Vegetarianism

[mono]

To put myself in the place of the animal; if some alien species came to earth, and they were more intelligent, had better reason, and could over power us, and then they started killing us and eating us, even breeding us and keeping us from moving about or leading anything remotely similar to our accustomed lives, at the end of which again killing us for food; no human would agree with this, no human would give their life willingly. Why should we? Because they have a higher intelligence? Two things: what we are doing with animals is absolutely no different. And second, a race more intelligent han us would probably not do this to us, because good traits in general run together: kindness, intelligence, discipline, etc.

Interesting analogy, NikolaiI. A lot of things separate humans and other animals, and intelligence, yes, seems among them, even amid dolphins and chimpanzees, two exceptionally intelligent other animals; with that, it gives us the ability to organize, prioritize, and plan, for example, a hunting tactic. Lions have this ability in hunting as well, explaining another reason why they subsist in prides; various birds of prey also have amazing hunting abilities, but they do this entirely alone, amazingly. Their hunting abilities, as well as ours, cannot fully come from intelligence, but in addition instinct, want, need, and superior physical health.

Because I do not personally kill my own food, I do not think I deserve to eat it.

Interesting opinion. But it's true. Don't get others to do the dirty work for you-- if you couldn't slaughter a chicken, you shouldn't be eating one.

Unfortunately this seems the way a supply-demand economy functions. If you want a saran-wrapped, headless, plucked chicken you can purchase one at a grocery store for the mark-up price of the farmer's work, manufacturing, producing, packaging, etc. In addition, if you want artichoke hearts for some sort of vegetable dish, I would not feel too happy to have to go through all of the immense labor of cutting them from their branches, clipping them, steaming them, then digging through their sharp leaves to get one heart per artichoke. As we have evolved we have learned to rely upon each other, and pay prices, sometimes in monetary value, for favors. I agree, however, and so would Immanuel Kant, in his application of Universal Ethics, that to wish something done, you ought to have the ability and moral to do it yourself, too.
Even as a vegetarian (and I consider myself a good sport), I laughed at first reading this response of yours, Helen of Troy, because I thought of one of the definitions of 'vegetarian' from UrbanDictionary.com:

vegetarian
A bad hunter. Someone who survives by consuming not food, but the stuff that food eats.

[NikolaiI]

Interesting analogy, NikolaiI. A lot of things separate humans and other animals, and intelligence, yes, seems among them, even amid dolphins and chimpanzees, two exceptionally intelligent other animals; with that, it gives us the ability to organize, prioritize, and plan, for example, a hunting tactic. Lions have this ability in hunting as well, explaining another reason why they subsist in prides; various birds of prey also have amazing hunting abilities, but they do this entirely alone, amazingly. Their hunting abilities, as well as ours, cannot fully come from intelligence, but in addition instinct, want, need, and superior physical health.

My argument is an ethical one. For me a bird has as much right to life as a human. Why should it not? Because we have the ability to shoot it from the air? Or because it cannot understand reason, art, music, higher mathematics? The same is true with all animals. It is not necessary for others to have our same level of intelligence to still feel pain, fear, suffering, and the desire to live. I have never seen a good reason to think it's okay. Not when it is not necessary.

[Babyguile]

My argument is an ethical one. For me a bird has as much right to life as a human. Why should it not? Because we have the ability to shoot it from the air? Or because it cannot understand reason, art, music, higher mathematics? The same is true with all animals. It is not necessary for others to have our same level of intelligence to still feel pain, fear, suffering, and the desire to live. I have never seen a good reason to think it's okay. Not when it is not necessary.

This is absolutely key here.

Intense factory farming is the single biggest contributer to global warming, with an 18% contribution. The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

[*Classic*Charm*]

The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

Are you suggesting that the animals suffer? Where's your evidence, please?

Death itself does not equate to suffering.

[NikolaiI]

Are you suggesting that the animals suffer? Where's your evidence, please?

Death itself does not equate to suffering.

Factory farming cattle

Around 20% of British dairy cows are lame at any one time. In fact, inspections of the feet of cull cows at slaughter reveal evidence of past or present foot damage in nearly all animals. Lameness is caused by a number of factors. These include the quantity of bedding available, the move towards cubicle housing and the now near universal practice of feeding animals wet, fermented grass (known as silage), rather than dry hay. Silage produces wet faeces and acidic slurry in the dunging passageway, which eventually softens the feet and causes infection.

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMP...anism/ALL/477/

Dairy cows are prone to infection of the udder caused by bacteria and other environmental pathogens entering via the teat canal. This acutely painful condition is known as mastitis. Incidence varies from between 30 to more than 60 cases in every 100 cows during a year.

Male calves reared for beef are often castrated, despite being slaughtered before they reach sexual maturity. Methods commonly used include surgical castration, tight rubber rings that restrict blood flow, and appliances that crush the spermatic cord of each testis - the so-called "bloodless castrator".

Both dairy cows and beef cattle are de-horned - a painful procedure - to prevent animals injuring each other. Horns contain both blood circulation and nerve endings, and so local anaesthesia and cauterisation are necessary to stem bleeding. If horns have already developed, they are removed with saws, horn shears or cutting wire.

Young animals whose horns are not established can be disbudded. A hot iron is applied to the horn-forming tissue when the calf is 4-6 weeks old, permanently preventing growth.

The Suffering of Farmed Pigs

The piglets are moved from the farrowing unit into concrete pens, or metal cages with perforated concrete or slatted metal floors. These newly-weaned animals, desperate for their mother's teats, often frantically try to suckle their young penmates or indulge in tail biting. The industry's "remedy" is to amputate the lower part of the tail - a painful mutilation. Many piglets also have their pointed side-teeth clipped down to the gum in the first few days of life. This is said to prevent them from lacerating either the sow's udder or the faces of their litter mates. Once again the industry ignores the real problem - namely, the piglets are being forced to compete for teats in an unyielding metal and stone environment with an unnaturally large number of litter mates.

After about six weeks, the young pigs are moved to similarly unsuitable rearing pens for final fattening on a high protein diet. An estimated 15 per cent suffer painful leg and joint problems. This is caused partly by standing on hard floors, but also because they're bred to grow unnaturally fast, and are unable to support their own weight. Heart and respiratory problems are also endemic.

After four to seven months, pigs not selected for breeding purposes are sent for slaughter. Some die during transit due to stress caused by overcrowding, long journeys, rough handling, extremes of temperature.

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/CAMP...anism/ALL/514/

Now this is only about factor farmed animals, but those definitely suffer. Even if they did not have disease from the different results of the practice, it is still inhumane to keep an animal in a pen where it cannot move.

[AimusSage]

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life, I've been enjoying my meat ever since, although I do admit it would taste better if animals were treated better.

Less stress and better nutrition = better tasting meat.

[*Classic*Charm*]

Ooh Nik I can't wait to take on your post of evidence! I'll have to do it in a couple days though, once I have more time! I'll be back!

[Babyguile]

Ooh Nik I can't wait to take on your post of evidence! I'll have to do it in a couple days though, once I have more time! I'll be back!

As soon as you've attempted to you'll face a second wave

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life.

This can be cured by more people going vegetarian.

[skib]

So, if we take away their main purpose, what do we do with all the excess animals once everyone turns vegetarian? No animal is smart enough to stop reproducing after they've been bred solely to reproduce, and without people eating them, there will be no other sufficient means of keeping their numbers in check.

[mono]

So, if we take away their main purpose, what do we do with all the excess animals once everyone turns vegetarian? No animal is smart enough to stop reproducing after they've been bred solely to reproduce, and without people eating them, there will be no other sufficient means of keeping their numbers in check.

I would never advocate for everyone to "become" vegetarian; rather let us allow each other to live and consume within their own means.
In the extraordinarily rare and hypothetical, and somewhat absurd, case that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, I feel quite convinced that if India, one of the most populous nations in the world, can live in harmony with animals subsisting among them, so can the rest of the world with enough tolerance. I would think it quite surprising to see a herd of cattle or a pig pen in Times Square of New York City, but much of the world could conform.
I would like to ask you, skib, why you would imply that the "main purpose" of an animal seems for consumption? Sure, dairy cows exist mostly for producing milk, but I have personally witnessed wild turkeys exist in their natural habitats without ending up on a serving platter (*gasp*). Not to belittle your statement, but I would like to think that cows, swine, chicken, and turkeys have existed before we thought of placing them in our mouths; neither the first single-celled organism, nor Adam, nor Eve (depending on which stance you prefer) looked at the first cow and called it food. Claiming that they exist only for human consumption sounds about as ridiculous as saying that human fingernails exist only for biting.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I would never advocate for everyone to "become" vegetarian; rather let us allow each other to live and consume within their own means.
In the extraordinarily rare and hypothetical, and somewhat absurd, case that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, I feel quite convinced that if India, one of the most populous nations in the world, can live in harmony with animals subsisting among them, so can the rest of the world with enough tolerance. I would think it quite surprising to see a herd of cattle or a pig pen in Times Square of New York City, but much of the world could conform.

Yes, but Mono there's a distinct difference between wild turkeys and domestic bread-for-consumption turkeys, and between all domestic animals and their wild predecessors or current wild family members. It's simply not possible to just turn them all loose and say "Be Free, my Beauties!" For the most part, they would not know how to survive. And by this I don't just mean the generation we have turned loose, but their offspring as well.

Turkeys are actually a perfect example! The most valuable part of a turkey for consumption is the breast (the Pectoralis muscle). It makes up on average 50% of the bird's muscle mass, and is so large that most male turkeys are no longer physically capable of mating. Turkey fertilization is done through artificial insemination. The only possible matings that would occur would involve wild males, and if they cross with domestic females, there is still the distinct possibility that the offspring would have this muscle mass and not be able to fly or breed either. The population would decrease severely, and for what? So that the turkey could be killed by a prey animal rather than the quick, relatively painless death it would have experienced in an abattoir?

[NikolaiI]

This is absolutely key here.

Intense factory farming is the single biggest contributer to global warming, with an 18% contribution. The question is not can they reason, it's can they suffer. The answer, of course, is yes.

Your post reflects a quote of Jeremy Bentham, saying the same. I didn't know it was by him but I saw it the other day. I did not state it but it was a thought in my mind as I posted. Thanks for your posts!

I agree with you that it is key. It is the center or basis of my philosophical approach to vegetarianism. Bentham puts it this way, “The morally relevant question about animals is not, Can they reason? or Can they talk? But can they suffer?” No, it is not a thesis, it is not a book, it does not have the force and power of the coorporations in the restaurant industry, which are connected to the slaughterhouse industry. But hopefully it will overturn those things.

I once considered becoming a vegetarian....

Then I realized I would do all the animals a disservice, taking from them their only purpose in life, I've been enjoying my meat ever since, although I do admit it would taste better if animals were treated better.

Less stress and better nutrition = better tasting meat.

I would challenge your assertion that animals' reason for being is to die by our whim and for our taste. I can find no reason to think this is true. The same thing has been said about black slaves. - Not to be eaten, but to be used and sold as property.

I am not trying to villify your position. Perhaps you meant that we require animals in our diet to live healthy. But this is not true, if I may take a position contrary to the vaster majority of population in the country in which I inhabit. I mean no disrespect to you, Aimus, but your statement is not sound.

[mono]

Yes, but Mono there's a distinct difference between wild turkeys and domestic bread-for-consumption turkeys, and between all domestic animals and their wild predecessors or current wild family members. It's simply not possible to just turn them all loose and say "Be Free, my Beauties!" For the most part, they would not know how to survive. And by this I don't just mean the generation we have turned loose, but their offspring as well.

Turkeys are actually a perfect example! The most valuable part of a turkey for consumption is the breast (the Pectoralis muscle). It makes up on average 50% of the bird's muscle mass, and is so large that most male turkeys are no longer physically capable of mating. Turkey fertilization is done through artificial insemination. The only possible matings that would occur would involve wild males, and if they cross with domestic females, there is still the distinct possibility that the offspring would have this muscle mass and not be able to fly or breed either. The population would decrease severely, and for what? So that the turkey could be killed by a prey animal rather than the quick, relatively painless death it would have experienced in an abattoir?

Agreed, good point. Wild and domestic turkeys have vast differences - size, for one; I felt astounded at seeing the impressive mass of feathers when seeing a wild turkey for the first time as a child on my grandparents' farm. With domestic turkeys, I agree, one could never set them free, like the Confederacy did in the 19th century southern United States, and say "now go try to live," as they have likely ended up unaccustomed to fight and fend for themselves, let alone to avoid a wolf, for example. I mentioned the citizens of India and animals many Americans would consider food living together, but I undoubtedly believe, as I have never visited there (someday . . . oh, one fine day), that the citizens take care of the animals, such as in preventing prey from attacking them.
Again, I hold true to what I replied to skib that I would never advocate for everyone to choose vegetarianism; simply said - live and let live. In the hypothetical situation that everyone in the world ended up vegetarian, it would likely not seem a sound transition for all; suddenly, we would have a vast, overwhelming quantity of cows, chickens, pigs, and turkeys, farms would go out of business, subsequently oat fields, for one example, would overgrow and rot, and eventually we would have an abundance of animals of prey, having soon fed off of the large quantity of predators. The world would turn upsidedown in terms of economy (perhaps rightside up, in this case, as it could not seem more upsidedown, but that seems another subject), agriculture, capitalism, etc.

[skib]

Yes, my statement was quite vague, but I'm pleased that you were able to understand what I was trying to get across about the drastic transition.

After reading the caliber of the rest of your posts, I've decided my intellect is not sufficient to adequately participate with you all on this subject. I shall bow out and bid you all good day! (or night)

[NikolaiI]

All that lives is born to die. That includes bean sprouts, carrots and things with cute little eyes. Only humans give special preferences to certain forms of life.

This is not philosophically sound either. It means absolutely nothing upon our relative morals to say that all is relavitive. I am not sure if this is what you meant but it's what I took from your post. You said, "all that lives is born to die," as a justification for living beings whose only fault is not being human. This just doesn't hold up for me, it is meaningless. It is true that after the animal dies, its suffering is ended, and it may not know of it anymore. But this is also true of humans - would you say therefore it is okay to kill humans because all is born to die? Absolutely not.