Is breeding animals wrong?

[Marfran]

You seem to have a difficult time differentiating the act itself from the particulars of the reason for the act. The Act of intential breeding is not in itself wrong.
For instance, My Grandmother had her 2 milk cows bred so that they would “come fresh”. The Calves born were left on the cows until they were sold for veal. The Cows wnet out to pasture and were milked twice a day. They were cared for and if they got sick they were treated by the vet. Once the cows got older they too were sent to market and another cow (or calf was raised as replacement).
The Breeding here was done artificially, the animals cared for and used apprpriately.
In this case the Act of breeding the animals was not wrong. **No one was hurt by it. **

Now, if you are a vegitarian you will no doubt disagree with the above, but that is a personal choice on your part not to eat meat.

No one was hurt by it. No, only the veal calves killed, the cows sent to be made into hamburger, and the people that consumed the products from these animals. See ***The China Study ***for the link and relationship of meat and dairy to the diseases of affluence: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, etc.

And it is a personal choice of yours to **pretend **that animals are treated well in current agri-business, in intense confinement facilities. I prefer to look the truth in the eye before drawing a conclusion. Pretending it doesn’t happen doesn’t negate the fact that it does happen. Mistreatment of animals is the norm today, not the acception.

The animals in your example, while maybe not as abused as in a factory farm situation (over 90% of our meat/dairy/and eggs today are produced in intense confinement factory farms), still did not lead natural lives. The ones in your example were lucky enough to go out to pasture**–today **dairy cows do not see the light of day. A veal calf lies in a crate for all of it’s days, and is not even able to stand or turn its body around.

Breeding animals to satisfy our vanity, or our luxury tastes, with **disregard **to the impact on human health, or the global impact of misappropriated resources that should instead go to people–makes thie act of breeding wrong. As does the actual abuse of the animal that is breed.

 

[Marfran]

The issue is far more complicated than your statement makes it out to be. I simply find it interesting that people in this country find it more desirable to protect dogs than unborn children. Those of us who believe abortion to be wrong should consider carefully where we choose to spend our resouces. If I have $20 Dollars to send to a charity should I split between pro-life and pro-shelter charities or should I give the whole $20 to pro-life since human children are more important than animals?

I find it interesting that people **pick and choose **what life forms they want to protect. We should respect ALL of life. Having distain and disrespect for any of God’s creation does not honor God. People do not respect unborn humans because they do not respect life in general. They think callously of animals and callously of their fellow man, so it makes sense that they do not value the unborn. It is our modern society that promotes this callousness. I would keep the $20 dollars in your pocket. Use your voice and time instead to promote healing in our troubled world.

 

[JRKH]

I find it interesting that people **pick and choose **what life forms they want to protect. **We should respect ALL of life. **Having distain and disrespect for any of God’s creation does not honor God. People do not respect unborn humans because they do not respect life in general. They think callously of animals and callously of their fellow man, so it makes sense that they do not value the unborn. It is our modern society that promotes this callousness. I would keep the $20 dollars in your pocket. Use your voice and time instead to promote healing in our troubled world.

If we were to respect ALL life in the way that you wish we sould all Starve to death. Eating Grain is interfeing with the reproduction of the grain plant. That goes for wheat, corn, soy, etc. Eating fruits, less so but it still interferesw ti the “Natural” reproduction of the species fo plant. This is the same practice that you abhor in animals.
Humans, by God’s design, are fitted to process a wide range of foods from plant matter to meats. This is by God’s design. God’s only begotton Son consumed meat products.

It isn’t a matter of whether breeding or being vegen or meat eater is wrong it is simply the personal choices that each one makes. I prefer to use my limited funds to support those groups who fight for the unborn rather than spread my dollars around.

In fact I think it is even MORE important for Catholics to support the Pro-Life movement fully and fincancially because the animal rights people are going to get money from people who are also pro-choice. These people will support animal rights but not babies rights. We need to make up for that shortfall by supporting babies rights.

Peace
James

 

[vz71]

The times and life, when the Bible was written, do not reflect the advancement of modern societies, or the moralities of future practices, and whether the eating of meat should continue once man had evolved to the place where it is no longer neccessary for survival,…

You claim morality has changed since Christ…
So what part of morality has changed since Christ walked the earth?

You also claim that man has evolved to such a point that meat is no longer necessary for survival…
What evolutionary change has there been in humans since Christ walked the earth? Specifically the ones involving the need for meat, please.

 

[JRKH]

No one was hurt by it. No, only the veal calves killed, the cows sent to be made into hamburger, and the people that consumed the products from these animals.

Is it your contention that these animls would not die if left in the wild? Or that they would die in a more humane way inthe wild? The fact is that, wild or tame, these animals would die and provide protien food to other animals. That is how God set it up. The only difference is that when Grandma’s animals were butchered it was quick and relatively painless. The were not taken down by the Jaws and Claws of wild animals.
As for the people who consumed the products - I am one of them and I can assure you that I am not dead or sick.

See ***The China Study ***for the link and relationship of meat and dairy to the diseases of affluence: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, osteoporosis, obesity, etc.

I’m sure it is quite interesting. But, does this study suggest that by eating vegen we will live forever? Such arguments, while interesting and informative do nothing to change the basic fact that we will die. We must die to our corporeal selves in order to gain eternal life.
I’m reminded of the old slogan - “Eat right, Excersize, Die Anyway”.

And it is a personal choice of yours to **pretend **that animals are treated well in current agri-business, in intense confinement facilities. I prefer to look the truth in the eye before drawing a conclusion. Pretending it doesn’t happen doesn’t negate the fact that it does happen. Mistreatment of animals is the norm today, not the acception.

I think that if you go back over my posts you will find that I fully agree that modern techniques leave a lot to be desired and I will go further and say that modern farming techniques remind me of the pre-dust bowl days. At some point there is going to be a reconing on this.
As to what does or does not constitute abuse - that is a matter I’d rather not get into as it would only frustrate teh both of us.

Peace
James

 

[Marfran]

You claim morality has changed since Christ…
So what part of morality has changed since Christ walked the earth?

You also claim that man has evolved to such a point that meat is no longer necessary for survival…
What evolutionary change has there been in humans since Christ walked the earth? Specifically the ones involving the need for meat, please.

I did not claim that morality has changed since Christ walked the Earth. I said that civilization has evolved, and that advancement of society brings new challeges to our morality and ethics. Any new technological advancement in our modern world can potentially pose an ethical dilemna that has no clear cut Biblical passage addressing it specifically. Cars did not exist in Biblical times, nor did the technology that enables space exploration, nor other technologies. Reproductive medicine did not exist in Biblical times. And on and on. Food production has evolved, manipulation of genetics, how crops are grown and transported. Factory farming did not exist in the time of Christ. Refrigeration technology did not exist in the time of Christ. How we produce and distribute our food, and the types of food, in all its sophistication did not exist.

Meat is not a natural food for humans, nor has it ever been. Our bodies were not designed to consume it. This is supported by the theory of evolution, by scientific fact of digestion and digestion proccesses, by the design of specific human body parts and the absence of the bodily tools inherent to carnivores, and by Biblical passage: Eden was vegan. In Genesis man was created to eat a plant based diet. I expect that you know the rest of the story. After the flood man was told to spread out over the Earth and to inhabit it. He was granted permission to eat meat, but not told that he had to eat it. This permission proved valuable as man was challenged by harsh climates. Eating meat became a survival strategy. I will post an excerpt of ***Dominion ***again for you. See next post.

 

[Marfran]

You also claim that man has evolved to such a point that meat is no longer necessary for survival…
What evolutionary change has there been in humans since Christ walked the earth? Specifically the ones involving the need for meat, please.

Here is an excerpt from Dominion by Matthew Scully.

We can challenge farming practices today without passing judgement on the whole of human experience, just as we can reflect on the hardships of mules in the coal mines of another time without faulting the miners. Once, men like those miners had no choice except to use mules, dragging them down into the heavenless pit–and even then, as Crane describes, giving them a break sometimes, feeling for them as comrades in toil and misery. One needn’t condemn the practice. How could you? Hard necessity demanded it. It is part of the story, the animals’ and our own, and both good and ill came of it.

Now, in the more developed world, the mule is free at least of that assignment. His services are no longer needed. So too have many other animals served us well over the ages. It was the use of livestock that first freed us from the chase, allowed man to settle and civilize himself, slowly rendering the hunter a useless and ever more ridiculous figure engaged in what the name itself “game,” implies. Meat and dairy products undeniably furnished a wide array of protein sources, like the soybean today as we discover its many uses and superior protein value. It was the labor of the mule and the horse and the ox and the elephant that allowed man to turn his energies to greater work, building his earthly life over the ages up from savage squalor to the world we live in today. It was the fur-bearer whose pelt shielded us from the elements, the oil of the whale that lighted our lamps, the ivory of the elephant and bones and antlers of other animals that gave us tools and adornments. And so on through the story of civilization, leaving today, in many cases, only customs and habits and industries surviving on the momentum of varnished necessity. For ages people needed furs to survive in the severe elements we faced. Women who today keep the fur industry thriving, in order to be seen swathed in mink on a 60-degree December evening in Beverly Hills, or in Manhattan making the harsh winter trek from Saks to Tiffany’s, do not have the same excuse.

When substitute products are found, with each creature in turn, responsible dominion calls for a reprieve. The warrent expires. The divine mandate is used up. What were once “necessary evils” becomes just evils. Laws protecting animals from mistreatment, abuse, and exploitation are not a moral luxury or sentimental afterthought to be shrugged off. They are a serious moral obligation, only clearer in the more developed parts of the world where we can not plead poverty. Man, guided by the very light of reason and ethics that was his claim to dominion in the first place, should in the generations to come have the good grace to repay his debts, step back wherever possible and leave the creatures be, off to live out the lives designed for them, with all the beauty and sights and smells and warm winds, and all the natural hardships, dangers, and violence too.

**If we take Isaiah at his word, maybe the moment prophesied is arriving, an unexpected turn in our human story, not an onerous moral demand but a wonderful moral opportunity. **Perhaps we are getting uneasy about our mistreatment of animals because we should be uneasy about it. Maybe we wonder about these practices because we are supposed to be wondering about them. There comes a time when the service is no longer needed, and the master, if he is just, will turn to the suffering creatures in his dominion, from the mink to the pig to the elephant to the great leviathan, and say, “Dismissed.”

---

 

[Marfran]

Is it your contention that these animls would not die if left in the wild? Or that they would die in a more humane way inthe wild? The fact is that, wild or tame, these animals would die and provide protien food to other animals. That is how God set it up. The only difference is that when Grandma’s animals were butchered it was quick and relatively painless. The were not taken down by the Jaws and Claws of wild animals.

Dear James: I am off to work and would love to continue our discussion. I enjoy debating with you. The whole purpose of these discussions is to share ideas, thoughts, knowledge, opinions… You apologized before for being “testy” and I return the apology to you. I am sorry if at any time my response seems terse or testy.

Nature is nature and it was designed well. Each animal was designed with a purpose, and has a natural life accorded to it, and performs a specific function or role in nature. Humans however, especially through factory farming, are committing all kinds of abuses and unnatural acts to animals, causing suffering that lasts the animals entire life. Grandma’s animals may have had better lives than the factory farmed animals of today–they did have better lives–they weren’t confined in a cage or prohibited from going outdoors… But there are no “veal” calves in nature, and we purposefully breed animals that are not even found in nature. All of these animals that you are talking about, having it better with us, than living in the wild–only exist because we breed them into existance.

 

[Ione]

Since the title of the thread did not specify dogs, or pets in general, a broader anser seemed to be in order.

I have no problem with it expanding to the livestock issue. Actually, all the better.:

If you can find a place in either the Bible or the culture of biblical times where breeding of animals is condemned I’d like to here about it. The fact is that this has been going on and Jesus knew about it when He was here. He had no problem with the flocks, the eating of meat and fish, the sacrifice of animals in the temple, killing the fatted calf in the prodigal son parable, etc. If Jesus saw no need to condemn the intentional breeding of animals for meat and wool and profit, then neither do I.

I don’t claim to know much about the bible. I came to this forum to learn about it. I don’t know much about the catechism but that is where I got the following. Bold and italics are mine.

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.75

I just don’t think what they ate in that day was of utmost importance. I think the bible deals with deeper issues, although I do realize it does say things of what to eat in the Old Testament.

110 In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, **the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”**76

The conditions of our time and culture are different now.

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, **Scripture is **a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

This to me seems to say it’s about Jesus, about who he was, not what he ate.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the **allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. **The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

Many on this forum have said to not take the bible literally. Therefore we should go with the spiritual sense. Allegorical, stories that have hidden or symbolic meanings, moral, stories of right and wrong, and anagogical hidden spiritual meaning.
That somewhat speaks for itself…symbolic meanings, spiritual meanings.

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

I constantly hear “that’s the Old Testament” when I say that it says about what we should eat in the bible (on this point, specifically pork/swine).

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

Here once again it says the Old Testament is not void.

That’s just my interpretation. Like I said, I’m just learning.

You seem to be unaware that you cannot force an animal to breed out of cycle. Just as a human female can only concieve at certain times, so too with animals.

Dogs, pigs, cows and most other animals do not normally reproduce and breed at the rate at which we do it when we do artificial insemination. That would be to say that each time a woman is able to conceive that she should. I don’t think there are any women out there doing that! And if we all did our world would be in serious trouble!

I agree that the specialization of “Factory Farming” has resulted in environmental problems. But they are not problems that are difficult to overcome.

No they would not be difficult to overcome if we stopped the factory farming. Although alot of the damage has already been done. Some may not be reversible.

The supporting evidence that others benefit is in every supermarket in the country where one buys reasonably priced produce.

At the expense to the environment and the survival of all living things on earth.

As for the Farmers benefitting by profiting, there is nothing wrong with making a profit.

Yes there is if it is at the expense of everyone else’s survival. He can find other more ethical ways to make money.

Of course for those dead set against supporting these practices, I suggest that you plant a large garden and orchard, can your fruits and vegitables and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Personally I love putting up pickles and freezing the tomatoes we don’t eat fresh.

Wonderful.

Calorie for caloie, meat productino takes less acreage than grain production.

I believe there’s evidence against that although I’m not going to search for it at this time so that I can quote it.

As I said earlier, if you wish to not eat meat - then don’t eat meat. If you want to be organic then plant your garden and live happily aver after.

And as I said, if you are going to claim to follow Jesus and what he did, then follow* all *of it, not just what benefits your wants.

(cont)

 

[Marfran]

Ione: Great post above!!!

 

[Ione]

I can make the very same argument about cars that you make here about animals. Cars are destroying the enviornment. Humans get no benefit from cars. Walking is healthier. Land is used up for factories and gas stations and car lots and junk yards. The water supply is damaged by the petroleum runoffs and so forth. if people need to haul heavy loads they can use horses and wagons, or just only carry what they can carry themselves. After All that is how God made us.
You will say that animals can feel and cars cannot, but that is not germaine to whether the process of breeding, or the process of auto production and support benefits mankind.
Certainly cars can be made more efficient just as animal husbandry can be improved. But declaring “Animal Breeding” to be wrong because mankind does not benefit is the same as declaring auto production wrong because mankind does not benefit.

I agree with this argument and I don’t believe we should be driving around in cars. If government allowed it in my area I would have a horse and buggy but unfortunately the laws say no! And when I am able to aquire land that does allow it I will most likely switch. I could walk yes, but where I live things are miles away. It would take days to get things done. Unfortunately, due to our large stores like Walmart who purchases from the factory farms there are no small local farms in walking distance that I can buy the needed supplies from.

To say that animal breeding is somehow against God’s plan is also wrong unless you can demonstrate that animal breeding - IN and OF ITSELF is sinful. You may certainly be able to show that certain persons sin by how they run their businesses, but simply selecting the act of selective breeding as the culprit is wrong. It’s like saying that “money is the root of all evil”, instead of the correct reading which is that “The Love of Money” is the root of all evil".

I believe it’s being done in a way not intended by God.

And I beg your indulgence because I get a bit cranky when I see and read about people who are worried about dogs in a shelter instead of babies in the womb.
Frankly I think that we need to have the priorities straight. Let’s stop abortion and THEN talk about the ASPCA shelters.

So we will stop everything until abortion is stopped? I am able to defend both and then some. And will those babies have a place to live after we destroy the earth with our selfishness? Maybe we should concentrate on saving them *and *saving the earth so they will have a place to live. What good is it to save the children and bring them into a world where there is no food? That is promoting human suffering, which the bible I believe says is a sin. Do you want that child to starve? I think if you are pro-life you better darn well be pro-environment too! They go hand in hand. So my bit of advice to you is to concentrate on both whether you like the animals or not. Are you willing to go vegetarian or vegan so the future children can eat and live? You claim to be so concerned about them. And how about giving up that car? Will you do it for them? *For that unborn child? * It’s not just about the animals, it’s about the children and their ability to survive on this earth. And if you can be so selfish as to not give up a piece of meat for that than how can you say you are pro-life? And the topic wasn’t about shelters it was about breeding animals that don’t need to be bred.

 

[4elise]

You claim morality has changed since Christ…
So what part of morality has changed since Christ walked the earth?

You also claim that man has evolved to such a point that meat is no longer necessary for survival…
What evolutionary change has there been in humans since Christ walked the earth? Specifically the ones involving the need for meat, please.

I think it is not that man has changed but that the production of food is different today in developed countries.

What has also changed is the readily available source of plant based protein that makes such a diet not only healthy, but less expensive, and removes one from the loop of breeding animals.

 

[vz71]

You also claim that man has evolved to such a point that meat is no longer necessary for survival…
What evolutionary change has there been in humans since Christ walked the earth? Specifically the ones involving the need for meat, please.

Here is an excerpt from Dominion by Matthew Scully…

My question remains unanswered.
You claimed an evolutionary change.
Name it.

 

[vz71]

Meat is not a natural food for humans, nor has it ever been.

…and whether the eating of meat should continue once man had evolved to the place where it is no longer neccessary for survival…

OK, I am confused here.
You have stated two mutually exclusive things here.

 

[vz71]

I agree with this argument and I don’t believe we should be driving around in cars. If government allowed it in my area I would have a horse and buggy but unfortunately the laws say no!

I guess we all pick our pollutants.

We can burn oil to get us from point a to point b, or we could leave raw sewage in the roads to get from a to b.

To be honest, I prefer the smell of burnt oil to manure.

And before I am told that manure helps plants grow…not in the middle of the street.

 

[mchale]

Meat is not a natural food for humans, nor has it ever been. Our bodies were not designed to consume it. This is supported by the theory of evolution, by scientific fact of digestion and digestion proccesses, by the design of specific human body parts and the absence of the bodily tools inherent to carnivores, and by Biblical passage: Eden was vegan. In Genesis man was created to eat a plant based diet. I expect that you know the rest of the story. After the flood man was told to spread out over the Earth and to inhabit it. He was granted permission to eat meat, but not told that he had to eat it. This permission proved valuable as man was challenged by harsh climates. Eating meat became a survival strategy. I will post an excerpt of ***Dominion ***again for you. See next post.

With respect, your science is flat out wrong!

Humans and their ancestors have been eating meat for at least a million years (Since Homo erectus arose) and possibly have been for much longer than that. Our nearest living relatives, chimps, will happily eat meat when they can get it.

Further, an examination of available food sources in a pre-agricultural human society show it would probably be very tough to consistently get enough protien without occasionally supplementing the diet (say a couple of times a week) with some form of animal protien.

Yes it is true that we are missing many of the traditional natural tools of the carnivore but there are a couple of reasons for that.

1. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. Meat is part of our natural diet, not the basis of it.
2. Our brains evolved instead. As a result, humans rarely eat anything the same way an animal would eat it. We used our brains to develop tools and techniques to allow us to utilize many more different food sources than almost any other animal.

If we accept your argument that our diets should be based on our physical adaptations, many other food sources would have to be rejected. For example, we are not particularly well adapted to the eating of grains – in fact less so than we are to the eating of meat. Of course we could just mill the grains into flower or cook them in porridges and stuff… just as we cook meat.

–
Bill

 

[Marfran]

With respect, your science is flat out wrong!

Humans and their ancestors have been eating meat for at least a million years (Since Homo erectus arose) and possibly have been for much longer than that. Our nearest living relatives, chimps, will happily eat meat when they can get it.

Further, an examination of available food sources in a pre-agricultural human society show it would probably be very tough to consistently get enough protien without occasionally supplementing the diet (say a couple of times a week) with some form of animal protien.

Yes it is true that we are missing many of the traditional natural tools of the carnivore but there are a couple of reasons for that.

1. We are not carnivores, we are omnivores. Meat is part of our natural diet, not the basis of it.
2. Our brains evolved instead. As a result, humans rarely eat anything the same way an animal would eat it. We used our brains to develop tools and techniques to allow us to utilize many more different food sources than almost any other animal.

If we accept your argument that our diets should be based on our physical adaptations, many other food sources would have to be rejected. For example, we are not particularly well adapted to the eating of grains – in fact less so than we are to the eating of meat. Of course we could just mill the grains into flower or cook them in porridges and stuff… just as we cook meat.

With respect your science is flat out wrong!

Chimpanzees, our closest biological relatives are frugivores. Some groups of chimanzees have been known to kill and eat colobus monkeys. This is not a regular part of their diet however, and it has been shown that these killings happen in times of food shortage. I don’t have my stats in front of me–but a chimpanzee’s diet consists of 1 or 2% meat and/or termites. What percentage of the human diet is meat?

Kind of the same reason that man began eating meat. Finding himself in a harsh climate (for instance a winter climate) with not enough plant-based diet choices.

We are no longer a pre-agricultural society.

1. All natural omnivores have the physical attributes of carnivores: claws, sharp teeth, etc. Example of a mammilian omnivore: bear, raccoon… Meat eaters have much less intestine than plant eaters. Meat eaters digest their food quickly. Plant eaters have substantially more intestine, as more time is needed to digest the fibrous plant materials.
2. OK that’s just dumb. If you want to argue that we are so smart and that our brains help us to figure out how to make tools to eat with–what are you going to do if lost in the woods without your tools??? Starve to death because you don’t have a gun or culinary equipment and a stove? If we are meant to eat meat then even the little child lost in the woods would be able to survive eating what is natural to him. And that would hardly be meat. Using our brains to develop things to make our lives easier was progressive and took centuries to develop. If we took a few people who were not aquainted with modernity and dropped them on a desert island, how long would it take for them to develop all these tools from scratch? The particular bunch *may never *figure some things out. How long will it take this bunch to figure out how to build a refrigerator? Will they figure out how to pasteurize the milk so that it doesn’t kill them??? That is if they get the idea to steal some other animal’s milk?

Eating of grains…I’m with you brother…who needs 'em? Eat raw–it’s more natural.

And cooking–what’s natural about that? If we are supposed to eat meat we wouldn’t have to cook it. What other animal cooks it’s meat? The chimpanzees who occassionally eat a colubus monkey don’t cook it first. If humans do not cook their meat they will likely die from the bacteria inherent to raw meat.

 

[Marfran]

Originally Posted by Marfran
Meat is not a natural food for humans, nor has it ever been.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marfran
…and whether the eating of meat should continue once man had evolved to the place where it is no longer neccessary for survival…

OK, I am confused here.
You have stated two mutually exclusive things here.

Meat is not a natural food for humans, the human body is healthier without it, but in times of food shortage it can, and has been used to supplement the diet. Man would perhaps have not survived certain harsh climates, had he not turned to animals for food. This is hardly the case today, however.

 

[Ione]

I guess we all pick our pollutants.

We can burn oil to get us from point a to point b, or we could leave raw sewage in the roads to get from a to b.

To be honest, I prefer the smell of burnt oil to manure.

And before I am told that manure helps plants grow…not in the middle of the street.

And personally, I prefer the manure. I’d much rather that than oil and transmission fluids, antifreeze, asbestos from the brakes, etc.

I’d have to say you are going against the bible. It’s what’s for the better good of humans not what smells good. You’d rather put chemicals and toxins into the earth than smell some manure? What about the children to come? Are you alleviating any suffering for them by leaving these chemicals in the ground or are you adding to the problems they will already face with the destruction of the environment? Sounds a bit selfish.

 

[Marfran]

My question remains unanswered.
You claimed an evolutionary change.
Name it.

I believe that you lose points in forensic debate when you have to have your opponent explain the meaning/definition of a word.

evolution: A process of change in a certain direction. A process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state. GROWTH. A process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance. A process of working out or developing…

from Webster’s