I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them.
As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.
On our video page, we have two videos from slaughterhouses. A significant number of visitors have viewed these videos and have written to us about them, particularly the video that does not show any slaughter. That video has obviously made an impact on many people and so I wanted to highlight it in a blog post.
The video shows two cows waiting in a chute to be led into the abattoir. An employee comes out and uses an electric prod to get the first cow to enter the abattoir. The second cow remains behind the door that has closed. She is clearly terrified. She knows that she is in trouble and this is not simply a matter of “instinct” (I do not even know what that means.) She is desperately looking for a way to get out of the chute. She may not have the same sorts of thoughts that beings who, like us, use symbolic communication, but it is clear that she has some equivalent sort of cognition. To say that she does not have a sense of having a life is beyond absurdity.
I find this video to be profoundly tragic on many levels. Watch it and then ask yourself whether animal organizations should be investing their time and your resources in trying to design “better” slaughterhouses or promoting “happy” meat, or whether we should all commit ourselves to veganism and to clear, unequivocal, nonviolent vegan education.
The video is apparently from a French slaughterhouse. But it does not really matter. All slaughterhouses are places of hell and unspeakable violence against the vulnerable. Never believe that such a place can ever be described as “humane” except by someone who is very deeply confused about fundamental issues of morality.
Someone who saw this video wrote to me and said the following:
I am a vegetarian but have found it difficult to transition to veganism. My two weaknesses: ice cream and good Cheshire cheese. I watched this video. I looked into her eyes and I answered the question that you asked on your video page: “Is there anything that you want to eat that badly?” The answer was clear to me in a way it never was before. I am now a vegan. I also recognised that all of the suffering and death that is going on is not because of what “they” are doing but because of what “we” demand. You are right to say that “the people who are ultimately responsible are not those who own and operate the slaughterhouses; those who consume meat and animal products, who create the demand, bear the ultimate moral responsibility.”
Go vegan. Educate others in creative, nonviolent ways about veganism.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION: Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Something I always wondered
What if we grew meat ?
I'm serious when I say this. We're at a point now where, within the next few decades, genetic engineering will be creating some pretty interesting things. It's not out of the realm of possibility that we'd just...decide to grow meat. Cows without brains, or some such thing. Something that didn't feel pain, that wasn't aware--that had the same level of self-awareness as a plant, and just...grew until we harvested.
Would that be more moral?
For some reason, I don't find this horrifying to imagine. No visceral horror with me. I'd be okay with eating farmed meat. Anyone else?
- quantummechanik
June 28, 2009 7:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How do you know?
"Something that didn't feel pain, that wasn't aware--that had the same level of self-awareness as a plant, and just...grew until we harvested"
A hundred years ago people would have made this comment about an animal - now we acknowledge a different reality / perception. How do we KNOW plants don't feel pain or have awareness?
It may make you scoff now, but we don't know...for sure.
- GLG
June 29, 2009 4:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, then we're in a lot of trouble
Because now there's nothing we can eat morally. Now vegetarians are on the same plane as the rest of us, morally.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 4:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Precisely My Point
Time has a way of laughing at us when we are quick and harsh in our judgements of others based on what we know today.
- GLG
June 29, 2009 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think the meat-wall
would be a safer bet than cows, though. I mean, we can't know anything for sure, but we can all certainly agree that an animal that doesn't have nerves or a brain is less likely to be something that feels pain than an animal that does.
- quantummechanik
June 29, 2009 9:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Carrot Juice is Murder
I am an omnivore, I have canines, nature constructed me to eat both flora and fauna EVERY partricle of life lives on a foundation of death, just the way the universe is constructed, Those who wail against it can do so because they are privaleged to live in the most prosperous time in human history.
At least my food is dead when I eat it, When a Vegan crunches down on a juicy carrot, the still living cells of which it is constructed are psychically screaming
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmK0bZl4ILM
Give Peas A Chance?!
- kentuckydan
July 2, 2009 1:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sure Death is a Part of Life, Doesn't Mean We Should Kill
KentuckyDan
So if every particle lives on a foundation of death, and this is just the way of the universe, then does this justify not only the killing and exploiting of non-human animals , but also the killing of human beings? Because well, afterall, it's all just a part of the universe and death is an essential and natural part of it right? I don't think so. Humans suffer. Cows suffer too. We can choose to live and sustain ourselves with food that involves no violence.
Carrots were thought to "scream" when an extremely sensitve microphone picked up a tiny noise the carrot caused when it was pulled out of the ground. Having no vocal cords, no brain and no nerve cells, how could this be? Science revealed it was a tiny amount of gas escaping the carrot as it was pulled out.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 8:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Intra Species feeding
While this occurs in some species, in most it does not. But yes it does justify killing of humans if the reason is to survive, Given a choice I wouild prefer to do the killing rather than stand on principle and be killed
I do NOT ascribe to the philosophy of Gandhi when for instance he told the British Nation
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
Or his advice to the Jews
Two years earlier, in the months before World War II began, Gandhi reacted to the outrage of the Nazi-inspired Kristalnacht (the national pogrom of November 9 to 10, 1938) by offering the following advice to German Jews for overcoming Nazi anti-Semitism: "I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] . adopt active nonviolence. Human nature ... unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."
- kentuckydan
July 13, 2009 4:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life lives off death
This is exactly how i feel. What i believe. I will never be a vegeterian or vegan because it's a lie. You are still killing. You can't eat without taking a life. Plants are alive. They don't have eyes or look human so it's easier to kill them but it is still killing. I'm against creulty but i'm a part of the food chain. Something bigger may kill me for food while i'm out in nature but that's the way it is.
- mystykmouse
August 6, 2009 7:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Would you have
a problem with cannibalism?
- quantummechanik
August 7, 2009 12:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The only moral road
I would very much like to see being offered a good alternative. I am positive that within my lifetime it will be possible to generate, grow, print or fabricate meat or meat-like substances that eventually will be regarded as superior in terms of taste, health , nutrition and texture.
If we have that alternative I will start voting for severe anti-animal abuse laws, including making killing animals , or animal-husbandry or similar practices severely punishable. There will be a LOT of resistance. Right now I do not think I have a moral claim to disallow people to eat murdered animal - when we have unambiguous alternatives I will not only have moral claim, I will also have moral imperative, and I wouldn't throwing convicted animal murders and animal eaters in rehabilitative and correctional institutions.
As for plants - same story. In a generation parents will be angry with their kids for eating natural - "don't deat that strawberry ! Nature evolved that to be full of natural pesticides !"
- Khannea Suntzu
July 1, 2009 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So I can put you down
for a yes against the MeatWall?
I'm going to seek a patent.
- quantummechanik
July 1, 2009 2:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Careful Now
You're treading on the same turf that the pro-life folks do - very much about imposing YOUR moral code on others because YOU think your view is the correct one. That door could swing both ways.
- GLG
July 2, 2009 8:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LIKE I SAID
"Right now I do not think I have a moral claim to disallow people to eat murdered animal - when we have unambiguous alternatives I will not only have moral claim, I will also have moral imperative, and I wouldn't throwing convicted animal murders and animal eaters in rehabilitative and correctional institutions."
Read closely. I am first and foremost a democrat with respect for minority rights. But at some stage this type of progress will engender a debate that will at some time in the future will start with the first country in the world oulawing animal slaughter and imports of murdered animal meat .
Bear in mind I an no veganist, no animal rights activist or even vegetarian . But I do acknowledge that animals suffer in a way that is unacceptable. Lets start there and see where we end up.
- Khannea Suntzu
July 2, 2009 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plus
Being pro abortion (not just pro-choice I literally favor aborting early conception embryos with unambiguous genetic defects, say about 90% of all conceptions) I would see there comes a point when we have technologies where I would be against abortion - radically, and completely.
When does that point arrive? Say, if sometimes in the future people don't create new humans with sex (so - we can have more sex because it doesn't involve generating pregnancy ) but create it in a device - after careful genetic screening and perfecting the cell, and we are able to sustain pregnancy in a machine, then there may come a point where we regard the growth a human much earlier than is the case now. It's all a matter of deliberation - if you generate a human being in a fully conscious capacity, terminating it will be more objectionable,
Right now that is not a valid choice - women are often the victim of pregnancy. They 'endure' pregnancy out of necessity - they don't have much of a choice. So if women are a subset of humanity who are effectively managing 99% of the procreative cycle, they have final and irrevocable arbitration what happens with their body - and I would not object to abortions up until the 25th week.
The record right now is 21 weeks, but most babies born that early tend to be severely disabled. A undifferentiated blob of cellular matter isn't and shouldn't be a person, in the legal sense or otherwise.
Now, looking at the neurological developmental state - at what stage is a mammal (the ones we now use for slaughter) equivalent to a human infact or embryo? The dreadful reality is that if we recognize prenatal humans as having innate rights (as we do with late term embryos) then there are arguments to grant all mammalians with at least the same neurological developmental state the same rights.
That would certainly include anything simian, most dolphins and ceteceans and might very well include anything that is able to hold our gaze when we look in its eyes.
- Khannea Suntzu
July 5, 2009 3:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Curious
This strays off the original track a bit however there are some thought provoking concepts in your last comment. Perhaps it’s just choice of words, but “create new humans” is a very sterile substitute for what should be a deliberate, complex and joyful process of deciding to have children . We are already fully able to have sex without the consequences of pregnancy ; unfortunately there are those who fail to employ the most basic preventative options due to a failure of fully conscious deliberation/personal responsibility. The idea of “generating” human beings after genetic screening and “perfecting” the cell as you suggest has such an unpleasant –between the lines- message. I get images of 1930’s Germany and growing babies like crops from reading this, followed by questions like who would finance the presumably considerable expense of this program? Who makes the call to terminate, store, buy extras? Could the government or a private investor underwrite the expense, could they buy extras and store them, does society "hatch out" more of certain types to balance population demographics or terminate the ones “we want fewer of” to quote Justice Ginsberg's recent comments in the NYT? Beyond all that, I suspect terminating will be objectionable or not to the same people who regard it thusly now. Your scenario simply adds more variables to object to, or not as the case may be. As I read your comments re: the possibility of one day sustaining pregnancy in a machine I just had to wonder if you are okay with eating genetically modified crops? Just curious.
- GLG
July 14, 2009 4:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can bet on it!
I am sorry - reproduction may have been glamorized by 20th century marketing, but it is generally sordid, exploitative and unglamorous. And it still is to 90% of humanity. Don't sell me the faerie tale breeding is all about love and puppies and rosy clouds - most of history it meant access to unpaid menial labor.
As for the unswervingly predictable nazi -reference, no I am not a right wing nut. Au contraire. But I *do* favor my own special brand of eugenics. >> http://khanneasuntzu.wordpress.com /
Finally - what if... what if china implemented a 100% screening process; all natural conceptions aborted, unlicensed parents punished severely, but from day one they would be screening out 99% of all babies born with minor to major deficiencies - anything from color blindness to retardation to buckteeth to dwarfism to albinism. Even genetic markers for low intelligence, cancer risks, severe uglyness. And what if that proved cost effective within one generation? Because, I assure you it is. The societal cost of people born unable to fully compete in this hellish world we live in is staggering. People with ADHD cost society half the expenditure on imprisonment and rehabilitation (I have ADHD). If you could weed that out, humanely, by modifying the fertillizerd zygote, you'd make a financial an societal killing.
How long before you local congresman would be arguing for the same, terrified "the chinese will outcompete us all" ? Only a matter of time love, and if it happens I want to make sure this technology is implemented 100% humane and democratic, and free from any sinister capitalist or corporate contamination.
Yes I eat GM foods, no I despise montsanto.
- Khannea Suntzu
July 14, 2009 7:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Test Tube Meat Still Kills Animals
Test Tube Meat
Have u heard about test tube meat . Scientists are trying to figure out how to grow meat in a petrie dish so they can do it on a mass scale for production. It's fraut with problems, however. One of them being it's way off ever being successful.
Here is an excellent article about the reasons behind the immorality of test tube meat on the abolitionist-online:
http://abolitionist-online.com/article_test-tube-meat.shtml
In a nutshell test tube meat does require suffering and death of many animals . The research requires the extensive use of animals to 1, obtain muscle samples to grow the meat and 2, countless thousands of animals to test in on. PETA has put up one million dollars toward research for test tube meat and argues that the animal testing is justified because it will save millions of animal lives. But how could they say these when they commit radical and extreme protests against animal testing in science , using the very same excuse; that killing a few thousand animal lives may save thousands or millions of humans with a cure. Note: the vast majority of animal testing is for product safety testing or drugs, not finding cures.
The science is WAY off being close to producing test tube meat for consumption. Much research is required (millions of dollars that could be better spent on vegan education which is the fastest way to save animals). Imagine how many vegans could be made with that one million dollars from PETA?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 8:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Test tube meat
So it's OK for animals and insects to die in the fields while crops are being harvested for the greater good of being a vegan but it's not OK for some animals to die in research labs for the greater good of no more animals being killed again, ever?
The problem with the millions of dollars being spent on vegan education is that people do not want to be vegans. I think most people have some idea that being a vegan, or at least a vegetarian would have some health benefits and is usually cheaper. But saving money and obtaining some health benefits is not worth not eating meat .
- donnawatkins
July 3, 2009 7:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ethical Reason for Going Vegan
One is faced with a choice to kill no-one by becoming a vegan. And when I say no-one, I mean killing no-one deliberately in a slaughterhouse, not the occasional field mouse killed by accident by crop machinery. So it is not necessary to kill animals for test tube meat research when there is a choice to kill no one by becoming a vegan. When making moral decisions, if there is a choice available where no one has to die, that is the right choice.
Millions of dollars are NOT spent on vegan education . Millions of dollars are spent by animal welfare groups trying to make tiny changes to the conditions of factory farmed animals. I believe this is counter-productive based on the poor results. Vegan education doesn't cost very much. It is labour intensive and requires volunteers. Vegan education focuses on the people who are open to the idea of becoming vegan, not the ones who aren't. For people who do not want to become vegan, they will not be interested in it and move on. Vegan activists only talk to people who want to talk about it! There is such a limited amount of time to do this that it only makes sense to talk to people who are engaged in the conversation and genuinely interested in the subject of animal rights .
Read more on Gary Francione 's website on the short video presentation Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare. www.abolitionistapproach.com
I agree with you that health benefits are not enough reason to go vegan. I know a few people who went vegan for the pure health benefits, but that soon wore off like any health fad and after a few years went back to eating meat . Some vegans do it for environmental reasons, but this is a similar story. The only real compelling reason to go vegan is for ethical reasons and the practice of non-violence.
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 12:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ethical reasons etc.
Great, you can go out and try and convert people to the vegan way of doing things. I believe it is a fringe movement and always will be. People believe, rightly or wrongly, that mankind has dominion over the animals .
I am aware of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. I love animals and wish to continue to have them in my life, therefore I reject everything animal rights, and Gary Francione stand for. In my experience, people who are hardcore into animal rights don't really love animals- they are just a convenient way to express their hatred of human kind.
I also think that if vegan food was really that delicious, it would speak for itself. You don't need to sell something that people love to eat.
- donnawatkins
July 6, 2009 7:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plants Don't Need to Feel Pain So They Don't
Plants are very successful survivors and can live on after being damaged, chopped, crushed, losing limbs, frost, (sometimes fire), etc, while mammals and birds and reptiles are very vulnerable to being injured and dying. Plants have no biological need to get away from any danger that might damage them because chances are they'll survive it to pass on their genes. The only purpose for pain is to respond to danger and get away. Plants do not need to do this. They evolved as they did without the need for pain receptors, nor nervous system, nor brain, nor legs to move and no nerve cells. Plants cannot feel pain. This we know as sure as the Earth is round.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 8:45AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Science IS certain
we do know for sure actually GLG. Plants have no nerve cells, nervous system, brain, and more importantly, they no biological reason to feel pain because they cannot do anything about it.
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How do you know?
Actually we do know for sure, plants to not have a central nervous system, which means they do not feel pain. They also don't have brains. Hopefully you weren't comparing animals to vegetation???
- buffylv
August 1, 2009 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
We already have this...
...in the USA it's called the Democratic Party.
- camosoul77
July 1, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Man
That's a punchline for everything in the states.
"What if we could build a nonfeeling food source"
DEMOCRATIC PARTY!
"What if we could somehow harness the energy of the sun"
REPUBLICANS!
"What if we somehow built a device that could create enough thrust to allow us to exit the atmosphere, nay, one day land on the moon?"
OBAMA!
- quantummechanik
July 1, 2009 12:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sense of humor
Didn't know you had one; not bad.
- JKM121
August 8, 2009 6:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Test Tube Meat
Have u heard about test tube meat . Scientists are trying to figure out how to grow meat in a petrie dish so they can do it on a mass scale for production. It's fraut with problems, however. One of them being it's way off ever being successful.
Here is an excellent article about the reasons behind the immorality of test tube meat on the abolitionist-online:
http://abolitionist-online.com/article_test-tube-meat.shtml
In a nutshell test tube meat does require suffering and death of many animals . The research requires the extensive use of animals to 1, obtain muscle samples to grow the meat and 2, countless thousands of animals to test in on. PETA has put up one million dollars toward research for test tube meat and argues that the animal testing is justified because it will save millions of animal lives. But how could they say these when they commit radical and extreme protests against animal testing in science , using the very same excuse; that killing a few thousand animal lives may save thousands or millions of humans with a cure. Note: the vast majority of animal testing is for product safety testing or drugs, not finding cures.
The science is WAY off being close to producing test tube meat for consumption. Much research is required (millions of dollars that could be better spent on vegan education which is the fastest way to save animals). Imagine how many vegans could be made with that one million dollars from PETA?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 8:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You can't really
pay someone off to be a vegan.
Actually, that's a lie. If someone gave me a million dollars, I'd become a Vegan.
PETA usually advocates stopping animal testing when a safer and better alternative exist. In situations where animal testing is a neccessity, I can't imagine them having much of an issue with it. Over the long-term, the test-tube meat would certainly save animal life. Even if it took 20 years and we used 10% of all animals killed per year, it would still only take 2 years of only test-tube meat to recoup our losses.
- quantummechanik
July 2, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
With Violence or Without Violence
It wouldn't be worth saving the thousands of animals killed for meat , if only ONE animal had to be harmed to invent the technology . We wouldn't do science testing to a retarded human girl, and we shouldn't do it to innocent and vulnerable animals either.
It comes down to a very simple choice: we can eat tasty food without violence, or we can eat tasty food WITH violence.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 11:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1 Vegan = 10,000 animals saved
No you could never pay someone to make an ethical choice, that would be silly! A person has to make that choice on their own when they believe it. Education with facts on the issues of animal rights , non-violence, environmental devastation from meat production, and major human diseases from eating animal products is all it takes to get some of the people who receive the education to go vegan. 1 new vegan saves about 10,000 animals from torture and death in his or her lifetime, possibly their own life by not getting heart disease or cancer , thousands of trees, tonnes of water pollution, marine life, and about 90 tonnes of green house gas emissions!
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 11:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wait, what?
That makes...little sense. If we're going by the "greatest good" mode of thought, then certainly we should be pursuing test-tube meat . We certainly would, and do, do human testing for life-saving drugs.
- quantummechanik
July 2, 2009 6:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't get off course
Hi Quantum, please consider reading the article I mentioned that goes into detail on test tube meat , and then for argument's sake read up on the supporting arguments for test tube meat, before you make up your mind on the subject.
Perhaps you can put the test tube meat debate aside seeing as it is something that may not eventuate for at least another twenty years and multi-millions of dollars, and hours of research. And then turn to the very real and current consideration of animal suffering as the direct result of demanding animal products. Thanks.
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Alright, first of all.
We'd be dealing with option three--Futuremeat.
And once again, before I refute it, shame on this site. I don't know when the animal rights group looked at holocaust footage and said "Hey, we could use this" but knock it off. It's offensive any way you look at it--Either you're getting a rhetorical benefit from it, scoring points off of the mass death of Jews, or you actually believe this "Well, those Jews were essentially animals . The Holocaust and what we do now are just two forms of animal cruelty ." I'll deal with that point if you want me to, but I'm hoping you know already why that's awful.
Alright, to the article. Here's the difference between experiments conducted during the holocaust that resulted in the death of people and experiments conducted now that result in the death of people, which do in fact occur. We test drugs on people all the time. People get sick and die from it--that's a risk. First of all, the experiments conducted on the Jews were centered around a massive extermination of a people. Medical tests do not. The experiments today are conducted to save lives--experiments during the holocaust were essentially done to see how people get sick and die, like the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.
The point I think the article is making is this: Anything cruel is immoral, and anything derived from cruelty has the taint of immorality attached to it. The Nazi experiments were cruel. Trying out a new form of chemo that may fail horribly is not cruel. Making a steak tender by punching a cow repeatedly before killing it is cruel. Trying to make a cowless meat is not cruel.
- quantummechanik
July 3, 2009 1:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am a Vegetarian
I have been a vegetarian for 31 years. I cannot eat meat because of the suffering which it causes.
- Alayna Staggers
June 28, 2009 7:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Meat & Milk is the Same
Hi Alayna, I don't see a difference in morality between eating meat and eating dairy and eggs as both require suffering and death. :)
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Different kinds of vegetarians
There are different kinds of vegetarians. My vegetarianism started with my religion which is Seventh-day Adventist. Everyone has to study up on things for themselves and if God converts your heart for that particular thing, then it is up to you to listen to His Spirit. It is not a matter of convincing anyone that one way is better, it is just that God has shown for me that I should not eat meat . I don't eat eggs, but I do drink milk.
- Alayna Staggers
July 2, 2009 2:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eating a egg?
Please tell me how eating a non fertal egg requires suffering and death?
- countryboy
July 2, 2009 8:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Eggs & Dairy Require Suffering and Death
Eggs requires enormous suffering on the part of the birds who lay them, whether that be free range or factory farm! Go to the Peaceful Prairy website to read about why and also check out humanemyth.org
1. Hens must be forcefully bred by artifical insemination. If this were done to humans against their will this would be called rape. Hens can never choose their own mate or socialise with other birds in a natural way, nor ever see their children . Chickens naturally have a very strong mothering instinct.
2. The fertilised eggs are taken away from them to be artificially incubated. This is theft. To a bird, her eggs are her babies.
3. The newly hatched chicks are roughly handled to check their sex one after another. The male chicks are not useful to the egg industry and so are tossed into a large plastic bag where they suffocate and get squashed. Other methods of killing the newborns include grinding them up in a machine, or simply throwing them out into a rubbish bin still alive. For every shed full of 10,000 egg laying hens, there must have been another 10,000 brothers were were killed at birth. Hatcheries breed these chickens and then send them to various egg producers including free range farms.
4. 99% of the egg laying hens in the world are exploited in battery farms. Each bird has a space smaller than an A4 page. She cannot walk or flap her wings or see the sunlight. Some neighbouring birds go mad and canibalise other birds by pecking at them and removing all the feathers and inflicting wounds. The hens are subjected to times with constant lighting for two weeks to force the birds into a state of stress which makes them lay more eggs. The hens are artificially designed to lay more eggs than they naturally would and also larger eggs, putting extra physical burden on them. The constant laying of eggs is so taxing on the birds bodies that they develop osteoporosis due to all the calcium that goes into producing egg shells. The chickens bones are very brittle and easily break. She will spend her entire miserable life here.
5. All egg laying hens are eventually killed at about 2 years of age. This is because their production slows down and it is not economical to keep feeding them. Both battery farm and free range farmed hens are sent to the same slaughterhouses. The birds are roughly taken out of their cages for the first time and thrown into tiny crates packed together. The crates are put onto trucks, most of the time unprotected from the harsh elements of outside. They take a long and frightening journey without access to water or shelter to the slaughterhouse. There they are hung upside down, electrocuted, plunged into scalding water alive, plucked alive and finally butchered. Many birds are conscious during this process. It is violent, terrifying and horrific.
Dairy Cows Same Story
Very similar realities exist for dairy cows including the killing of male born calves for veal so that the milk can be taken for humans instead. They are perpetually impregnated in order to produce milk. After enduring the agony of birth their newborns are taken away and the mothers can cry for days for their calves. Many cows get mastitis (swollen infected udders) from the heavy demand of milk production. Often the whole herd is treated for it whether they have it or not with a painful injection directly into the nipple). Allowable amounts of puss from the mastitis ends up in the milk supply for human consumption. Dairy cows also get osteoporosis from putting all their calcium into collossal amounts of milk production. All dairy cows are killed at about 5 or 6 years of age when normally they live to about 26. They are loaded onto a truck for a long uncomfortable journey. Some cows are pregnant. The cows are used for milk up until the time for slaughter so they suffer terribly on the journey with swollen, painful, unmilked udders. Slaughter is terrifying. They await for hours for their turn listening to the screams inside and smelling the blood. Up to half of the herd can be fully conscious while they are butchered alive, bellies split, unborn calves taken out, skinned, legs hacked off.
Do you really want to eat eggs and milk that badly?
Going vegan is easy. Delicious non-animal alternatives exist for just about all egg and dairy products. Not only that, but your body doesn't need eggs and dairy to stay healthy!
Watch the film by ordering a copy at www.earthlings.com
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 10:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You got false information
Chicken lay eggs.Should we just let the eggs rot?Or would you just want to do away with chickens?
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What to do with the chickens and the eggs?
We should care for domestic animals who are already here and give them the best life possible. But we should stop breeding them to exploit them. We do not need these animals, we should leave them alone.
At the Peaceful Prairy animal sanctuary, they have rescued sick and abused farm animals from both factory farm and free range farm. What do the carers do with the unfertilised eggs? They feed them back to the chickens.
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 3:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If you eat vegetable
Your harming Animals.What do you think a farmer does when a deer gets into this corn fields.They kill it!
- countryboy
July 4, 2009 9:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chickens live a long life
Not all chickens.If you love Animals what would you do to chickens to live a better life that to give them free range.To live to there fullest.I had chickens that was over 10 years old.That came and gone as they pleased.
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Backyard Chickens
Yes chickens live a long life -if you leave them alone! They are killed very young in the egg and chicken meat industry.
Free range chickens used for meat spend only 2 weeks in the free range environment of a very large cage outside with thousands of other chickens.The first 4 months of their lives are spent indoors with very small space. They are killed at about 5 months old for meat. There are no standards set in place free range farming so the conditions can very widely, making the term meaningless.
Ten happy backyard hens means there must be ten unhappy killed brothers! The male chickens are killed to eat because they don't lay eggs and are aggressive. Even backyard hens must be owned and exploited for their eggs, no matter how "happy" they might be. Like any other bird, chickens should be free.
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 3:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Chickens should be free
So let the chickens free so they can be eaten by the foxes,dogs and raccoons.right!
- countryboy
July 4, 2009 9:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One sided
Earthlings.com is one sided brainwashing,You need to open your eyes.And see its not that way.
If one person is bad it does not make all mankind bad.
Do think its bad to own animals ?
So if Saved a horse from being dog food .What would you have me to do with it? kill it!
- countryboy
July 3, 2009 12:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Earthlings is a document
Earthlings is not brainwashing, it's just documented information in the form of video footage that 99% of people never see behind closed doors. Yes you are right, not all animals are treated that way, but most of them are. 95% of the animals eaten are raised in the tiny confinements of factory farms. A very small percentage of animals are farmed in free range conditions (just a bigger cage), and sold at a premium price. Free range raised animals die in the same slaughterhouses as factory farmed animals as seen in Earthlings. The market for "happy meat " is minor. And then a smaller percentage still are farmed on family hobby farms. So unless you are only eating the animals you raise yourself at your home (which I still have objection to anyway), any animals you buy from the shop will have been raised in concentration-camp-like factory farms and killed in horrendous ways.
Yes I do think it is bad to own animals, just the same as it is bad to own human slaves. It does not matter how happy the slave is, because slavery is wrong. Animals should not be owned by people for reasons of companionship, entertainment , sport, protection or whatever.
But yes, of course you should save the horse and care for him. Same as rescuing a dog or a cat. We should care for the animals who are already here and give them the best life possible but we should cease from breeding domestic animals into existence for human purposes. Animals should exist for their own reasons and live freely in the wild, not as slaves for humans!
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 2:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You make nose sense
In your world animals live better then people! That they can run free on my land!What would you have my to eat,after the animals eat all vegetation!
- countryboy
July 4, 2009 9:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
chickens
So you didn't see the recent study (was it the USDA?) that determined that free range chickens are much more likely to get sick and injured?
Here are some of the other issues:
1. Bird flu -- Free-range chickens, turkeys, and egg-laying hens kept outdoors are more susceptible to bird flu, as the British are regrettably learning again and again.
2. Death rate -- Dr. Joy Mensch, a leading Animal Science professor at UC Davis, told the Sacramento Bee on Sunday that cage-free hens die at more than twice the rate of caged hens, likely the result of increased exposure to one another (and to their own manure).
3. Broken bones -- Dr. Mensch adds that cage-free hens, left to jump around the barn, suffer high rates of broken bones, as high as 67 percent in one study.
4. Stress -- This year scientists at Sydney University in Australia found that free-range chickens experience just as much stress as caged birds , since they have to deal with extra pressures such as extreme temperatures, parasites, and predators.
- donnawatkins
July 6, 2009 7:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Omnivores
This is all well and good except many people cannot digest protein from plants and others cannot from meat . To take away a food source that makes protein out of grass seems really stupid to me when you can make a painless death. The cows hear the pain of the electric shock stick and are in a place they have never been before. Of course they are going to look scared and be scared. Dogs do the same thing when they go somewhere different. As for plants feeling pain There is a long history of studies on plant intelligence starting with ARISTOTLE in about 280 BC, who was convinced that plants have a soul
and feelings, and culminating with Charles DARWIN’S
(1880) statement, in his influential book ‘The Power of Movement in Plants’, that the root apex acts like a diffuse brain, resembling brains of lower animals . See BALUŠKA, F., MANCUSO, S., VOLKMANN, D. & BARLOW, P., Root apices
as plant command centres: the unique ‘brain-like’ status of the root apex
transition zone. Biologia, Bratislava, 59/Suppl. 13: 1—, 2004; ISSN 0006-
3088.
Although plants are generally immobile and lack the most obvious brain activities
of animals and humans, they are not only able to show all the attributes
of intelligent behaviour but they are also equipped with neuronal molecules,
especially synaptotagmins and glutamate/glycine-gated glutamate receptors.
Recent advances in plant cell biology allowed identification of plant synapses
transporting the plant-specific neurotransmitter-like molecule, auxin. This
suggests that synaptic communication is not limited to animals and humans
but seems to be widespread throughout plant tissues. Root apices seated at
the anterior pole of the plant body show many features which allow us to
propose that they, especially their transition zones, act in some way as brainlike
command centres. The opposite posterior pole harbours sexual organs
and is specialized for plant reproduction. Last but not least, we propose that
vascular tissues represent highways for plant nervous activity allowing rapid
exchange of information between the growing points of above-ground organs
and the brain-like zones in the root apices.
I remember a study from 30 years ago in my science class in which the professor showed that plants respond to pain and scream when cut, we just can't hear it without the amplification or recognitition of the chemical response of the plant.
Also Chet Day and other long time vegans have noticed an increase in irreversible organ damage among long time vegans. These vegans have begun to include fish and add milk into their diets to improve their health . See Dangers of a vegan diet by Chet Day. Philosophy is one thing, but reality is another and making laws based upon emotions doesn't help.
- Rosset
June 30, 2009 1:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If Plants Did Feel Pain, Vegans Still Kill Less
Rosset, mainstream science proves over and again that plants cannot feel pain. Past "studies" such as the famous Baxter experiment have been debunked long ago. Not only that, plants have no biological need to. Indeed, even the act of screaming has a survival function. So the fact that the "scream" is inaudible proves it isn't useful. The tiny scream is in fact gas escaping.
Plants Don't Need to Feel Pain So They Don't. Plants are very successful survivors and can live on after being damaged, chopped, crushed, losing limbs, frost, (sometimes fire), etc, while mammals and birds and reptiles are very vulnerable to being injured and dying. Plants have no biological need to get away from any danger that might damage them because chances are they'll survive it to pass on their genes. The only purpose for pain is to respond to danger and get away. Plants do not need to do this. They evolved as they did without the need for pain receptors, nor nervous system, nor brain, nor legs to move and no nerve cells. Plants cannot feel pain. This we know as sure as the Earth is round.
Even if (for argument's sake) plants did feel pain, going vegan is the morally logical thing to do in order to not inflict any unnecessary pain on others. You wouldn't for example blowtorch a dog for pleasure and you would kill 9 cows but only eat one because that would lead to unnecessary suffering. It takes 10 to 16 kg of grain to make 1kg of beef. Thousands or millions of plants go into making one cow life. So if you wanted to reduce "suffering" of plants, it would be logical to eat the plants directly rather than process the plants through an animal (eating ten times less plants killed than if you ate the beef).
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No nutritional necessity to consume meat, dairy, eggs or honey
The healthy vegan diet is endorsed by the World Health Organisation. It is scientifically proven to be nutritionally balanced and sufficient for human health . Like anyone else, a diet lacking in one nutrient or another will cause ill-health or disease, regardless of whether there is animal products in it or not is beside the point. The health risks from consuming dairy, meat and eggs are far greater and well known than the risks of lacking nutrients from using an unhealthy/junk food vegan diet. Animal products loaded with cholesterol , saturated fat, free radicals, carcinogens and excess protein are largely responsible for our biggest killers in western society . Heart disease, stroke, cancer , diabetes, obesity , osteoporosis.
All the vegans I know are very healthy. I am a long time vegan, have had two successful pregnancies with breastfeeding , and I am a weight lifter. Our young children are energetic, smart, healthy vegans. Occasional doctor check ups and blood tests always reveal normal results and prime health. There is no nutritional necessity to consume meat, dairy, eggs or honey. All nutrients humans need are in plants. Going vegan was the easiest thing I ever did.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about
all the animals killed (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds , and other species) who are killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting” ? Don't they want to live, too?
- donnawatkins
July 1, 2009 11:18AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
DEATH to Carnivores!
YES we must eradicate ALL predators!!!
THEN we can exterminate ominvores
How dare all those evils species feed on others?
Why some of them eat their prey while it is still living
Like Vegans do.
- kentuckydan
July 2, 2009 1:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humans have a choice to eat a non-violent diet, lions do not
Natural carnivores must kill other animals to survive. We do not need to kill other animals to survive. Humans have a choice to eat a non-violent diet , lions do not.
Could you look yourself in the eye and honestly say your cucumber has feelings?
And if you say yes, could you just as readily chop open the family dog on the dining table for a casual lunch as calmly as you would a head of lettuce? Are you saying there is absolutely no moral difference between chopping vegetables and chopping kittens?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unequal?
Did you just admit that humans and lions are on different levels, Desert Girl?
- frontrangetony
July 2, 2009 5:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Meat Eating Times the Crop Deaths By Ten
Hi Donna, It takes ten to 16kg of grain to make 1kg of beef. So whatever mammals and insects, etc are killed during crop harvesting, will multiply in deaths by at least ten times when someone eats meat . Being a vegan may cause some indirect and accidental deaths on the farm during crop harvesting, but this is far far less than the impact meat, dairy and egg eating causes because so many more crops are required. HALF of the world's grain is fed to produce food animals . This puts enormous pressure on natural resources like water, creates tension between nations, and more demand for oil .
You wouldn't eat your dog, so why eat a pig or a sheep? It's just a different species. Violence against a dog, a cat, a pig, a chicken, a white woman, a black man, an old person, child -it's all still violence! The Vegan Diet Offers the choice to live without Violence.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dog vs chicken
I find that comparison irrelevant, to be totally honest. I would swat a mosquito on me but when my dogs annoy me, they are allowed to live.
The Vegan Diet offers the choice to live with a different level of violence, would be more accurate.
- donnawatkins
July 3, 2009 7:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Accident vs Deliberate Violence
Right! And the different "level" of violence as you describe it is the difference between deliberate killing and accidental killing. But the main difference is in the sheer numbers of death on animals required by an omnivore's diet .
In the case of occasional deaths caused by crop harvesting, this is accidental and not deliberate. There's a big difference as you know between accidentally hitting a pedestrian and deliberately running someone over! Farmers have not gone out of their way to kill these animals when they harvest the crops. (Well sometimes they do in times of plague!) The crop deaths is an accident. Note that many animals do survive crop harvesting as they live deep underground safely in burrows when the machines pass overhead. For those who don't have burrows, many have the opportunity to run away to safety at the sound of the noisy machines.
In the case of killing animals to use their muscles to eat or their milk and eggs, the killing is planned and deliberate. Also, if one really is concerned about the deaths caused in a field crop at harvest time, and you wanted to not cause any unnecessary suffering and death on animals, then it could be said that on a vegan diet, it is only necessary to kill one field worth of rodents at harvest time, rather than ten fields. So the collateral deaths from crop growing for omnivores are multiplied by at least ten times and up to 16 times more, than it is for a vegan. And then you must add the deaths of the animals in the slaughterhouse on top of that figure for an omnivore. Putting aside the collateral deaths that may occur on the farms to grow crops to feed farmed animals for eggs, milk and meat for omnivores, 10,000 animals are killed in a slaughterhouse to make these products over the average person's lifetime!
And seeing as we can survive and thrive very well on a pure plant vegan diet as well as making it delicious using only one field of crops, that means that the extra deaths caused by omnivore diets are causing very unnecessary suffering and deaths on animals that do not have to die.
For example, it wouldn't make any sense to kill 9 cows, but only eat one cow. Besides being wasteful, it would also cause unnecessary suffering and death on the uneaten cows that could have been avoided. The vegan philosophy of non-violence claims that even killing the one cow is unnecessary! No animals have to die on a vegan diet, that is, no animals are delliberately killed for a vegan diet and any accidental deaths that were necessary in producing the plant food for vegans is reduced dramatically by a factor of at least ten.
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 11:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In nature...
Animals eat other animals and they're not one bit nice about it.
Although I did hear on Morning Edition this morning that vegetarians have a lower rate of cancer compared to meat eaters. However, is that because vegetarians don't eat meat, or because the meat that is eaten today is full of chemicals and added hormones and raised on unnatural diets?
- MimosasAreInBloom
July 1, 2009 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegans Drastically Reduce Chances of Cancer
Hi Mimosa, natural organic meat without any added chemicals , etc is loaded with cancer -causing properties. It is naturally carcinogenic, even more so when heavily cooked. It contains harmful pathogens. It contains excessive iron and free radicals. It contains excessive protein that causes a number of problems but has a strong link to osteoporosis because excess protein blocks calcium absorbtion and leaches calcium from bones. People in countries eating traditional plant based diets have extremely low cancer rates. Animal products are linked with cancer. Read The China Study (book about the longest and biggest study on cancer and diet in the world).
The health benefits of a vegan diet is just the bonus. It is primarily the practice of non-violence. It is the right thing to do. Why kill and torture when u don't have to?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How do you get...
Hi DesertGirl,
How do you get your protein? And Vitamin B12? I know there are plant sources that contain protein but Vitamin B12 is only available in meat sources.
Were those meat sources that you refer to fed a natural diet ? Organic doesn't always mean natural. Most of the meat sources in the US are raised on grains. Cows are grass eaters. It isn't natural for them to eat grains.
I rarely eat beef anyway, though. I mostly eat fowl and fish. And I rarely consume milk or its derivatives because milk from a cow is baby-cow- food .
Also, what is the longevity of a vegan?
And how do you keep from feeling like you're starving to death? I tried eating only fruits and nuts one month last summer, and I could hardly concentrate when I was at work because I was hungry for protein! KEW
- MimosasAreInBloom
July 2, 2009 4:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where do Gorillas Get Their Protein?
Hey there Mimosa,
Protein
Protein is sufficient amounts in most vegetables. Broccoli for instance contains 47% protein. Concentrated quality protein can be found in tofu, soy products including mock-meats, legumes, beans, seeds and nuts. Our body only needs about 1gram per kilogram that you weigh (I think that's right). So if you weigh 60kg, you only need to eat 60 grams of concentrated protein which is a tiny amount compared to what the average amount of protein consumed is in western countries. It is near impossible to NOT get enough protein eating a pure plant diet . Can u think of a disease related to protein deficiency? There is only one and it is so rare that it is only found in people who have been literally starving. Question: how do you think gorillas get their protein to build their bulk muscle mass? From plants! And so do elephants, buffalo and other giants of the animal herbivore world.
B12
B12 can be easily found in non-animal sources of fortified cereals and soy-milks. It can be supplemented in tablet form also or included in a multi-vitamin or multi-B vitamin. There are discussions about vitimin B12 being in some mushrooms or nutritional yeast and other things, but I am not sure if this is a reliable source. B12 is a bacteria that can be found in the soil and it used to be easily sourced in vegetables in the past before modern food production removed the B12 by thorough cleaning of the food, irradiation, cold storage and other such handling. B12 is very important for human health and vegans must make sure they get adequate intakes. B12 can be stored in the body and can take 5 years of zero B12 consumption to fully deplete. Anyone not consuming any or enough B12 may not show any signs of deficiency until 5 years. Omnivores who eat either eggs or meat products are just as likely to develop B12 deficiencies as vegans, and just as likely to develop iron deficiencies as vegans and vegetarians. There are no statistics to back up the assumption that vegans and vegetarians are prone to iron deficiencies. Having said that, it is very important to take personal responsibility for one's own health by getting the right amount of nutrients.
The hunger you described is pretty typical of eating those food types. I feel weak and light headed after an hour or two of only eating vegetables or fruits. This is due to low blood glucose levels. Vegetables and fruits are digested rapidly (only 20 minutes in fact!), leaving you feeling a little empty.
Quality carbohydrates make up the bulk of my diet. I make sure a salad is accompanied with a little protein like toasted nuts or marinated fried crispy tofu, and croutons or a bread roll. Sometimes cold pasta can be tossed in the salad too. Sandwiches contain wholemeal bread, vegan margarine or olive oil or avocado as the base spread, salad leaves or cucumber, tomato, a condiment like sundried tomato paste or vegan mayonaise, a protein source like either almond-nut-butter spread or marinated tofu, or soy nuggets. Vegan food has to taste good! Dinner always contains carbohydrates like pasta, noodles or rice, or maybe pizza, heaps of colourful veggies, protein like pinenuts, almonds, tofu or flavoured soy strips, soy sausages, soy snitzel, soy burgers, etc, etc. Dessert is the most important thing! I like baking. Every dessert recipe you find can be veganised easily!
The dangerous things found in meat I was refering to is found in both grain fed, feedlot farmed and free-range grass fed animals .
Vegans have excellent health records, athletic achievements and longevity. Even dogs can benefit! Our two husky dogs are vegans. A couple years ago the Guinness Book of World Records listed Brambles, a 27 year old vegan dog as the longest living dog in the world! Read an exciting book about longevity and plant based diets by John Robbins called Healthy At 100. Read about the longest lived peoples in the world and the science behind why they live so long and healthfully.
Some websites on health that support vegan diets and show studies on the dangers of consuming animal products:
www.healthyat100.org
www.pcrm.org
http://www.drmcdougall.com /
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 11:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wow
Who dares deceive the masses into believing that this subject bears any room for rational debate...
How can one even become a 'Human Rights Professor?' Is that like having a PhD. in farting?
I jest and insult, yes... Because I really don't know what else to do with it... Animals do not have the same rights as people. In fact, they have no rights at all. They are not people.
Why am I even justifying this asinine screed with a reply? This is silly.
- camosoul77
July 1, 2009 11:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals Are Not "People"?
You must have taken an interest in the subject if you clicked on it and read it. Gary is an animal rights professor, not human rights BTW. Although the two are interlinked and about the same thing. By your comments I see you don't have much regard for human rights anyway, never mind animal rights!
You are correct in saying animals do not have any rights, only because we don't give them any. They are just as deserving of the right to "life, liberty and happiness" as any man, woman, child or black person.
Why do you think animals are not "people"? Your comments about no rational debate or by replying it is silly may make sense if you were talking about DVD player rights or wrist watch rights. But we are not talking about rights for unthinking, unfeeling material objects, we are talking about rights for beings who are. How is this concept so far away for you? Do you think animals are like DVD players or wrist watches?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights?
I would agree that any living entity has a right not to be subjected to harm and torture for no reason other than the sick pleasure of a twisted mental defect. But the whole of 'modern conventional society ' is engineered, down the the last detail, to be a game of cutting your neighbors' throats for fun... Metaphorical or not. But I digress.
I would oppose the torture or deliberate undue suffering of any living being, but moving that line so far as to create equal rights for cows and chickens, as for human beings, is silly and juvenile.
Animals are not people, and they have their place.
- camosoul77
July 2, 2009 12:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simon the Saddist
Hi Camo Soul,
Francione uses an analogy of Simon the saddist about a man who tortured a dog by using a blowtorch and badly burning him, beating him and cutting him, only for the purpose that it gave him pleasure and amusement. The vast majority of people who hear this story are naturally shocked and appalled by such an act and believe it to be morally unacceptable. The reason is because most people believe we should never inflict unnecessary suffering onto animals for the purposes of pleasure, habit or convenience. But!
99% of the animals in the world are tortured, suffer and die for these very reasons -for pleasure, habit and convenience. Most of the animals we exploit are for food . Seeing as we have no nutritional necessity to consume animal products and can easily derive our nutritional needs from plants to live a strong and healthy life, this makes the violent killing of animals for food completely unecessary. The only reason we justify killing animals for food is that they taste good, that we derive pleasure from it and that it is convenient and habitual to do so. We do not need to eat animals or their secretions to stay healthy, we do not need to eat animals in order to survive. We kill animals and cause enormous suffering on their part because we derive pleasure from it. So! What is the difference between Simon the saddist who tortures dogs for amusement pleasure and people who torture cows for food pleasure? There is no moral difference between torturing these animals whether it be for amusement or food pleasure!
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 9:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
false assertions
You fail to make any connection between torturing an animal for sick entertainment , and raising cattle.
You have asserted a connection, but you haven't actually cited one.
There are many nutritional details that come only from 'animal products.' You can survive without it, but I've yet to meet a vegan who was healthy. Most have compromised immune systems and are anorexic. Maybe they aren't good examples. But I categorically and scientifically reject your false assertion that human beings can live IN HEALTH without consuming meat . Human beings are omnivorous. It is not a social mater. Even before Language was developed, Man was hunting.
To claim that raising cattle is torture , is a lie.
It is quite possible to kill an animal and have it feel nothing at all. .22-250 across the head from the ear; white tail drops like a rock. Never knows it even happened. Instantaneous.
I'm sure you'll start on your anti-hunting kick now, which I will also not fall for...
- camosoul77
July 3, 2009 12:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Perfect Painless Death
Hi Camo, thanks for your reply.
Done to Humans, It Would Be Torture.
Standard legal industry practice treatment of all farm animals involves suffering and pain and death. Farm animals are exempt from anti-cruelty laws which only protect companion animals (which is saying something right there). If what is done to farm animals were done to humans, it would be defined as torture . Farm animals get mutilated (dehorned, castrated, tails cut, teeth cut, beaks burned, branded, etc) all without anaesthetic. If this were done to humans it would be classified as torture. Farm animals have their babies taken away from them. When this is done to humans whether the act was morally justified or not, is emotionally devastating to humans and can be seen as torturous. Ask any parent with a missing child and they'll tell you the anguish is torture. Farm animals get raped using artificial insemination. One may argue the animal doesn't care, but if given the choice they'd run away. That's why they must be confined. Farm animals must endure long truck journeys to slaughter or sale yards. They are crammed together and some typically do not make the journey. This is likened to the slave ships of yesterday. Farm animals are killed in shocking, horrific ways as evident in the undercover footage seen in the film Earthlings. If this were done to humans, no doubt it would be called torture.
The Perfect Painless Death
As for your description of the perfect, painless death for a cow, if this were done to a man, could you call it humane murder ? I mean, a child or a man could be fast asleep and get their brains blown out and they'd never know it was coming. No anxiety waiting for their death as all the cows do waiting in line at the slaughterhouse. No pain, no awareness of it. Does this painless death make the murder of the man morally acceptable? Of course not! Why? Because the man has an interest in continued life. And guess what? So does the cow! To say that it is morally acceptable to painlessly kill the cow, but not for the man is quite simply speciesism. Speciesism is no different in the suffering it causes to sexism or racism .
Being a Strong Healthy Vegan is Easy!
A healthy vegan diet is endorsed by the World Health Organisation, and that's saying something because this is a conservative lot! There is nothing you can't get from an entirely plant based diet. My husband and I have been vegans for 12 years. We have terrific health . The occasional doctor check up with a blood test always reveals normal levels of iron, folate, calcium, B12, cholesterol , etc. We have 2 young boys who are healthy active vegans. I had 2 normal pregnancies and breastfed both children without a hitch. We live active lives. I practice kung fu and enjoy weight lifting. In my weight lifting class I lift the same weights as my female instructors and the same weights (and sometimes even more) as the men in my class! I am a very strong woman! I am sure I personally know more vegan people than you do, and I am yet to meet an unhealthy one. It is very possible to eat a junk food vegan diet (chips and coca-cola!) and that would obviously lead to serious health problems! Think about gorillas. Where do you think these bodybuilders get their protein from? Just plants! Humans being omnivores have the choice to eat a pure plant based diet -and get everything they need!
Thanks for listening. Have an awesome day! DG
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 7:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Argument foundation
The foundation of all of your arguments is that Animals are Equal to Humans. They are not.
It is not immoral to eat meat . It would be immoral to ignore the need to sustain a species, and it would be immoral to torture an animal for pleasure. Neither of which apply to this debate, though you attempt to assert so. Denying the differences exposes the fraud in your argument.
You can refuse to acknowledge it to sustain your position in your own mind, but it lacks support under review of that fact. If you're just going to keep returning to the same failed basis, then there is little point in talking to you.
You have chosen an agenda and reject all fact that proves it wrong. This is not an honest debate, is an intellectual fraud, and a waste of my time.
A human seeking fact does not concern itself with supporting an agenda by putting out it's own eyes when confronted by fact.
Zealots are everywhere...
- camosoul77
July 4, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As I suspected
Hmmm...."people who torture cows for food pleasure". I suspect you are passionate about your beliefs, yet on some points haven't a clue what you are talking about. I suspect you are aware of exceptions to the rule which you generalize to the whole. No personal experience, no actual exposure, no first hand knowledge right? Just the standard "party line" well spoken/written with the passion of an activist. That's cool though - as long as we remain a free nation, the debate of ideas and opinions is everyone's right.
- GLG
July 14, 2009 5:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One Basic Right
Granting a cow the right the vote, the right to sue and the right to drive a car is of course very silly because it's not applicable to these animals .
Animals deserve just one basic right. The right not to be property. To be free. To live left alone in their natural habitat that is protected from human interference.
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 12:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's obvious, but...
I disagree.
Man has created a false habitat for himself, and it produces the illusion that we are somehow 'separate' from the natural order of things. While we surround ourselves with insulating layers of inhumanity and refer to it as 'civilization,' we are still part of the cycle. To reserve ourselves to being prey only, is a fools errand and defies logic and nature. We are intelligent, tool-using creatures. We are meant to triumph, but also manage.
While man bears the capacity, and has made many examples, that he can destroy, end even wipe a species from the earth in arrogance and greed; farming defies that notion. Managing, instead of decimating.
The basis for your argument thus far, has been that man being in any way involved with animals , is wrong and evil. Yet, what else would the top of the food chain do?
Your basis fails, and thusly, your position and argument follow.
- camosoul77
July 3, 2009 12:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Trouble
Hi there Camo.
Moral Logic -How Would It Feel If Were Me?
I don't believe there is such a thing as evil, only actions and consequences. It is just common logic that if you cut an animal, it's going to really hurt! Action and consequence. The very basic moral theory is that if you know it would hurt you if someone cut you, and that you don't want this to happen to you, then it is only logical to assume no-one else will want this to happen to them either. And so don't do it to others!
The Strong & the Vulnerable
What else would the strongest, most dominant species of the planet do? Glad you asked! As a member of this group myself, I would like to propose we do some good with it! Instead of killing and harming, we could simply let live! What a concept! Take leadership and responsibility as the strong and able species by protecting and respecting the vulnerable and the innocent - animals . You don't see superman flying around beating up children and old ladies do you? No! He doesn't beat them up because he is strong, quite the opposite. He protects them, because he strong. This is what we need to do. Use our strength to protect wildlife and their natural habitat, and stop being violent to animals.
A Simple Choice
I don't see how any of these points can morally justify violence onto animals though. What ever you may say, it still comes down to a very simple choice:
You can eat food that requires violence and suffering on the innocent and vulnerable.
You can eat food that harms no one, that requires no violence and suffering.
Management of Efficient Decimation
As for your notion that management of farm animals protects the environment , nothing could be farther from the truth! Livestock production could well be the number one most environmentally destructive human activity on this planet!
Deforestation & Extinction
Almost all landclearing and deforestation worldwide is for the purpose of grazing land for cattle and for growing crops for feedlot animals. This directly creates extinctions and endangers more sepecies of animals as their natural habitat is radically changed. Habitat destruction for the purpose of animal production is the main threat to endangered animals worldwide.
Water
Livestock production is the number one cause of water pollution and raw sewage. Livestock uses the most water to produce. It takes 100,000 L of water to make 1kg of beef! Plant foods use far less in comparison -only a few thousand litres.
Loving Food to Death
Half the world's grain is fed to animals to produce meat , eggs and dairy for the demands of western countries. It takes between 10 to 16kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef. While 1 billion people in the world are obese by consuming these fattening animal products, 1 billion people are starving or malnourished because they cannot afford the grain that is exported to produce these rich animal products for the west.
Soil
Cattle grazing is a serious cause of soil erosion. It takes nature a thousand years in arid lands and 500 years in greener lands to replace just one inch of topsoil lost by cattle farming.
Fish
The ocean is in serious trouble. It is being emptied of life due to unprecedented demand for seafood. As one example, tuna, cod and swordfish have been wiped out by 90% in only 40 years!
Climate Change
Livestock production creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire world's transport industry -that's more than every car, truck, train, ship and aeroplane put together! You would emit more carbon if you walked to the corner shops fueled on a meat and dairy diet than if you drove to the corner shops in a hummer on a vegan diet! Source: World Trade Organisation's report "Livestock's Long Shadow".
If this is management CamoSoul. The planet is in serious trouble!
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 8:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I am not an Animal
Animals and Humans are not Equal. We bear the capacity to be nothing more, by neglecting our higher intellect. And this breach is the definition of immorality; to be nothing more than an animal when one has the choice.
If Animals were Equal to humans, then your arguments would apply. But they are not, so they don't.
- camosoul77
July 4, 2009 10:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life is life- why do they hate plants?
Why the animal bias? Do animal rights activists seriously believe plants have no interest in continued life? What short-sighted, self-centered speciesism!
- KentMcManigal July 1, 2009 11:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's not that they don't believe it
It's that they can't really show it to occur in the same way that we can show it in animals .
- quantummechanik
July 1, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
are you that big of an idiot?
three criteria for deciding if an organism has the capacity to suffer from pain: 1) there are behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3) there is an evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain
Our best science to date shows that plants lack any semblance
of a central nervous system or any other system design for such complex capacities as that of conscious suffering from felt pain.
Second, plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain. Animals being mobile would benefit from the ability to sense pain; plants would not. Nature does not gratuitously create such complex capacities as that of feeling pain unless there is some benefit for the organism's survival.
The absurdity of this can be found in the following questions:
easily exposed by asking them the following two questions:
1) Do you agree that animals like dogs and cats should receive
pain-killing drugs prior to surgery?
2) Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs
prior to pruning?
- progressisdead
July 1, 2009 4:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Silent Scream of the Asparagus
Well they are investigating that issue in Switzerland
") Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs
prior to pruning??
You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.
- kentuckydan
July 2, 2009 1:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"plants have feelings" -an excuse for violence
Kentucky I doubt this is taken seriously by anyone.
You can't use "plants have feelings" as an excuse for violence! Are you saying it wouldn't matter whether you chopped your dog or chopped your potato?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Matter
I suppose it would matter to both if they were or were not the one chopped up
- kentuckydan
July 13, 2009 3:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I like it!
Good one progress!
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Uncool Cucumber
C'mon mate! Look me in the eye and tell me a cucumber has feelings!
That's the silliest excuse for violence I've ever heard
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 9:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Listen to how this sounds...
While how a sentence sounds in comparison to conventional stupidity is not guarantee of logic, it can often be a pointer...
"I'm going to go beat the crap out of a Watermelon!"
Seriously.... Even if I did it, it isn't 'violence,' as you try to label everything you disagree with as a dogmatic way to attach morality to a null argument....
FUD on a stick.
- camosoul77
July 3, 2009 12:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's only an animal
Of course it cannot be violence if you damage an object. Violence is only violence if there is a sensing victim on the receiving end.
If you are saying that beating an animal cannot be called violence because "it's" "just an animal", the very same has been heard for centuries with violent attacks on minority groups. Racism has seen us beat and kill with the justification "they're only Jews", "He's only a black man". Speciesism is the same as racism and sexism when it comes to violence, exploitation and oppression.
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 8:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no, they are not the same.
Racism, ageism, sexism, species-ism, all of these isms are an attempt to define the recognition of difference as immoral. some are, some are not. 'Ism'ing is an oft used deception of agenda pushers. Racism is a legitimate immoral identifier because it is an application of demeanor to an equal species. So is sexism. When used accurately, so is ageism.
But 'species-ism' is a lie, by it's very definition. Animals ARE lesser creatures, so identifying this is not an immorality.
To a degree, one might even call Sexism or Racism valid, should a particular race or gender choose to lower themselves below the level of a Human Being. Being able to identify those who do this, is not immoral. I am not Equal to a Rapist; I am superior. Follow?
- camosoul77
July 4, 2009 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What Has Equality Got to Do With Kindness?
Sure, let's just go with the humans are superior thing for a minute. Still doesn't make sense to be cruel to animals just because they are not as mighty and amazing as humans.
People who commit crimes lose their rights the moment they go to prison. But what have animals ever done to us to be treated the way we treat them?
- Desert Girl
July 4, 2009 7:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The longterm view
This talk is about suffering and how to get rid of it.
I predict we will abolish suffering throughout the living world.
Our descendants will be animated by gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being that are orders of magnitude richer than today's peak experiences.
First, I'm going to outline why it's technically feasible to abolish the biological substrates of any kind of unpleasant experience - psychological pain as well as physical pain.
Secondly, I'm going to argue for the overriding moral urgency of the abolitionist project, whether or not one is any kind of ethical utilitarian.
Thirdly, I'm going to argue why a revolution in biotechnology means it's going to happen, albeit not nearly as fast as it should.
http://www.abolitionist.com /
Read the other articles on that site too. It won't compute in most people reading this, but it's not fiction.
- Khannea Suntzu
July 1, 2009 12:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Plants or Animals
We live in a spiritual existance. It is all just the exchange of energy . Physical death is only one part of a cycle of life.
That being said, I speak from experience here having worked on a cattle ranch. Cows are stupid. The cow is not scared of dying. He has no idea that is what is waiting for him at the end of the chute. They barely feel the cattle prod as well. I would have to prod the hell outta most cows just to get a reaction.
Having also once worked in a chicken processing plant for Tysons, you may think that would turn me off fowl. Quite the contrary.
I would be against growing meat because I don't dig on humans genetically altering anything I eat. And we make some good points about plant life. They are quite alive.
Also, tons and tons of animals killed in farming. And how about the polluting effects on our environment ? And then there's deforestation... I could keep going.
- jaker277
July 1, 2009 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
cows are stupid? not as stupid as you apparently.
First and foremost, cows feel pain. That alone is valid reason not to slaughter them for food . But they also feel fear and other emotions. The best site I can recommend is by Temple Grandin. Dr. Grandin is a designer of livestock handling facilities and a Professor of Animal Science at Colorado State University.
http://www.grandin.com/references/cattle.html
- progressisdead
July 1, 2009 4:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Plants or Animals
"Plants or Animals - We live in a spiritual existence. It is all just the exchange of energy . Physical death is only one part of a cycle of life."
Stick to facts and reality, emotions only cloud the issues. The Reality of Life and Food is that something must die so that we may eat it and live, whether plant or animal. As an ethical hunter and avid outdoorsman, I am totally in favor of a quick humane death of animals to limit any suffering. It it pure foolishness to get into a debate over how they die, or if they feel pain in that process. I have yet to hear of any form of death that is totally painless, so let's get real here. The problem as I see it, is that most people are to far removed from where their food comes from, whether plant or animal, thus have no true appreciation for what it takes to acquire it. Commercially raised, genetically engineered, or harvested, the more man tampers with something the less healthy is becomes. Simple is Good.
I have watched animals starve to death over winter because of over population and limited resources. That is a slow miserable way to die, is it painful, most likely, is it avoidable, only on a limited scale. We can either supplement the food supply for the animals, which is impractical and costly, or harvest a portion of the population improving the chances of the rest of the animals survival. With that premise, the only way to limit or end physical and psychological suffering and pain is to remove humans from the process, but I do not see anyone advocating that. Humans at least are capable of understanding death and pain. Beyond that, anyone who has read the bible , especially the book of Genesis knows the Plants and Animals were given to us to be our food, and we were given dominion/control over them for our use.
- ursamajor2004
July 1, 2009 6:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I largely agree with you.
Largely all life is generated biologically from the sun. That energy in the case of a cow comes through the farley and grass and such they eat. We then consume them. It is merely an exchange of energy.
Upon death our bodies which are merely shells for our soul return to the earth and the energy that our decomposition creates returns to the cycle.
The point I was making is that our reality is just a conception and in the larger picture any alleged suffering is irrelevent.
- jaker277
July 1, 2009 6:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Suffering Is Irrelevant So Long As Not Human?
Hi Jaker, can we try your analogy for size on humans? I'll use your sentences but replace some keys words. Tell me what you think now?
"Largely all life is generated biologically from the sun. That energy in the case of a human slave comes through the barley and vegetables and such they eat. We then consume them. It is merely an exchange of energy.
Upon the death that we give the slaves, their bodies which were merely shells for their souls return to the earth and the energy that their decomposition creates returns to the cycle.
(Gosh murder sounds so beautiful when you put it like that!)
The point I was making is that our reality is just a conception and in the larger picture any alleged suffering of these people is irrelevent."
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All life
I was speaking of all life inclusive of humans.
- jaker277
July 2, 2009 4:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Divine Circle of Life and Death Does Not Justify Killing
Right, I figured so. And my question to you above using that analogy is whether you beliefs can justify murdering humans. If you can use your own analogy to make it morally acceptable to kill non-human animals to eat them, then can you use it also to kill humans to eat them?
I am not talking about a situation of survival here, simply a casual every day meal.
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 10:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In the extreme end of the argument.
I have eaten many types of animals . Chicken, cow normal stuff like that and also whale, horse, dog, snake, to name a few. It's all just protein. So in another age when societies laws didn't protect the week from the strong then I reckon maybe I would. I would at least try it once. Depending on the taste would I have it again.
Can you morally justify the killing to farm your veggies?
Murder: To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
I would say that a cow, chicken, goat etc. is killed more humanely by beheading than a rabbit caught in a wheat thresher or poisoined by pesticides.
Why would you have a problem with a human killing an animal when animals kill each other for food ?
- jaker277
July 4, 2009 12:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Overpopulation no reason to kill
Hi Ursa
Wild animals do not need us to control populations, they do a fine job on their own if left alone in the natural ecology . "Overpopulation" has long been a popular excuse to kill wildlife for pleasure. The fact that they are eaten does not justify the killing. Because we don't need to eat animals to survive, this makes the killing of them for their tasty meat , purely for pleasure.
It is not nutritionally necessary for us to kill animals to eat. Every required nutrient for human health can easily be found in plants. We do not need animal products to survive, making the violence and killing of them (and the suffering that goes with it) totally unnecessary.
Genesis is the perfect example of God's description of a vegan diet for his people. He gave them herbs and fruit. The part about having dominion over animals mentions nothing about killing them! Since when did dominion mean exploiting, caging, hunting and eating? This is not a part of stewardship.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Two questions
After reading this, I'm left with two questions:
1. Is it immoral for a lion to kill an antelope even though the antelope has an "interest in continued life"?
2. You're willing to argue that even though a cow does not think like humans, it has some sort of "cognition" and therefore deserves to live. I notice that nowhere did you argue that it's inhumane to eat plants, which presumably also would prefer to live than die. If you are truly open-minded about the rights and interests of species other than humans, doesn't it seem rather arrogant to extend this compassion to only species that have the same sort of neurology as humans?
Please note that I have nothing against vegetarians, I'm just curious how you resolve what appear to be paradoxes to my eyes.
- lostlo
July 1, 2009 12:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What can be considered a moral actor
1) Some things aren't, or at least viewed, as not having the capacity for moral thought or action. A tree, if it falls on someone, can't be blamed for that because it doesn't have the perceptive ability to tell what it's falling on, the spatial ability to avoid people, and the moral ability to tell that falling on people and crushing them is bad. Humans, for the most part, have that ability. It's debatable whether animals do or not--whether an animal is more like a person or a tree.
2) We can only see cognition in things that have nervous systems. Plants sort of have a nervous system, but it's been shown that they don't feel pain or fear or what have you. We can certainly hypothesize that perhaps they do feel something akin to pain and fear, but that leaves us in a situation where we can't morally eat anything.
- quantummechanik
July 1, 2009 2:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for your reply
It is more reasonable than anything I expected to be honest :)
1) I don't disagree with this. I raised the question because the author argued that animals shouldn't be regarded as different from humans in terms of feelings, etc. For what it's worth, though, I think your first sentence was very telling... like you, I can't state that humans have this thing called morality, and other species don't, without a caveat. Our experience is limited to our human consciousness, which I find leads many people to make a lot of assumptions without realizing it. I have never seen any evidence that there are all the species on the earth, and then there's humans. It's such an arbitrary distinction, and seems rather arrogant to me.
2) "but that leaves us in a situation where we can't morally eat anything." That was going to be my point exactly. It's not possible, with our current level of knowledge, for heterotrophic beings to live without taking other lives. For anyone to state authoritatively which life is "morally acceptable" to consume seems to be the peak of arrogance to me, and almost a little frightening. The main lesson I learned from the Holocaust is that I should never try to judge who deserves to live.
Now, the idea that it's wrong to needlessly cause animals to suffer, as we undeniably do with much of our food supply, is perfectly valid and I won't argue with it. But to me that just means that factory-style slaughter is unethical. It doesn't mean that it's "inhumane" to ever eat meat . I really think that a more moderate stance would further the vegetarian "movement" or whatever a lot more than the more aggressive, lecturing approach.
As for plants not being able to feel pain or fear, may I ask where you heard or learned this? Someone else here said the same thing, but I've never read any such research. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it, and I would be very interested to learn more. I'm convinced that if plants did "feel pain," it's obvious that the mechanism would be drastically different than in animals, due to the lack of our style of nervous system. Therefore I don't understand how science could prove a lack of something if we don't know what it is.
Plus, lately I've read some new research showing that plants can identify their genetic relatives, and evidence that they can communicate. That really blew my mind, let me know if you're interested and I can try to dig up that link for you.
You have an interesting (and cool) mind, lovely to hear from you!
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Why animals are sort of moral
It's funny, giving morality to animals . I mean sure, we look at lions in the wild eating antelopes and thing that's normal, they're completely non-moral actors--Like rocks. Then a lion eats a guy in a zoo. We "destroy" that lion, not because this lion is any more threatening or possibly dangerous than the lion in the zoo next to it, but because it ate one of us. If we thought of it as a rock, we wouldn't care--it'd be an accidental death. Or, if we thought of rocks as people, every time someone was killed in an avalanche on a mountain we'd blow up the mountain--or find a way to kill snow. So we already, in a sense, give them some moral responsibilities.
Plants sort of feel pain, sort of don't. We don't really understand how they could, but they do some odd things in laboratory circumstances. You're right in saying they can communicate--Trees warn other trees about impending attacks, for example.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF7/762.html
Which is worrying enough, because it's only a matter of time before we all become Ent-mulch, but it does prove that something like a nervous system exists in plants. And of course there's the famous experiment where they hooked a plant up to a sort of polygraph, measured it's electrical activity, and started cutting pieces off of it. There was definitely some reaction. We don't know if it was pain, we don't know if it was fear, we don't know if it was simply instructions to begin repair on those damaged cells.
Regarding the proving something doesn't exist--that's always been sort of impossible, with our empirical and experimental system. Russell's teapot and such.
As it stands, if everything feels pain and fear, we cannot eat and act in a position of ultimate moral goodness simultaneously. Maybe if we lived off of fruit, which is specifically intended to be eaten by the plant itself. Anyways. No, we're sort of checkmated morally. So we compromise. We avoid things where we KNOW cause anguish like ours, hedging our bets on the maybes and the probably nots.
As to the moderation of vegetarian groups, it's a bit tough to paint them all with the same brush. Having said that, if I ever had a chance to punch Ingrid Newkirk I'd do it. Twice.
- quantummechanik
July 2, 2009 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks again
It's starting to sound to me like you and I mostly agree :)
About the plants, thanks so much for the link! You said we know there was a reaction, but we don't know if it was pain or fear or what. Here's my problem with that - what is pain? What is fear? Scientifically we can only define them with respect to a human-style nervous system. Non-scientifically speaking, our understanding of pain is inherently limited to a human consciousness, and therefore highly subjective. There's a reaction, who can objectively say that it's more or less significant than the reaction of a child to having his finger cut off?
I'm not trying to equate the two, because like most if not all humans, I can more easily empathize with things that are more similar to me. A gorilla experiencing pain is something that I can easily understand, because we're so similar.
But if we're going to care about things most similar to ourselves, what about all the humans who are suffering? An excellent argument for why vegetarianism is a good idea is that grain that could go to feed starving people instead goes to feed animals that rich people eat. Yet this is seldom, in my experience which I know is limited, the argument made when trying to persuade us inhumane meat -eaters to convert to a vegetarian lifestyle.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against being vegetarian. I love the idea and have tried several times, but I'm one of those "failure to thrive" people that just doesn't do well with no meat at all. If I am able to overcome that in the future, I will probably go veggie. I will not, however, call people who eat meat inhumane.
And of course, I didn't mean to generalize about all veggie groups, I know many are moderate. I'm just more baffled by the more extreme approaches, which unfortunately seem to get a lot more attention. They do not seem to realize that they are turning people off to their own cause by insulting those they wish to convince. I guess maybe I have been secretly wishing that more moderate groups will try to bring the extremists under control... actually, I wish that on a number of issues besides vegetarianism. Never seems to happen though. Oh well!
Loved what you said about Ingrid Newkirk :)
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 12:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1. here 2. up there
1. You don't see the difference between nature and exploitation? Farm animals can be kept five to a cage two feet square, tied up
constantly by a two-foot-long tether, castrated without anesthesia, or branded with a hot iron, debeaked, purposely breed billions of animals to be tortured and killed for selfish desires.
Carnivorous predators must kill to survive (which humans are not); to stop them from killing is, in effect, to kill them. Of course, we could argue that intervening on a massive scale to prevent predation is totally impractical or impossible, but that is not morally persuasive.
Suppose we accept that we should stop a cat from killing a bird. Then we realize that the bird is the killer of many snakes. Should we now reason that, in fact, we shouldn't stop the cat? The point is that humans lack the broad vision to make all these calculations and determinations. Intervening to stop predation would destroy the ecosystems upon which the biosphere depends, harming all of life on ear. Intervention by humans to stop predation would inflict serious and
incalculable harm on these ecosystems, with devastating results for all life. Our current slaughterhouses, are in odds with the current balance, and is a major cause of environmental problems.
2. see separate reply.
- progressisdead
July 1, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm sorry
You seem to have me confused with someone else, you're responding to arguments I didn't make. I asked a simple question directed at the author of this piece.
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 11:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More on Plants. Hello? No brain!
1. Yes it is moral for the lion because the lion has no choice and it is the only way for the lion to survive and he can only act using his instincts. We humans do have a choice and we can act using our morals.
Plants cannot (and do not biologically need to) feel pain. Pain evolved for the function of getting animals to move away from danger. The dangers that threaten mammals do not harm plants because they can continue surviving after severe damage and pass on their seeds. The fact that plants cannot feel pain has been proven over and again in mainstream science . It is as undebatable as the Earth is round. Plants have no brain, nervous system or nerve cells.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Interesting
I wasn't aware that it has been proved that plants cannot feel pain... obviously plants do not use the same type of signaling as animals , but that doesn't prove anything. If there has been any proof I'd love to learn more, can you point me in the right direction to do some research?
As for your point about having a choice, well... it's true that technically I do have a "choice" about whether or not I should eat, but so does the lion. It's true that I could choose to eat only plants, but that causes me a lot of suffering due to poor health . I think you missed the point of my questions, because they were directed toward the author of the original commentary. The claim was made that animals feel fear and suffering, and to do so is inhumane. But the antelope being chased by the lion also feels a lot of fear and pain. It's inevitable that this occurs, circle of life and all that.
It's true that humans have more of a chance to live without inflicting suffering on others than most species, but I have not met a single person that failed to inflict suffering on any other being. Can you honestly say that you choose not to cause fear or hurt in any person, animal, or plant, ever? You never hurt anyone's feelings, or kill an insect, or buy clothing made in sweatshops, or passively allow your government to kill and torture in your name?
It's a daunting goal to walk through life without negatively impacting anything else, and perhaps a silly goal as well. You can't live without taking other life.
To reduce harm is a wonderful goal, and if this page had talked about the horrors of mass-factory slaughter, and how we should try to change them, I'd have respect for that and possibly even do something to help. If it suggested that I should reduce my intake of meat , I might have been inspired to do so - after all, it's also beneficial to my health. But that's not what was said. Instead I was informed that I am inhumane because I eat meat. That strategy is confrontational, insulting, but also counterproductive. If the author truly wants to change minds, I think he would do well to take a less abrasive tone.
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 11:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choice
Hi Lostlo, are you feeling annoyed about Francione's blog that eating meat altogether is inhumane, because you need choice and respect?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 11:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Annoyed?
No. I am not feeling annoyed. Like I thought I said pretty clearly, I was just interested how the author resolved in his mind, what appeared to be paradoxes to my mind.
Since you took the time to reply to me, I thought it would be courteous to reply to you, although again my questions were intended for the author.
If I had to label the feeling I got from the original post, it would be "curiosity."
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Take your Question to the Top.
That's good. Curiosity is a very healthy emotion! I sent an email to the author requesting a reply to your questions. Hopefully he may answer you. As you might imagine, he is very short on time! But hopefully he will. I have lots of things to say replying to your comments and would love to, but I am extremely tired now and also you have requested a number of times to hear from Gary Francione so I'll leave you to it. Good night!
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 11:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks
Thanks! I really didn't expect to hear from him, but just thought I'd throw it out there in case. I'm not familiar with Gary Francione , but I know some on Opposing Views respond to comments, while others don't. Good night to you!
- lostlo
July 2, 2009 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ah, finally!
Vegans refuse to acknowledge that human Beings are an Omnivorous top of the food chain. I haven't anything against people who make that choice either.
You make key points that they like to avoid or lie about. Obfuscation being their tactic for pressing an agenda, instead of seeking truth.
Not, above, that all ideas counter to their own are 'violence' and thusly, 'bad.' But even violence has it's place...
You can't argue with people who refuse to acknowledge the portions of reality that they hate. Hate knows no reason.
- camosoul77
July 3, 2009 12:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't put words into my mouth
I don't have anything against vegans, nor do I think their motives are borne of hate. I simply did not fully understand the logic behind their position, and now I have gained a much clearer picture from the above interactions. Ultimately, it comes down to making certain assumptions. Now I better understand what assumptions these guys are making.
What you're describing, where people demonize ideas that are contrary to their own, is a nearly universal characteristic of human beings in my experience, and has nothing to do with diet .
Besides, I absolutely agree with their underlying positions about the current unsavory nature of large portions of our food supply. It's a mystery to me why they don't focus their arguments on those points, I'd bet they would convince a lot more people.
- lostlo
July 3, 2009 4:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sterilize them?
If we don't eat the cattle, who is going to provide the massive amounts of land, fertilizer (or grain) and water that the ever-growing population of cattle will require? Obviously, the author is not proposing that we let them die slowly of thirst and hunger , or that animals feel less fear and pain when torn apart and eaten alive by wolves.
Or are we to put them on birth control, and just wait for the last generation of beef cattle to die off?
The Judeo-Christian tradition gives us permission to eat animals. If we are to reject that moral tradition (and its assumption that there is an unbridgeable gap between human beings and other animals), then why _shouldn't_ humans behave just like other large predators? I mean, if we're going to follow a religion , shouldn't it be our own?
- fsilber
July 1, 2009 12:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
a different view of cows
It is incorrect to assert that cows could continue to exist only if
we farm them for human consumption. First, today in many parts of India and elsewhere, humans and cows are engaged in a reciprocal and reverential relationship. It is only in relatively recent human history that this relationship has been corrupted into the one-sided exploitation that we see today.
- progressisdead
July 1, 2009 4:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not all cows are in such a relationship
Well, I wasn't talking about cows as a species; I was talking about certain specific cows living on distant ranches in America, which are also engaged in a reciprocal relationship (they get food , water, and antibiotics from us; we eat them).
- fsilber
July 2, 2009 6:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
religious traditions or nontraditions and animal slaughter
It is true that the Bible contains a passage that confers on humanity dominion over the animals . The import of this fact derives from the assumption that the Bible is the word of God, and that God is the ultimate moral authority. Leaving aside for the moment consideration of the meaning of dominion, we can take issue with the idea of seeking moral authority from
the Bible. First, there are serious problems with the interpretation of Biblical passages, with many verses contradicting one another, and with many scholars differing dramatically over the meaning of given verses.
Alternatively, America is home to more atheists than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, combined and doubled. (USA TODAY poll) so appeals to His moral authority are empty for such people. For such people, the validity of judgments of the supposed God must be cross-checked with other methods of determining reasonableness. What are the cross-checks
for the Biblical assertions?
These remarks apply equally to other assertions of Biblical approval of human practices (such as the consumption of animals).Even if we accept that the God of the Bible is a moral authority, we can point out that "dominion" is a vague term, meaning "stewardship" or "control over". It is quite easy to argue that appropriate stewardship or control consists of respecting the life of animals and their right to live according to their own nature. The jump from dominion to approval of our brutal exploitation of animals is not contained in the cited
Biblical passage, either explicitly or implicitly.
- progressisdead
July 1, 2009 5:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists
Regarding: "Alternatively, America is home to more atheists than Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, combined and doubled. (USA TODAY poll) so appeals to His moral authority are empty for such people. For such people, the validity of judgments of the supposed God must be cross-checked with other methods of determining reasonableness."
-- Wrong. The Constitution aside, the tolerance of American Christians for non-Christian people was achieved via the question, "As long as I'm a moral person (by your standards) then what does it matter if I don't worship the way you do?" The asking of this question implied that Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists would be willing to live within the confines of Christian concepts of morality and, it goes without saying, would tolerate Christians doing so.
- fsilber
July 2, 2009 6:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
eat to live
We eat to live. How many of you can live and live well on a little brown rice and a little vegetable to digest it? According to religious scripture thats all any one needs to live. That means PETA has to throw away there frozen dinners and tofu. What all this boils down to is eat only what you need to live. I'm afraid the animal rights people want more, they also want to make it illegal for children to inherit from there parents. They want mandatory death sentuces for babies born with disabilities. They want a socialist government. What is it you want?
- skippy
July 1, 2009 1:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Um. No.
That's not true. I think you may be confusing two seperate groups.
- quantummechanik
July 1, 2009 2:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan Food Is Delicious!
Hi Skippy. We eat to live, but that need not require killing and violence. Vegans rarely live off the simple meal you described. You are simply not aware of the culinary diversity of great tasting food that is available. You wouldn't be interested in finding out about it because you have no motivation to. After a year of gathering facts I finally went vegan and had to relearn how to cook again. But in no time it became easy. That was 12 yrs and two babies ago. It is not necessary to eat animal products to be healthy and strong. I lift weights too. Veganism is the practice of non-violence.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:47AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
eat to live
I am aware of the different foods that are out there. Over 25 years ago I took a spiritual journey that I never left. Food is part of lifes illusion. If you are truly on a spiritual journey it does not matter what you eat. The reason for life is to find your spirit in your heart. So I do not search out food , drink, clothing, money as I have bliss in my heart. No one can remove that bliss. Try it sometime. Find out who you really are and what your reason for being is.
- skippy
July 6, 2009 1:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Let's all be humane and just die.
Seriously folks, consider the possibility that when eating vegetables they feel pain. Is that humane? We know that eating raw, organic fruit puts significant numbers of microscopic organisms at risk of facing a tortuous death from our stomach acids. HCl burns like . . . well you know. Every breath you take sucks in more at risk organisms. If they are sentient, imagine their horror as they go up your nose or through your throat through dark tunnels of bronchi and bronchioles. Gad! Why can't you just stop being so cruel and just die!
- Rashi18
July 1, 2009 1:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks, Rashi18.
Great perspective. There's a natural order to things, and humans are in the top spot. As an agriculturist, I can attest that we do everything possible to keep our animals comfortable, stress-free and productive until their timely ends. When a cow becomes sentient enough to invent and employ a device that protects her from captive-bolt stunning, I'll think twice about eating her. Until then ... I'll treat her with care while she's alive, euthanize her humanely at harvest time and enjoy the fruits of her "labors" with a little horseradish.
- frontrangetony
July 1, 2009 5:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Switch the Species
Hi Front Range Tony, I hope you don't mind if I play switch the species with you. Retarded people are not as self-aware or sentient or intelligent as healthy human adults, but they still receive unquestioned basic human rights from us, such as the right not to be exploited (or eaten for that matter). I will use your above paragraph and switch some key words around to try it on for size and see if it works when applied to innocent, vulnerable humans:
"There's a natural order to things, and white men are in the top spot. As a disabled carer, I can attest that we do everything possible to keep our mentally retarded patients comfortable, stress-free and productive until their timely ends. When a retarded girl becomes sentient enough to invent and employ a device that protects her from captive-bolt stunning, I'll think twice about eating her. Until then ... I'll treat the retarded girl with care while she's alive, euthanize her humanely at harvest time and enjoy the fruits of her "labors" with a little horseradish."
Charming Tony.
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That does sound silly
The silliness, however, is in equating any animal with any human being. "Switch the Species" is a ridiculous game. Mentally retarded humans, of course, share the "top spot" above nonsentient, nonthinking, unevolved animals . We humans -- regardless of our shortcomings or damages -- are much more than mere animals. For you to "downgrade" our retarded or handicapped sisters and brothers in that way is shameful, Desert Girl.
Now a question for you: Would you fight to protect the unhatched egg of an endangered bird one day then fight to protect "reproductive rights" for human women the next? Just wondering how far you're willing to take "Switch the Species." Maybe I've stereotyped you. But who said I was white ... or a man??
- frontrangetony
July 2, 2009 5:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Share, debate, consider, learn, grow
It would sound silly to me too if I were talking about the rights and equality for plants and DVD players. That's because those things aren't sentient, have no brain, no feelings and absolutely no ability to suffer! But I am talking about animals . And because I believe animals have capacity to suffer and are sentient due to personal observation, common logic, and best available science , it only sounds logical to me.
And it would also sound "shameful" to me (as you described) if I were to "downgrade our retarded or handicapped sisters and brothers" to the level of "nonsentient, nonthinking, unevolved" plants and DVD players. But I'm talking about animals. The reason I chose handicapped people in the analogy of comparison is because some people think that because animals are not as intelligent as us, this justifies our doing terrible things to them. But in the case of the human being, it does not matter what their intelligence level is, they are still awarded basic human rights of respect. I am very happy we have to the compassion to do this, because people deserve respect no matter how smart or dull they are. It's only when the unintelligent being in question is not human, that they get their rights ignored.
I'm glad we agree on one thing -that sentience is all that is required for moral consideration.
Yes, well I might have to satisfy your stereotyping suspicions about me by answering your last question! We'll see, it depends what you had in mind.
In the case of protecting an egg in a nest of a bird (whether endangered or common) by banning wild egg poaching (I have never heard of people doing this, but I'll play along with your idea), it is protecting the bird's right to the choice they made. The bird chose to labour making a safe nest, to carefully choose a mate, the effort in making and laying the egg. The eggs are the bird's babies. They will defend them with their lives (have you ever seen little birds bravely attacking hawks, kites and crows to drive them away from the nest?). All of this behaviour is obvious indication of what the birds interests are. Taking the eggs is violating their choice. In short, it is stealing.
In the case of a woman, she is making a choice for herself. There is no outside decision maker forcing her to terminate a pregnancy (as in the case of the bird egg collector).
Perhaps you wrote this question because you have observed that animal rights people (as a generalisation) tend to also support reproductive rights. I would say that is a fair observation. This is not a big issue in Australia, but I know it is in the US. The main reason comes down to sentience again. And we rely on what the best science has to offer. To have sentience one needs to have a brain -and an adequate brain at that! Science has observed that sentience occurs in foetuses with the adequate brain development at about the age of 20 weeks pregnancy. This is why terminations are recommended well before this date. My husband is an ethicist and did his university thesis on the subject of abortion and that's where I got my facts from and ethical reasoning on the subject. Some people say that sentience should not matter in determining moral reasoning for foetuses, and that what matters is that it is a life. But I don't agree with this because a plant or a tree is "a life" and like a foetus do not possess sentience. But we cannot award moral consideration to trees and plants just because they are alive and growing. No. I believe sentience, not life, is what should be required to allow life to live on. Perhaps this is a sensitive issue for you, and I hope you are not cross now! But I'm sure you must be coping with it because1. you raised the subject and 2. you suspected I may have a different view and 3. that's what we come here to this site for at Opposing Views, to discuss, dissagree, agree, share, debate, consider, learn, grow. Nice talking to ya Tony!
- Desert Girl
July 3, 2009 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gotta have SOUL!
Birds, cows, lions and other nonhuman animals do not make choices. They are guided mainly by instinct and habit, which has helped us humans to domesticate and train them.
Yes, we agree sentience is part of the moral consideration. But I didn't say that was ALL there was. And our definitions of sentience seem to differ. Mine involves possessing a soul ... or being made in the image and likeness of God. That's why all people -- from the moments of their conceptions to the moments of their natural deaths -- deserve basic human rights. That includes everyone: young, old, handicapped, retarded, disabled, comatose, imprisoned, inconvenient, unpopular. We all have souls; are made to love and serve God in this life; and are meant to live with Him happily in the next.
That also is why nonhuman animals do not deserve "human" rights. They merely are part of the Creation that God gave us to steward. (Genesis 1:26-28) We need to take that responsibility as stewards of Creation seriously. Thus, we do not mistreat Creation. But we should not elevate nonhuman animals (or plants) to the same plane of existence that we humans occupy. That is not the natural order of things.
Now that I've revealed myself as one of those irrational, superstitious "religionists," you (and perhaps the moderators of this forum) can dismiss me as too "unenlightened" to share my viewpoint. But we all are here "to discuss, disagree, agree, share, debate, consider, learn, grow" ... are we not?
- frontrangetony
July 6, 2009 6:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do you REALLY think fruit feels pain???
Hi Rashi. Funny joke, but is this your excuse for violence? You don't really think that lettuces, paw paws, and organisms feel pain do you?
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 10:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
tortured animals for peoples appetites.
I used to work in a swift pig plant. they electrocute pigs by hitting them with charged paddles,then they cut their throats. while they are still thrashing around they hoist them up and dip them in boiling water. then while the pigs are struggling they start the dissembly process! I grew up on a farm. at least we killed the animals before we butchered them. people join peta but they eat meat . if you love animals you should not eat meat! your not following your beliefs when you cause animals to be tortured and die.
- Jackattack
July 1, 2009 4:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Tasty Meat Cannot Justify the Required Violence
Spot on Jack Attack!
- Desert Girl
July 2, 2009 11:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Used to be a vegetarian
I used to be a vegetarian until I decided that PETA stands for People Eating Tasty Animals. As to fruits feeling pain, they probably don't. They do bleed. Its called juice. Actually, one can go very far by intellectualizing the arguments. Let's all be stupid and do what we feel is right for us, as long as we don't violate the rights of other HUMAN BEINGS. Do animals have rights? In most countries they do. Some people have strong moral feelings about animals. I, for one, could not eat my dog under almost all circumstances. However, were I abandoned on a sand bar devoid of life, with him, he would definitely look quite tasty after a while. There are also circumstances in history where people who were not normally cannibals ate other people. Some have happened in recent times. Lets all be friends now, and I will think of my vegetarian and vegan friends the next time I have some Tyson or Perdue chicken (not processed with Arsenic).
- Rashi18
July 6, 2009 7:02AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vegan Consume the Least number of Plants
So many comments infer that vegans consume more plants than meat -eaters when the opposite is true. A plant-based population consumes less plants than a meat-eating one does because meat-eating populations most feed plant crops to the animals they are farming, which far outnumber the humans who consume them.
Here in the US, we raise and slaughter 12 billion land animals every year to feed 300 million people. If the 300 million people in the US ate a plant-based diet instead, we would only need to grow crops (plants) needed to feed 300 million people rather than 12 billion land animals.
If one cares about the welfare of plants, then they should consume less of them by going vegan.
- green4life
July 8, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humans are not Animals?
When I was in school, I learned that there was the plant kingdom and the animal kingdom. If humans are not animals , then does that mean we are plants?
- green4life
July 8, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
hoohah
There's a number of problems with vegans believing that they somehow eliminate animal suffering if they only eat cabbage and tofu.
First of all, the post by Desert Girl about the occasional field mouse being crushed by machinery illustrates the cognitive dissonance infecting many of the vegan community.
Typically, much of the food vegans consume is produced by agribusiness - i.e,, corporate farms run by DuPont, ADM, Monsanto, etc. These businesses work hand-in-hand with pesticide manufacturers like BASF, and, of course, Monsanto itself produces pesticides.
Giant agribusinesses displace and kill millions of animals every year to produce the cabbage and soy that vegans eat. The more militant of these vegan extremists want to mandate that we all eat as they do - just imagine the zillions more little critters that would be displaced, poisoned and killed if we followed their example.
After the agribusiness-produced food is grown - using millions of acre-feet of water taken from rivers and streams - further killing and harming fish and animals - it is then transported from the farm to markets. The transportation requires the use of petroleum, coal , natural gas, and/or electricity. The natural resources used to produce this energy for transportation also come from places that, to produce this energy, displace and kill millions more animals and fish every year.
The toxic runoff from growing all this food kills countless animals and fish every year. In fact, there is a dead zone encompassing 6-7 thousand square miles in the Gulf of Mexico from this runoff..
These same vegans live in houses in cities and towns that also displace animals. Wildlife vs human encounters rise every year, with millions of deer alone being killed by automobiles in and round these towns and cities.
The vegans post to vegan websites using computers which use power, and are made from metals that are mined, further displacing and killing animals.
I'm quite sure that few people want any animal to suffer to become food. But the simple fact is, our mere existence causes death and suffering of animals.
In order to diminish their hypocrisy, vegans should at least grow all their own food; however, that alone isn't enough to stop the suffering of the animals that will be killed and displaced as a result of their very existence.
I would prefer to kill everything I eat, but I can't afford to do so. At least when I kill an animal I have hunted, the animal isn't in a chute on the way to slaughter, or being crushed by farm machinery or poised by agribusiness in order to produce a cabbage for a vegan.
There's a lot of misplaced blame and action by animal rights activists causing more harm than good. I suggest that these activists visit a free-range chicken farm sometime, and see the difference between free-range chickens and caged hens. The free-range chickens tear each other up and have more health problems. There was a good article about that a while back in The Arizona Republic Newspaper by a columnist who started out believing that free-range chickens were happier, healthier and produced more and healthier eggs. Hickman Farms, a local Arizona egg producer, contributed to both sides of the argument, since they produce both free-range and caged eggs, so that vegans can criticize people who consume both kinds.
In sum, gentle vegans, your very existence on this planet cannot help but cause innocent animals pain and suffering.
And for all you soy eaters - do a Google search for "Soy Dangers" to see where your "natural" food comes from, how it's manufactured, and you will understand why many soy-eating people in health food stores, carefully and self-righteously checking labels to make sure there are no animal by-products in their potential purchases, look like walking cadavers.
You'll also begin to understand why some vegans are so incontrovertibly wacky; it's most likely caused by the combo of their heavy metal poisoning, particularly aluminum from the processing of soy protein isolate, and an almost certain vitamin B12 deficiency, which causes clinical dementia and blindness.
- hoohah
July 16, 2009 12:13AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MASH potatoes with that cabbage...
Since there's no way to stay alive without consuming (i.e. harming and killing) other life forms, be they plant or animal, the only rational way out of this conundrum is to kill oneself so as to cause no more harm.
Sheesh, now I can't get that darned song from "Mash" out of my head...
Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...
[chorus]:
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...
[Chorus]
The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.
[Chorus]
The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
and to another give my seat
for that's the only painless feat.
[Chorus]
MASH
The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...
[Chorus]
A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
'is it to be or not to be'
and I replied 'oh why ask me?'
'Cause suicide is painless
it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you choose.
- hoohah
July 16, 2009 12:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.