Comment: How do you know? in Opinion: Animal Rights Prof Says No Way to Consume Meat in Humane Way on Opposing Views

This content is inappropriate

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

By Gary L Francione

You are seeing 23 Comments. See all 165 Comments on this Opinion.

Regarding Comment

Something I always wondered

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.