Smith.
Quoting god must be atheist
That's fascinating. I had never heard about these stories either as said.
I can only imagine how many kernels of wisdom are out there in the far reaches. Some perhaps still alive but many surely lost to time as well.
There's a certain De ja vu to reading of the various cultural, religious and philosophical views - both archaic and modern. A familiarity beneath them all, despite their individual idiosyncrasies
You're welcome. We still have a long way to go!
We do indeed. The journey is a process, but a good one, who doesn't love a challenge.
Fortunately, many endangered and even lost cultures have their advocates in academia. Campbell may have had his detractors, but he did an excellent job of collecting myths and making them available to modern readers. So have several other, more recent scholars.
Quoting Benj96
I was particularly struck by the similarities between Native North American and African creation myths. Like the god of Genesis, they are all relatably small gods, making worlds with a place just for their own little group of humans... and the humans manage to screw it up by doing the one thing the god warned them against. None of the other gods I know of sentenced anyone to death or banished them or hurt them; the humans just lost some connection with the natural world, or a magical power.
The forbidden fruit strikes again. "Curiosity killed the cat" it seems, in these instances. Guys I told you not to that one thing and that's exactly what you did! Perhaps to think oneself as closest to God, or a god in themselves, and disregard everyone else's choices and perspective as merely inferior.
Quoting Vera Mont
Seems more forgiving than the other interpretations, it's more of a case of here I am feel free to interpret me as you wish, and thus it slowly devolved into fierce abject denial of eachothers views and all hell breaks loose as they lose that connection/understanding of their passive and permanent god head, unchanging as it were, only approachable unanimously with patience and empathy for one anothers opinions, through respectable discourse.
I don't think it's about rightness and wrongness in most primitive creation stories. It's more about loss - something we had: a connection with nature, that we traded away for something we wanted: civilization. Once man builds a fire (this is an African story), the other animals are frightened away and hide from him. In another one, man invents language and thereby loses the ability to communicate with other animals. Simple creation stories are just about origins. Here's the Ojibway one: https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/on/pukaskwa/culture/autochtone-indigenous/recit-story - eerily familiar, even though there isn't much chance the Anishinaabe ever met any Mesopotamians - not about sin, which hadn't been invented and wouldn't get here until the missionaries brought it.
Many stories are about destruction, repair and reconciliation. Here's another one that gets around and around the world: http://www.uwosh.edu/coehs/cmagproject/ethnomath/legend/legend9.htm
Of course, these were oral traditions; stories were embellished, adjusted and adapted by each new teller. The North American and African ones were told as instructive tales, not written down and codified for the purposes of an organized religion. I always assumed that the Mesopotamian ones were also much more human before the priestly caste got ahold of them, but that happened something like 4000 years ago, and a lot of rigid, mean-spirited dogma has been layered on top ever since.
(I may have messed up the links)
A shame really :(Quoting Vera Mont
I do think that the knowledge/teachings of a parent to their children are still very much oral traditions. They don't spell it out for their offspring, they verbalise it. Schools on the other hand deal in the written word.
The Earth has seen an endless rainfall. The water level rose above the land surface. Manido was hanging on to a tree branch, when he saw a beaver swimming in the water. Several days later the rain stopped, and Manido asked the beaver to go the bottom of the waters and bring him some sand. The beaver ducked, and was gone for an hour, and came up out of breath, saying he could not reach the bottom. Manido asked him to duck again. This time the beaver ducked for three hours and came up really near death by drowning, saying he saw no bottom. Manido asked him to go down once again, this time even deeper. The beaver went down, and was gone for one hour, three hours, ten hours, and never came back.
Next day the carcass of the beaver floated up. Manido paddled with his hands as he was haning on to the tree branch, over to the floating, bloated beaver. He pried the beaver's mouth open, and found three grains of sand. He threw the three grains in three directions, and they formed a smallish mound of land on the sea. He took a handful of sand, off this island, and cast it far. The island gained in size, and hew Manido walked around it. He took four handfuls of sand, and he threw it in four different directions. He started to walk around it, but nightfall came. Next morning he asked an elk, or reindeer, to run around the edge of the water, until the elk came back to him from the other direction on the shore.
The Manido waited a month, a year, a hundred years, but the elk still hadn't returned; the land the Manido made in the water was so big.
Every human population that ever settled next to a river - where else? the river is transportation, hygiene, cooking water and a source of food - has a big flood in it's memorable past, after which they had to start over from scratch.
Gypsy fairy tales are random as far as lessons go in moral examples. No heroes, but agents. No reward and punishment go necessarily to the deserving character. It is more life than what humans wish life were like. Magical characters abound, and are vicious, selfish, helpful and protective in their actions, randomly distributed. Moral mayhem, but better preparation for life.
So did I, only to find out much later that they were not really Hungarian, most of them. They were Grimm and Anderson and translated from German - sort of pan-European fairy tales. The illustrator dressed Hansel and Gretel in a different national costume, but the witch a leftover from medieval Christian boogie-lore. They all bear the imprint of Imperial civilization: monarchy, the importance of power, wealth and glitz, with an overlay of the bootstap mythos.
Non-urban, non-rigidly structured societies tend to be far more realistic in their depiction of human nature and the supernatural. Their duplicitous, unreliable spirits are more in line with our real experience than Big Omni, the Virgin Mary and Saint Nicholas.
Still off-topic, innit? Unless I mention the roast pigeon and boar's head coming at the hero in the wish-fulfillment stories. Never a nice big portobello burger or plate of baklava....
While, like you said, the organization pushed the generation of fairy tales that induced the basic moral acceptance of monarchy plus the lure of jumping rigid demarkation lines of levels of command and of benefits in feudal differences, the morals did serve the survival of the status quo. And while the status quo provided a horribly skewed distribution of goods and benefits, all members of society fared better IN the society than OUTSIDE of it. So the lessons, that promoted accepting common societal ethics, were less palatable to us now than Gypsy tales, but they promoted better a type of social survival systems.
Still about a king, though. Even the sainted Stephen was a monarch first and foremost. The whole post-Roman Christian pyramid social structure with lots of peasants at the bottom, gazing worshipfully at the one who 'a'n't got no shit on 'im.
Quoting god must be atheist
That's the main point of it. Know your place and maybe, if you're very good, brave and lucky, someone will lift you up.
Quoting god must be atheist
And that's the secondary point. To promote the idea that there can only be inside or outside of the status quo - no alteration or adjustment to it, no option #3. (Gee, doesn't that sound a lot like the myth-structure of capitalism? "Oh, sure it's unfair, but the other thing is so much worse.")
Quoting god must be atheist
Better for the aristocracy, obviously. But the subversive, the rebellious, the seditious, the anarchistic other is never far from the popular imagination. In songs, in poems, in folk-sayings, in daydream, a child of the Austro-Hungarian empire (also Great Britain and Russia; I don't know about the Dutch and Portuguese) wanted to run away with the gypsies, the same way an American child of the same period dreamed of running away with the circus. By the 20th century, the industrial age had ground all of that freedom-hungry youth into a homogeneous labour-pool.
Regarding the IN or OUT of the social structure. NO, there were no alternatives. Line up and stay put, or else perish. I wished you would have served up an example of a realistic alternative to the status quo, which you very conveniently did not. Not fair.
The rebels had no ideas but to become the ruling class. Fairy tales supported that. There was no OUTSIDE other than perish. The rebels' idea (Robin Hood, Rozsa Sandor, Spartacus) was not to create a different system, but to take revenge by becoming top and putting the current bosses on the bottom.
This is why all peasant revolutions in the middle ages failed. They had the power, they had the numbers, but they had not the idea.
There was no "proposition".
Quoting Vera Mont
You found an exception to translations, and that's lovely; I'm sure there is a similar one in Wales and Ireland and Euskal Herria - in fact, in every small country that's been annexed by a big one. Its morals, if any, are in the Arthur/Clovis/Eric the Victorious etc genre : semi-legendary patriarchal figures around which the group identity solidifies. They don't need to be derived. They arise spontaneously all around the world; these heroic long-ago leaders become the repository national pride and hope. They carry a very particular kind of message. Human make stories for all kinds of reasons.
Quoting god must be atheist
I don't recall assuming an obligation to serve you up anything.
The very problematic word there is "realistic". I don't know exactly what you mean by that, and there is obviously no opting out of a totalitarian system, so all rebellion that doesn't aim at and succeed in overthrowing the ruling elite is unrealistic - which fact I may already have mentioned as a reason to eschew self-immolation for the cause.
However, here you go: https://www.ic.org/
In the Middle ages - source of material for the majority, but not 100% of pan_European moral tales - any community that declared an alternative belief was promptly eradicated as heretical.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1414/six-great-heresies-of-the-middle-ages/
The Hutterites and Romani fared no better under the foot of monarchies (The model for Monty Python's is presumably the emperor in new clothes) . So, not a whole lot of surviving examples to serve up. Much the same happened to the alternative lifestyles of American, African and Oceanic cultures in the era of Christo-European conquest. Some folklore remains, and some nations are trying to rebuild their own way of life, where they are allowed to.
Quoting god must be atheist
Or any weapons, supplies, fortifications, armour, horses, trained leaders or soldiers. I don't think an idea would have got them past the moat.
Go play with Bartricks. He's always game.
Hey. Is this a nice/kind or formal way to address another contributor? Disagree yes. Defame/shame someone on that basis, No. I think that's quite intimidating towards . She is entitled to her opinion.
If you believe she is "downright/absolutely wrong" are you suggesting you're totally/infinitely correct?
Tell us then "god", what ought we do? Because apparently you're fully aware/omniscient.
I think I smell arrogance.
It doesn't feel right to me to cause animals to suffer and die just because we like the way they taste etc.
I think we should be nice to animals.
I do too. Nicer than we are currently at least. I think we should have a more balanced approach to our predatory nature and our ability to sympathise with other species simultaneously.
Just as other life feeds on us - parasites, bacteria, viruses (questionably alive I know), fungi when we are living, just most of them do when we are dead/decaying.
It seems inevitable that we must also do the same: we must eat something, predate something (use them as an opportunity for our own survival). We must be proud and humbled by this equally.
Its the cycle of nature we are apart of. We can try to go fully vegan - and give up organic fertiliser (bone meal), medical transplants (porcine heart valves etc), animal testing for pharmaceutical drugs to help sick people, leather in place of plastic/fossil fuels for textiles, and meat, cheese and dairy and baby formulas based on cows milk (even when our requirnents for protein may exceed what we can fill up on plant material (during puberty, when we are sick, have muscle diseases, intolerances/allergies to soy/peanut/whey protein etc), and let all domesticated (helpless animals like chickens etc) die because we don't breed them and let them roam free in the wild again.
Or perhaps we can continue to predate animals for our own benefit, to maintain other checks and balances in nature, but harmoniously, not eating meat and dairy for the sake of it, and diversifying our diet as much as possible so as to not harm any population of life too severely.
In essence, a truly omnivorous diet as we evolved to do.
Fruit and veggies in correct proportion with meat, fish, nuts eggs etc, catered as appropriately as possible to individual needs.
I think the vegan extreme and carnivore extreme both throw the balance/symbiosis off and lead to their own unique problems. Carnivore-ism because it completely objectifies/commodifies our animal brethren (making us bottomless pits of greed and posession, parasites - a source of guilt, shame and constant angst as we oppose our own ethical nature. ) and veganism because it denies our recognition of who we really are, part destroyer (predator), not just creator (gardener/house keeper of the earth and her systems of balance).
Harmony, equilibrium, as nature would have it, is likely the most prudent course forward.
That's my personal take. Everyone has their own opinions on the matter. :)
Thank you for that. I didn't intend to be a vampire; it must have happened in my sleep.
I don't follow Vera sorry. Can you elaborate for me it's a little ambiguous. I might be being a bit thick.
Edit: Nevermind I re-read and I get it now haha. :p clever clever
It depends what definition of veganism you are using; philosophical of dietary. The Vegan Society says: "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to excludeas far as is possible and practicableall forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment".
Bearing in mind "as far as is possible and practicable", you can be a vegan that purchases and consumes animal products. However, unless you are in a situation such as living in a remote part of the world where you cannot grow crops, or you need medication derived from animals, etc, your purchase of animal products is causing suffering and death unnecessarily.
You suggest people should have a diet with meat, fish, etc, but this would mean to keep paying for animals to suffer and die when it is not necessary? It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases", These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes".
Quoting Vera Mont
There was an argument, then, not a proposition.
Quoting Vera Mont
At least two peasant uprising has had those: That of Dozsa Gyorgy and that of Geyer Florian. Maybe more had it, too.
Quoting Benj96
Yes, your sense of smell is right. I noticed that Vera was upset at anything, even facts, and definitely of opinions, that gave more weight to the then contemporary situation than to left wing truths that are known now. I am definitely a leftie, but I am able to put myself into the era's historical reality, I BELIEVE (but can't prove it) better than Vera. This is why I became arrogant: because she was unable to adjust her thinking mode that was necessary to assert the situation. She thought as a modern leftie, and she was unable to see that in that era the reality had no relevance to her sentiments now.
This was going to be a tiresome and ardorous, long strife, and I predicted a no-win situation that only had a chance to escalate opposing opinions (or rather, incongruent opinions) and had not a chance to meet in a convergent point at all.
I only know Vera Mont is a female because you referred to her as such. She may be a male, but you told me otherwise.
I apologize to Vera for my arrogance, regardless of her gender.
Interesting. What's the difference between a fact and a belief in your views?
Quoting god must be atheist
Is that not just saying I became arrogant because she was unable to agree with my arrogance (the situation asserted/proposed by you).
And if your beliefs are truly better (more ethical and more reasonable) than hers wouldn't they be less likely to cause her harm/upset her.
Usually when we argue and the other person gets upset, regardless of whether you have a personal logic for your points/beliefs, something has obviously gone wrong - not considering the others beliefs as valid within context.
We can usually always resolve conflict through establishing the full context of both points of views and why they are valid to both people even if they conflict with one another without context.
Quoting god must be atheist
I think it does have a chance to escalate for sure. But never forget the second option is simply to "agree to disagree". Basically saying I respect your decision to continue your belief despite me not understanding it personally.and vice versa. That way you can part ways on an endless argument without either feeling particularly attacked.
I often see arguments in this forum get personal. And start to approach direct character degrading tactics rather than calm discussion based on how frustrated/how badly one wants to convince someone else on their views (how correct they think they are).
I haven't even escaped that dynamic myself on occasion, it's very easy to happen. That's why we have ethics for tolerances sake.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/17/health/fda-lab-meat-cells-scn-wellness/index.html
I would happily pay extra to kill the animal I eat because I find it more upsetting not knowing how the animal I am eating died.
I do not think in many places around the world people are disconnected from the death of animals. In western societies this is likely more true given the extent to which supermarkets have taken over.
That' too, can only happen in a country where some people are rich enough to buy that luxury. If 8 billion of us started hunting for our dinner, we wouldn't have many dinners before all the animals were gone.
I agree I think killing your own food is a sad but intimate and important moment between you and the animal and ideally would not be conveniently ignored for the sake of thoughtless consumption of neatly packed pre prepared meat that is totally disconnected from the animals life.
One must reckon with themselves as a taker of life if they are to be actually grateful for the food. We have been hunter's for far longer than we have been supermarket consumers.
You're less likely to over indulge if you have to hunt the animal yourself.
But do we not kill more animals through the easily justified demand of conveniently buying a pack of burgers say, in the supermarket. We would not eat as many animals if we had to get down and dirty about it I would imagine.
Those are manufactured animals, designed and produced for the meat market, treated as commodities their. They won't go extinct unless humans stop breeding them.
Many meat-eaters,
[Not including I like sushi, who must have been talking about farm animals, which was unclear to me at the time]
claim that hunting for our food is natural and noble and all that guff. So they buy a hunting license, binoculars, devices that make a sound like the animal's call, skinning knives and high-powered rifles with infra red scopes, dress up in padded camo gear and water-proof boots, drive their SUV's out on the well-paved highway to some remnant of forest and shoot an animal or bird that's got no defense and no place to hide. Hunting is a luxury for privileged citizens of the rich countries and a daily chore for a few natives in remote jungles that haven't been bulldozed yet. It's not an option available to the vast majority of humans.
Meanwhile, many rural citizens of both rich and poor countries do kill their own livestock - which has been specially bred for that purpose over hundreds of generations. The animal in question is tame, docile and captive; requires no stamina or courage or skill to dispatch. The prosperous farmer or his wife routinely choose a victim for supper and chop off its (not his or her: these animals are objects) head. Prosperous independent farmers grow scarcer as land grows more expensive and mortgage rates shoot up. The poor farmer only kills his non-saleable livestock for special occasions and in exceptional circumstances. (Like Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof, "When a poor man eats a chicken, one of them is sick)
Yes, there are different ways and reasons to kill one's own food. Even a homeless man in the park may treat himself to the odd pigeon, squirrel or lost cat. Is it better than eating mass-produced meat? I don't know. It's more direct, more efficient, to eliminate middle-men, packaging and transport. It's probably less wasteful and may be less cruel. I know that when I had to choose between killing chickens and not eating chicken, I chose the latter. I know it's less messy.
I think you may have assumed this because it was correctly pointed out that humans have a long history of hunting and gathering and that we are omnivores. Even the OP asked about people going directly to the slaughterhouse rather than prancing about in a forest with a rifle.
Hunting is for the romantic and is a necessary part of managing wildlife in some situations.
You're right it isn't available to the majority. But what if at a butcher you had a holding pen. And had to kill the animal yourself. The butcher would then prepare the meat for you to take home.
That way one takes person responsibility for eating meat and all that ought to be recognised when doing so. The animals life namely. And it is accesible and doesn't require all the hunting gear and travel to remote locations.
It's basically making the abbatoire accesible to the public and insisting that "look... If you want to eat it, reckon with your taste for it and do the deed. Otherwise here's some delicious vegetables and nuts etc if that seems more appetising."
This would be sure to reduce the sheer volume of meat we consume and the pressure we place on the environment to feed 8 billion apex predators whilst not denying people the right to eat what they want.
I'm not suggesting hunting in the typical sense. But doing what a hunter does. Kill their food.
Neither am I. And that's the kernel that vegans hang their argument on. That we treat animals as objects and don't care for the fact that they're living things in need of empathy.
We avoid/deny as much as possible the fact that they have to be killed by letting it be done out of sight out of mind on a mass production scale. And then collect our pretty little meat parcels at the shop.
We don't have to see the fear in their eyes when we slaughter them, we just enjoy the spoils thoughtlessly and that luxury is putting incredible strain on the sustainability of the ecosystem and global climate.
I'm not sure if that is a very balanced approach to what food means to us.
From personal experience, asking people, I have in the UK women are not willing to kill to eat but men never seem as fussed maybe that is simply due to me having asked people I know rather than strangers, but I have no male friends I can think of, past or present, that would shy away from it.
Interesting. I wonder why that is.
I have no reason to believe most people would not wish to ignore that they are eating a dead animal. The world is currently full of brainwashed idiots and propaganda is likely at its highest point in human history too thanks to this wonder we talk mass media.
All I know is we are all stupid and we will all die. I will continue to eat meat without an ounce of guilt and scoff at those who simply regurgitate swaddle they saw on some twitter/youtube/instagram horror show of manipulation misinformation born out of boredom and attention-seeking arm waving hysteria.
Interesting response eh? Or is it just more drivel in the ever widening cesspool of disconnected human interactions just before humans become other-than-human?
I agree.
Quoting I like sushi
Not sure if everyone is equally as stupid as one another. I think some people are more clued in, and adaptable thus. Is intelligence not the ability to survive against the odds through recognising and adapting to life-threatening processes (climate change for example) that others persist in ignoring?
Quoting I like sushi
It is certainly interesting for sure. I'm not sure disconnected, uncooperative humans can create anything "other-than human". At most they can created a squabble about what it already is/means to be human.
I think we must overcome this tension between us in order to create things beyond ourselves.
And I responded to that. I don't claim to know or understand the mind-set of people who kill; I can only go by what some of them write on forums. Quoting I like sushi
In situations of humans' own making. Like protecting our livestock that's grazing on land we took from the forest, from predators we have deprived of hunting ground, by hunting the predators, and then protecting our crops and grazing land by hunting down the herbivores that would have been kept in check by the predators we killed. Man, the manager.
Quoting Benj96
Just the fun and none of the work? Cool! How did the animal get into the pen? Where was it before, and in what conditions? Killing is the very least of what we do to animals - it's more a blessed release than a harm. I've lived on farms and been there for the whole process. On a small family farm, it's all intimate, from the hatching or farrowing, through daily feeding and mucking out, to the butchering and processing. I've rendered pig-fat and washed out intestines for sausage. (There's a fun job for the kids!) I didn't do the killing. After the first time we had a professional in for the pigs, my brother resolved, never again. The next year, he shot them himself: one bullet between the eyes, fall over like a log, no running around and screaming.
I did not like any of it, but it was a hellova lot nicer that the gathering up the 8,000 10-week-olf chickens our neighbour had raised in one big dark room of a barn, packed in so tight, the only way they could try to get away was climbing on top of each other, trampling to death a few at the bottom. Acceptable financial losses, to be cleaned and frozen by the farmer for his own use. This was a small, one-man operation; he hired local teenagers, on piece-work at crating time. Imagine that on industrial scale. Chicken-wranglers go a little mental.
Quoting Benj96
I don't think it is. It's not the killing they object to, it's the cruelty.
"We shouldnt be cruel to animals, i.e. we shouldnt harm animals unnecessarily.
This principle is common sense, and its also contained in our animal protection laws, which testifies to its being generally accepted."
They simply extend it from dogs and horses to include cattle, pigs and fowls.
"Animals often suffer terribly as a result of overbreeding, from dreadful conditions on farms, during transportation and in the slaughterhouse. Studies show that stunning fails regularly. The egg industry painfully gasses all male chicks right after they hatch."
It doesn't mention the cage size or de-beaking.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting Benj96
Probably because most of them have not actually done it and experienced the mess and the smell or had to skin and gut anything. But then, many have served in the armed forces - women too, now - and been inured to violent death.
Quoting I like sushi
Well, good for you! No glib generalizing or stereotyping there!
Any time!