Eating Vegan to prevent animal cruelty? Maybe not...

[Moontanman]

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

 

 

Eating vegetarian could result in more blood on your hands than being the omnivores humans naturally are. Eating vegan can result in far more sentient animals deaths than our current practices of eating red meat.

 

 

The ethics of eating red meat have been grilled recently by critics who question its consequences for environmental health and animal welfare. But if you want to minimise animal suffering and promote more sustainable agriculture, adopting a vegetarian diet might be the worst possible thing you could do.

 

[EdEarl]

I think this argument is bogus, but it cannot be refuted with the dearth information given in the article. I realize monoculture has some bad effects, but it is not the only way to farm. Use of poison to kill animals, insects and undesirable fauna is not necessary, that's what organic farming is about. Australia has rat plagues because its ecosystem is already screwed up, and natural predators do not exist to control the rats.

[Moontanman]

A great deal of land is not suitable for growing plants humans can eat, grazing animals raised on this land are a reasonable way to use that land.

 

No matter where you live rats and mice must be controlled to prevent ruining a great deal of grain or other plant foods.

 

I don't see how these things can be disputed and organic farming is not as efficient at producing food as you seem to think, I grew up on a farm, pests are a real problem and must be controlled even on organic farms by natural insecticides. Not using any insecticides is a good way to have zero crops...

[MonDie]

They focused on grains. A vegan doesn't have to eat grains either. Talk to a vegan that's also gluten intolerant.

I even found a site about it (note: despite providing a link, I cannot say I trust this site). http://www.theglutenfreevegan.com/

 

For now, I'll set aside their argument for the sentience of mice, which used song complexity as a measure of sentience. There was a clearer error in their ratio of lives lost to protein obtained.

First of all, the ratio was derived solely from grains as if grains are some sort of alternative to meat. How about they compare meat production to bean production or kale production?

Second of all, it's based on the amount of protein obtained, but a better guage would be the overall effect the food has on our health according to the latest statistics. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid/

 

Anyway, it isn't enough to argue that the ideal system involves both forms of food production. As long as there is more meat production than what's ideal, the vegan can argue that they're actions are beneficial. Regarding this issue, it's relevant that U.S.A. ≠ Australia

 

Finally, they didn't mention the treatment of livestock. Is Australia less cruel to its livestock or something?

Edited June 12, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[SplitInfinity]

They focused on grains. A vegan doesn't have to eat grains either. Talk to a vegan that's also gluten intolerant.

I even found a site about it (note: despite providing a link, I cannot say I trust this site). http://www.theglutenfreevegan.com/

 

For now, I'll set aside their argument for the sentience of mice, which used song complexity as a measure of sentience. There was a clearer error in their ratio of lives lost to protein obtained.

First of all, the ratio was derived solely from grains as if grains are some sort of alternative to meat. How about they compare meat production to bean production or kale production?

Second of all, it's based on the amount of protein obtained, but a better guage would be the overall effect the food has on our health according to the latest statistics. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid/

 

Anyway, it isn't enough to argue that the ideal system involves both forms of food production. As long as there is more meat production than what's ideal, the vegan can argue that they're actions are beneficial. Regarding this issue, it's relevant that U.S.A. ≠ Australia

 

Finally, they didn't mention the treatment of livestock. Is Australia less cruel to its livestock or something?

 

 

You know...I find it ridiculous that people spend so much time working out studies and ratios to determine such things as is discussed here.

 

In the end...all living things become food for something else and that includes us.

 

I think we should spend more time and money working on ways to keep our livestock healthy and antibiotic, growth hormone, steroid, parasite and chemical pollution free...rather than waste time in some comical crusade to try to get people to become Vegans.

 

First of all...until the day we understand the UFT...Unified Field Theory...which would allow the existence of Food Replicators using Energy to Matter interchange...and yes...just like on Star Trek...people are still going to be cutting into a nice Porterhouse Steak.

 

Such Vegan activism would be best spent on trying to get Livestock Farmers to do so in an ethical and humane manner which is better for the animals as well as better for us.

 

Split Infinity

[EdEarl]

1. A great deal of land is not suitable for growing plants humans can eat, grazing animals raised on this land are a reasonable way to use that land.

 

2. No matter where you live rats and mice must be controlled to prevent ruining a great deal of grain or other plant foods.

 

3. I don't see how these things can be disputed

and

4. organic farming is not as efficient at producing food as you seem to think, I grew up on a farm, pests are a real problem and must be controlled even on organic farms by natural insecticides. Not using any insecticides is a good way to have zero crops...

1. IDK, but cannot disagree.

2. True

3. They didn't provide convincing evidence IMO.

4. True

 

The article said, (without providing references)

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein

more environmental damage, and

a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

The first and third points are the same, it seems to me. They do not explain which kinds of animals are killed and in what amounts. I know about the rats. So, people becoming vegan or vegetarian will mean killing more rats that are not controlled by natural predators, instead of killing fewer, but heavier, cattle for red meat. Even if it is true, it is not IMO a strong and convincing argument.

 

The second point, environmental damage, is not explained. What kind of environmental damage and how much. Running cattle in a

Australia has already caused massive environmental damage, because cattle are not native animals. Eliminating cattle and establishing native fauna would seem to be a huge environmental benefit. Converting some land (but less than can be returned to native fauna) to grow vegetables for human consumption instead of feeding cattle, does not seem to me to be more environmental damage than environmental benefit. However, since they have not explained how they came to the conclusion there would be environmental damage, I cannot refute their claim.

 

The article seems bogus, as if it was sponsored by the cattle industry. It does not mention the health benefits of eating more vegetables, nor the detrimental effects of consuming fat and cholesterol in red meat, which should have been mentioned in a balanced argument.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Finally, they didn't mention the treatment of livestock. Is Australia less cruel to its livestock or something?

Whether or not livestock are treated with some level of cruelty is besides the point, since the people who are eating meat are not the ones abstaining from it on the basis of animal deaths/cruelty and protesting about the 'immoral' diets of other people.

 

The point is the hypocracy of it. Maybe grains and soy aren't a major component of vegan/vegetarian diets and maybe some don't eat them at all, but it does still form a large part of it for many and harvesting of such does result in the death of animals. "A murderer who kills 10 people is no better than a murderer who kills 20." Why is the death of a mouse not as significant as the slaughter of a cow? Seems to me that it's nothing more than a means towards a sense of righteous self-importance.

[MonDie]

I forgot to add that the wheat most people eat isn't actually healthy. It's hard to find totally unprocessed wheat.

 

Soy, on the other hand, is a major staple of a vegan diet.

 

---

 

"A murderer who kills 10 people is no better than a murderer who kills 20."

 

The damage done is what ultimately matters, not the character of the person doing the damage. The murderer who only kills ten is probably doing less damage.

 

Why is the death of a mouse not as significant as the slaughter of a cow?

 

I just kind of assumed because a cow is bigger. It's reasonable to assume that a bigger (or more complex) nervous system correlates with a higher degree of sentience. A mouse might be more sentient, but I don't see how song complexity is a good measure of sentience, as suggested in the article.

 

Seems to me that it's nothing more than a means towards a sense of righteous self-importance.

 

Nope, there's something more to it.

 

---

 

 

You know...I find it ridiculous that people spend so much time working out studies and ratios to determine such things as is discussed here.

 

In the end...all living things become food for something else and that includes us.

 

Bang! You're dead!

Oh well, he was going to die sooner or later.

[SplitInfinity]

I forgot to add that the wheat most people eat isn't actually healthy. It's hard to find totally unprocessed wheat.

 

Soy, on the other hand, is a major staple of a vegan diet.

 

---

 

 

The damage done is what ultimately matters, not the character of the person doing the damage. The murderer who only kills ten is probably doing less damage.

 

 

I just kind of assumed because a cow is bigger. It's reasonable to assume that a bigger (or more complex) nervous system correlates with a higher degree of sentience. A mouse might be more sentient, but I don't see how song complexity is a good measure of sentience, as suggested in the article.

 

 

Nope, there's something more to it.

 

---

 

 

 

Bang! You're dead!

Oh well, he was going to die sooner or later.

 

Were all going to go...I prefer to do so after eating a very thick Porterhouse Steak...with a salad...just to keep the Vegans Happy! LOL!

 

Split Infinity...p.s...You can't Grill it...Till you Kill It.

[MonDie]

Were all going to go...I prefer to do so after eating a very thick Porterhouse Steak...with a salad...just to keep the Vegans Happy! LOL!

 

Split Infinity...p.s...You can't Grill it...Till you Kill It.

 

In the case of livestock, we protect the animals until we kill them ourselves, and the livestock wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the demand for their meat. Following from this point, one can ask a better question. Are livestock cattle better off than wild animals?

 

Many vegans are specifically against the commodification of animals. Actually, I think that's what veganism literally is, opposition toward the commodification of animals. One potential justification is that animals are mistreated the most when they are owned by large industries that are only concerned with efficiency and profit.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[hypervalent_iodine]

The damage done is what ultimately matters, not the character of the person doing the damage. The murderer who only kills ten is probably doing less damage.

 

Yet they are still doing damage, so by what right do they judge others? In any case, I find, 'you could do more to limit suffering' to be somewhat uncompelling and given the demands, largely impractical (we as a species have always and will always eat meat). Yes, perhaps people who eat meat could do something to limit the suffering (and I for one am all for improved conditions for livestock), but then so could vegetarians/vegans by, for instance, growing their own crops.

 

I just kind of assumed because a cow is bigger. It's reasonable to assume that a bigger (or more complex) nervous system correlates with a higher degree of sentience. A mouse might be more sentient, but I don't see how song complexity is a good measure of sentience, as suggested in the article.

 

Size seems like an extremely poor metric on which to base the decision of whether or not it's okay to kill something.

 

Nope, there's something more to it.

 

Such as?

 

 

Many vegans are specifically against the commodification of animals. Actually, I think that's what veganism literally is, opposition toward the commodification of animals. One potential justification is that animals are mistreated the most when they are owned by large industries that are only concerned with efficiency and profit.

 

I think this is more an associated idea rather than the literal definition, which to me is simply the choice to refrain from the consumption of all animal products. There are plenty of vegans who are vegan because it is a dietary fad rather than out of concern for livestock.

[SplitInfinity]

I have posted about this before on another related topic.

 

Although a person who eats a non-strict Vegan Diet...that being...eating Plant matter along with Fish, Eggs and Dairy...will gain benefits of such a Low Fat diet...Vegan Diets that do not include Fish, Eggs and Dairy tend to be unhealthy.

 

Multitudes of studies have shown when a person who eats ONLY PLANT MATTER...such a people on average have many health issues specific to such a diet and even when all possible supplements or plants specific for Protein and Calcium intake are available...Heath risks still present themselves.

 

I for one see no issue in a person consuming Animal Flesh although I feel it to be important for us to be able to solve the many issues of Factory Slaughter Houses and Antibiotic/Growth Hormone/Steroid Drips used to increase output and choice meat sizes in animals.

 

Being a Hunter I have a deep respect for animal life and feel that to Harvest the Flesh of an Animal for Human Consumption is a SACRED EVENT.

 

As well...if children understood what an animal is sacrificing for that kids burger and chicken nuggets to be on a plate...Food Waste would be dramatically cut.

 

Split Infinity

[EdEarl]

I think this is more an associated idea rather than the literal definition, which to me is simply the choice to refrain from the consumption of all animal products. There are plenty of vegans who are vegan because it is a dietary fad rather than out of concern for livestock.

I am vegan only for the health benefits, because my doctor recommended a vegan diet--the only diet he recommends.

 

One of his arguments was that all milk contains puss (white corpuscles). That didn't convince me (makes me chuckle), but I suppose it is effective on some people.

[MonDie]

Yet they are still doing damage, so by what right do they judge others? In any case, I find, 'you could do more to limit suffering' to be somewhat uncompelling and given the demands, largely impractical (we as a species have always and will always eat meat). Yes, perhaps people who eat meat could do something to limit the suffering (and I for one am all for improved conditions for livestock), but then so could vegetarians/vegans by, for instance, growing their own crops.

 

I cannot get an ought from an is. In my viewpoint, there are no oughts, but there are beneficial actions and maleficent actions. Thus there is no set of rules you can point to proclaiming, "Aha! You don't follow the rules, neither will I!"

 

Size seems like an extremely poor metric on which to base the decision of whether or not it's okay to kill something.

 

Size of nervous system and/or brain is the only metric I could think of.

 

Such as?

 

What we're discussing.

[SplitInfinity]

I am vegan only for the health benefits, because my doctor recommended a vegan diet--the only diet he recommends.

 

One of his arguments was that all milk contains puss (white corpuscles). That didn't convince me (makes me chuckle), but I suppose it is effective on some people.

 

Ed...do you eat Fish, Eggs or Dairy?

 

Split Infinity

 

In the case of livestock, we protect the animals until we kill them ourselves, and the livestock wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the demand for their meat. Following from this point, one can ask a better question. Are livestock cattle better off than wild animals?

 

Many vegans are specifically against the commodification of animals. Actually, I think that's what veganism literally is, opposition toward the commodification of animals. One potential justification is that animals are mistreated the most when they are owned by large industries that are only concerned with efficiency and profit.

 

You know...if what you just posted was what Vegan Activists were all about I would have no issues with them.

 

The problem is that some Vegan Activists go way beyond this and are against ANYONE having the right to eat animal flesh.

 

Now I certainly would not tell another person what they can or cannot eat as far as a diet...unless a strict Vegan Diet is forced upon a developing child as this is dangerous...but I cannot agree with a person telling another adult that they cannot eat meat.

 

Split Infinity

 

It is important to note that Factory Farming and Slaughter of Animals is not at all healthy either for the animals or the people that eat such animals.

 

Still...this unto itself is not justification for some to consider Human Consumption of Animal Flesh as immoral. Humans are omnivorous and we have evolved to eat both plant and animal.

 

The Vegan counterpoint is that everything our body needs can be obtained by eating plant matter. Well...one could survive doing so and many quite well...but this is not true of all people...especially the very young and elderly.

 

There is also a marked difference in the health of a person who goes on a Vegan Diet where eggs, fish and dairy are allowed to a diet where they are not allowed. Also multitudes of studies have shown long term adherence to such a strict vegan diet causes low bone mass and density...low muscle density...issues specific to concentration and higher rates of mental illness...as well as such persons increasing their risk to a variety of diseases specific to such a diet.

 

While there are MANY health benefits to a Vegan Diet...these benefits are specific to a Vegan Diet that allows the consumption of eggs and dairy at the very least and fish consumption is recommended.

 

Split Infinity

[EdEarl]

Ed...do you eat Fish, Eggs or Dairy?

 

Split Infinity

I am not a saint...I do cheat occasionally. But, no, I do not eat fish, eggs or dairy. I am allergic to milk, so I do not ever drink milk, except soy or almond milk. For a long time I craved various animal products. But, gradually the cravings have subsided. I used to love double cheeseburgers, but the last time I took a bite of one (idk 20 years ago) it tasted awful, kind of like a spoonful of lard.

 

I am happy eating only vegan, but my wife still craves meat and eggs, so I sometimes cheat when she does. And, I still get those cravings, but rarely. Since my diet is well over 99% vegan, cheating occasionally is not a health risk, which is the reason I became vegan. I do not have moral qualms about killing for food. But, I do not kill insects or other critters unless they threaten someone.

[SplitInfinity]

I am not a saint...I do cheat occasionally. But, no, I do not eat fish, eggs or dairy. I am allergic to milk, so I do not ever drink milk, except soy or almond milk. For a long time I craved various animal products. But, gradually the cravings have subsided. I used to love double cheeseburgers, but the last time I took a bite of one (idk 20 years ago) it tasted awful, kind of like a spoonful of lard.

 

I am happy eating only vegan, but my wife still craves meat and eggs, so I sometimes cheat when she does. And, I still get those cravings, but rarely. Since my diet is well over 99% vegan, cheating occasionally is not a health risk, which is the reason I became vegan. I do not have moral qualms about killing for food. But, I do not kill insects or other critters unless they threaten someone.

 

And this is fine.

I personally would not recommend not eating Fish...and if I remember...you are eating this way for Health Issues...perhaps to lower fat and bad cholesterol?

Still...you are not advocating SHOOTING HUNTERS! LOL! As many Veganazi's and this is not true of most Vegan's...as I for a LONG TIME...would only eat Plant matter, Fish, Dairy and no eggs.

I would eat Venison as it is super low in fat and ultra high protein.

I was part of a special Deer Hunt around a very large Reservoir. This hunt was by special permit given by a lottery system. The problem was there was such a large Deer population in Massachusetts and especially around this body of water as there were so many deer that they were starving in winter and eating young trees and stripping the bark off trees near the water.

This tree death was causing erosion of soil now unheld to the banks of the reservoir as the trees were dead...and to prevent such issues they held a special hunt which they keep on holding due to the still very large deer population.

As I drove my vehicle with a friend who also obtained a permit...into the reservoir main entrance...I was surprised to see all sorts and numbers of people holding signs at the gate chanting and shouting at hunters driving in. The signs were painted Blood Red with such tripe as MURDERER! HUNTERS = DEATH BAMBI KILLER! GIVE THE DEER A GUN!...etc.

The truck in front of me had a balloon filled with Blood Red Paint thrown at it and as it hit the Hunters truck it exploded splattering red paint all over the windshield and hood. The Hunter got out of the truck yelling and he was hit upon his Orange Vest with another paint filled balloon.

The State Police and the Metro Police...Metro is specific to the reservoir...were right there and they went after the people who threw the paint balloons as well as held back the FURIOUS hunter. I had to wait 30 minutes right there before I could get in and I could not turn around as there were vehicles behind me as this was a very regimented hunt.

This kind of violent protest only infuriates those who are responsible for providing 100% of all money used for Wildlife Conservation...as 100% of all money paid for permits and licenses are used for this purpose in my state.

Split Infinity

[hypervalent_iodine]

 

I cannot get an ought from an is. In my viewpoint, there are no oughts, but there are beneficial actions and maleficent actions. Thus there is no set of rules you can point to proclaiming, "Aha! You don't follow the rules, neither will I!"

 

Exactly. There are no rules.

 

 

 

Size of nervous system and/or brain is the only metric I could think of.

 

 

 

This reminds me of guest lecture I attended once during my undergrad, which is somewhat related. It was by a professor at my former institution called Hugh Possingham. The presentation was a few years ago now, but it explored the question of which species we should focus effort and resources into trying to conserve, since it is impractical to think that we can focus efforts into all of those in need. The priority, as you'd probably know, tends to go to animals that are cute and fluffy rather than those that are in more dire straights or those that a given ecosystem may benefit from more (fungi, for example, are routinely ignored). It's an interesting topic of discussion. (I found a brief article on it here)

 

In any case, my point is that the line you draw between animals that are okay to kill and animals that are not is completely arbitrary and advocates for the, 'meat is murder,' punch-line have made no compelling argument (that I have found) as to why their line is better than my line.

 

 

What we're discussing.

 

Perhaps I should have asked what there was something more to, as I suspect you may have misinterpreted what my original comment was directed at.

[EdEarl]

 

And this is fine.

I personally would not recommend not eating Fish...and if I remember...you are eating this way for Health Issues...perhaps to lower fat and bad cholesterol?

Still...you are not advocating SHOOTING HUNTERS! LOL! As many Veganazi's and this is not true of most Vegan's...as I for a LONG TIME...would only eat Plant matter, Fish, Dairy and no eggs.

I would eat Venison as it is super low in fat and ultra high protein.

I was part of a special Deer Hunt around a very large Reservoir. This hunt was by special permit given by a lottery system. The problem was there was such a large Deer population in Massachusetts and especially around this body of water as there were so many deer that they were starving in winter and eating young trees and stripping the bark off trees near the water.

This tree death was causing erosion of soil now unheld to the banks of the reservoir as the trees were dead...and to prevent such issues they held a special hunt which they keep on holding due to the still very large deer population.

As I drove my vehicle with a friend who also obtained a permit...into the reservoir main entrance...I was surprised to see all sorts and numbers of people holding signs at the gate chanting and shouting at hunters driving in. The signs were painted Blood Red with such tripe as MURDERER! HUNTERS = DEATH BAMBI KILLER! GIVE THE DEER A GUN!...etc.

The truck in front of me had a balloon filled with Blood Red Paint thrown at it and as it hit the Hunters truck it exploded splattering red paint all over the windshield and hood. The Hunter got out of the truck yelling and he was hit upon his Orange Vest with another paint filled balloon.

The State Police and the Metro Police...Metro is specific to the reservoir...were right there and they went after the people who threw the paint balloons as well as held back the FURIOUS hunter. I had to wait 30 minutes right there before I could get in and I could not turn around as there were vehicles behind me as this was a very regimented hunt.

This kind of violent protest only infuriates those who are responsible for providing 100% of all money used for Wildlife Conservation...as 100% of all money paid for permits and licenses are used for this purpose in my state.

Split Infinity

When you become my MD, I will listen to your opinion.

[Moontanman]

I eat red meat occasionally, i eat eggs and drink milk but mostly I eat seafood, finfish and shellfish, living near the ocean makes this easier, and I do like chicken, I mostly buy free range chicken when i can.

 

having grown up on a farm and seeing animals treated with kindness and respect... before we killed them... the cruelty of factory farming disturbs me.

 

One the best ways to get an asswhipping when i was a kid was to be caught being cruel to the animals, we never killed an animal in front of other animals and the killing was as quick and painless as possible.

 

As for wild game, we are animals and so are they, we are both part of the biosphere and killing game animals for meat is not a problem for me. Killing for sport is a problem so I don't do it...

 

I do fish quite a bit, but i release any i am not going to eat.

 

I am somewhat of a vegetable gormond, I do love vegetables and garden as much as i can, I could eat only vegetables if i wanted but i like meat...

[MonDie]

Exactly. There are no rules.

 

Nope. If somebody wants to live in willful ignorance, that's totally up to them. Likewise, it's up to us whether we will punish them for it, oughts or no oughts. If there are 'rules' in any sense of the word, they are rules on determining what's good and what's bad, but such rules are incomplete at best.

 

This reminds me of guest lecture I attended once during my undergrad, which is somewhat related. It was by a professor at my former institution called Hugh Possingham. The presentation was a few years ago now, but it explored the question of which species we should focus effort and resources into trying to conserve, since it is impractical to think that we can focus efforts into all of those in need. The priority, as you'd probably know, tends to go to animals that are cute and fluffy rather than those that are in more dire straights or those that a given ecosystem may benefit from more (fungi, for example, are routinely ignored). It's an interesting topic of discussion. (I found a brief article on it here)

 

In any case, my point is that the line you draw between animals that are okay to kill and animals that are not is completely arbitrary and advocates for the, 'meat is murder,' punch-line have made no compelling argument (that I have found) as to why their line is better than my line.

 

We know that the nervous system is the key to sentience for humans, and we can extrapolate from that. As humans, we can empathize with other humans, and we can empathize with non-human animals that resemble us anatomically.

We couldn't empathize with trees, for example, because trees bear little resemblance to us. Maybe the trees enjoy being cut down.

Note: The importance of a species of tree to an ecosystem is another issue.

Edited June 12, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[overtone]

 

I just kind of assumed because a cow is bigger. It's reasonable to
assume that a bigger (or more complex) nervous system correlates with a
higher degree of sentience.

If you ever get the chance to watch a border collie or blue heeler at work with herds of animals from two to 200 times their size, you may reconsider that assumption.

 

There are very few few beings on this planet with a higher degree of "sentience" than some of the corvids, parrots, or raccoon family - but there are many much larger. I would tend to draw my inference of sentience from longevity and complexity of social structure, with a side nod to the wolverine and the octopus, but it's not an obvious sort of calculation.

 

The catch phrase is "not can they speak, but can they suffer" - which I would extend to treatment of insects, which although as far as I can tell are generally incapable of suffering, should not be arbitarily abused by a people wishing to establish decency and trust and mutual respect and the role of the sacred.

 

There is a current of great and oblivious foolishness running through the vegan movement, which this casualty count points toward - I once had a neighbor couple move into a house backed up to a wildlife area, who put a lot of work into a very nice garden out back and refused to even fence it (much less guard it with traps or firearms or a dog) on the grounds that they would be happy to share with the picturesque wild animals they had chosen to live among in peace and joy -

 

but the flip side of this is a setup in which fertilizer is shipped over thousands of miles of ocean and land to inundate a nearly sterilized countryside supporting monocultures of starch for feeding swine, which are packed into lightless diseased hellholes miles away and their shit discarded into the nearest river for transport hundreds of miles back into that ocean. This is not only foolish, but starkly insane. It would make more sense to just dump the fertilizer base into the ocean directly, and at least avoid the intermediate stage damages.

 

Given a choice of goofy with charm and insane with ugliness, I'll take the goofy. But I want a better choice.

[MonDie]

If you ever get the chance to watch a border collie or blue heeler at work with herds of animals from two to 200 times their size, you may reconsider that assumption.

 

There are very few few beings on this planet with a higher degree of "sentience" than some of the corvids, parrots, or raccoon family - but there are many much larger. I would tend to draw my inference of sentience from longevity and complexity of social structure, with a side nod to the wolverine and the octopus, but it's not an obvious sort of calculation.

 

Okay, I forgot about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

 

The mouse EQ is 0.5. I'm looking for the cow EQ.

 

The mouse has the same brain-to-body mass ratio as we, but EQ is a more refined measure, apparently.

Edited June 13, 2013 by Mondays Assignment: Die

[SplitInfinity]

Human Beings are Top Predators.

 

Our bodies are designed specifically to out distance any prey on Earth and although our bodies cannot out swim a Dolphin...the record for how long a Human can hold their breath underwater is close to that of a Dolphin.

 

If it were not a fact that the African Jungles turned into grassy savannas...which caused the forced evolution by natural selection of Tree Climbing Human Ancestors to walk upright as to be able to see predator and prey over distances of these savannas...which allowed us to hunt more efficiently and by taking in large amounts of animal protein Humans were able to develop a large complex brain...we would still be eating plants swinging out of trees.

 

Now it is NATURAL for Human Beings to eat Animal Flesh as well as eat a wide variety of Plant Matter. Our bodies are evolved to eat these things and since IT IS A NECESSITY for developing children to consume Animal Fats and Proteins as well that such Fats and Proteins are a necessity for developing bones and muscles...for anyone to say Humans don't need to eat animal based proteins and fats is ridiculous.

 

An adult can be on a Vegan diet that allows at the very least either dairy, eggs or fish as a true all plant matter Vegan diet without any of these three within it is not healthy as there are some aspects of animal based Fatty Acids which are readily available from consumption of fish.

 

Supplements can be taken as well as many needed proteins and fats can be gotten by consuming specific plants...but studies have shown this does not have the same benefits as getting them from animal sources.

 

Split Infinity

[hypervalent_iodine]

Nope. If somebody wants to live in willful ignorance, that's totally up to them. Likewise, it's up to us whether we will punish them for it, oughts or no oughts. If there are 'rules' in any sense of the word, they are rules on determining what's good and what's bad, but such rules are incomplete at best.

 

I will elaborate on my last comment. I agree with your previous comment that there are no set of rules, but I am not the one trying to point to them and judge others based on them. The, 'meat is murder,' crowd are the ones doing this, and I disagree with the double standard that they are using to this end. That is the crux of the issue for me. People can be 'ethical vegans' all they like - I truly do not care how they justify their choices to themselves - but they have no moral basis that isn't wrought with hypocrisy from which to judge others.

 

As a matter of personal opinion, I don't have a problem with the slaughter of livestock for food if it is done with respect and as humanely as possible. I absolutely think those in industrial contexts could and should be treated better, but I do not think that slaughtering a cow for food is wrong.

 

 

We know that the nervous system is the key to sentience for humans, and we can extrapolate from that. As humans, we can empathize with other humans, and we can empathize with non-human animals that resemble us anatomically.

We couldn't empathize with trees, for example, because trees bear little resemblance to us. Maybe the trees enjoy being cut down.

Note: The importance of a species of tree to an ecosystem is another issue.

 

All this is doing is supporting my point that the line is arbitrary.