killing nonhuman animals

[whitecrayon]

dear rock happy and others

from the undergraduate textbook cultural anthropology, 12th ed, by haviland, prins, walrath, and mcbride, i offer the following verbatim textual quote, which i hope elucidates further the valid point you (rock happy) make about meat-eating among homo sapiens.

from the section titled early homo, from chapter four: becoming human: the origin and diversity of our species: “increased meat consumption by our early ancestors was important for human evolution. on the savannah, it is hard for a primate with a humanlike digestive system to satisfy its protein requirements from available plant resources. moreover, failure to do so has serious consequences: stunted growth, malnutrition, starvation, and death. leaves and legumes (nitrogen-fixing plants, familiar examples being beans and peas) provide the most readily accessible plant sources of protein. however, these are hard for primates like us to digest unless they are cooked. chimpanzees have a similar problem today when out on the savannah. in such a setting, they spend more than a third of their time going after insects like ants and termites on a year-round basis, while at the same time increasing their search for edible eggs and the hunting of small vertebrate animals. not only are such animal foods easily digestible, but they provide high-quality proteins that contain all of the essential amino acids, the building blocks of protein, in just the right proportions. our remote ancestors probably solved their dietary problems in much the same way that chimps on the savannah do today (and in some ways…their dietary habits and the physical effort it took to secure food made these early human ancestors healthier than many millions of present-day people). however, without the daggerlike teeth for ripping and cutting flesh, they were at a disadvantage. even chimpanzees, whose canine teeth are far larger and sharper than ours, frequently have trouble tearing through the skin of other animals. it appears then that for more efficient utilization of animal protein, our ancestors needed sharp tools for butchering carcasses.”

the chapter section then goes on to dicuss the earliest identifiable stone tools used by early homo in the lower paleolithic part of the stone age.

 

[whitecrayon]

i suppose then that, since the beginning, even for our earliest ancestors, eating flesh has been essential to survival, and that is why today, even though human beings can survive well on a vegetarian or vegan diet, they enjoy meat so much: the taste has evolved to be something we enjoy very much, for survival reasons that have been around since the beginning and only very recently have been obviated with advanced vegetarian dietetics.

 

[Catholic90]

Well, this is a limited forum. If you would stop making false presumptions, then you might not call me bitter.

If you don’t like meat, that is fine. No one is making you, and honestly, I don’t care! You get to choose what you eat, just as I get to choose what I eat! You know what makes you feel good, and I know what makes me feel good. Isn’t that great?!? I just ask that you offer those of us who do choose to eat meat the same respect. Is that so wrong?

Now I am off to bait and set some of those snap mouse traps so I can kill those furry little rodents that seem to like my house! I am also setting out some poison bait stations. Die, mice, die!

 

[whitecrayon]

i just had a delicious bowl of microwaved spinach. yum! and nobody died for it! (i do eat meat, however, so please no one take this post as indication otherwise… i’m just trying to be funny like a few of the other posters.)

 

[rain_bow]

Well personally I think that if you want to eat the animals,you can kill them. But if don’t eat them,its not good idea to kill animals only because of fun. And if you are fond of safari, still you should kill only the animals like man eater tiger or lions or such things those are permitted by the laws of those African countries.

 

[Brendan]

Probably?

He took part in Passover. At that time He ate lamb, at the very least.

.

‘Took part’ in Passover, heck He was the one who COMMANDED Passover!

He was the one who told the Jews to kill the lambs in the first place.

 

[Flyingg]

If you don’t like meat, that is fine. No one is making you, and honestly, I don’t care! You get to choose what you eat, just as I get to choose what I eat! You know what makes you feel good, and I know what makes me feel good. Isn’t that great?!? I just ask that you offer those of us who do choose to eat meat the same respect. Is that so wrong?

Respecting those who eat meat sure! But respecting their decision is difficult. I find it hard to respect a decision based on murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery ,fear, discrimination and cruelty.
Why is it a choice? Because it’s perfectly legal and socialy religiously acceptable? Ever wondered why westerns love cats and slaughter pigs? Is it all about money? Is being ‘delicious’ is enough reason for causing harm? Abused animals won’t actually care about the reason why we kill them, whether for food, clothes or fun. They care about keeping themselves alive and treating them with love and respect I’m not attaking you, Just questioning things.

 

[Catholic90]

**Well personally I think that if you want to eat the animals,you can kill them. But if don’t eat them,its not good idea to kill animals only because of fun. **And if you are fond of safari, still you should kill only the animals like man eater tiger or lions or such things those are permitted by the laws of those African countries.

I killed mice this week. I am fixing to kill any more mice that set their furry little paws into my house. I do NOT plan to eat them! I also am not killing them for fun! I am killing them because they are vermin and rodents and are dirty, disease carrying critters. I do not want them bringing fleas, parasites, and other grossness into my home and infesting my food or my pets’ home!

 

[Brendan]

If God allows to kill animals while we have alternative ways that are more ethical, compassionate and healthy, then where is the ‘Good’ in religions?!

How can one define ‘ethical’ or ‘compassionate’ without using God as a reference.

Anything else is simply personal opinion.

 

[Flyingg]

How can one define ‘ethical’ or ‘compassionate’ without using God as a reference.

Anything else is simply personal opinion.

To me God is a personal opinion too. You can if you think about it :d even if you want to use ‘God’ as reference there is millions of thoughts of what God is and what he wants, sadly God is being the ultimate excuse for many to do harm.

 

[severus68]

dear rock happy and others

from the undergraduate textbook cultural anthropology, 12th ed, by haviland, prins, walrath, and mcbride, i offer the following verbatim textual quote, which i hope elucidates further the valid point you (rock happy) make about meat-eating among homo sapiens.

from the section titled early homo, from chapter four: becoming human: the origin and diversity of our species: “increased meat consumption by our early ancestors was important for human evolution. on the savannah, it is hard for a primate with a humanlike digestive system to satisfy its protein requirements from available plant resources. moreover, failure to do so has serious consequences: stunted growth, malnutrition, starvation, and death. leaves and legumes (nitrogen-fixing plants, familiar examples being beans and peas) provide the most readily accessible plant sources of protein. however, these are hard for primates like us to digest unless they are cooked. chimpanzees have a similar problem today when out on the savannah. in such a setting, they spend more than a third of their time going after insects like ants and termites on a year-round basis, while at the same time increasing their search for edible eggs and the hunting of small vertebrate animals. not only are such animal foods easily digestible, but they provide high-quality proteins that contain all of the essential amino acids, the building blocks of protein, in just the right proportions. our remote ancestors probably solved their dietary problems in much the same way that chimps on the savannah do today (and in some ways…their dietary habits and the physical effort it took to secure food made these early human ancestors healthier than many millions of present-day people). however, without the daggerlike teeth for ripping and cutting flesh, they were at a disadvantage. even chimpanzees, whose canine teeth are far larger and sharper than ours, frequently have trouble tearing through the skin of other animals. it appears then that for more efficient utilization of animal protein, our ancestors needed sharp tools for butchering carcasses.”

the chapter section then goes on to dicuss the earliest identifiable stone tools used by early homo in the lower paleolithic part of the stone age.

Thank you. However your quote is about the survival of early man. There are many studies that show that today, when alternate plant food is available, humans do not need meat to survive.

 

[Catholic90]

I find it hard to respect a decision based on murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery ,fear, discrimination and cruelty.

First, we must focus on human beings. Once we stop inflicting murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery, fear, discrimination, and cruelty on ALL human beings, regardless of where they live, including their mothers’ wombs, THEN we can focus on animals. People take priority.

 

[Newbie2]

That is true.

While I have referred to animals as non human animals, I have not referred to humans as human animals. I am very clear as to whether I am referring to humans or animals. The terms are not important to me

"I am an animal rights activist. Yes, some use the two terms interchangeably. The more radical ARA I know and know off dislike a lot of what Singer has to say.

I believe as good stewards with superior intellect and free will, we should treat animals well. I also believe we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals. It is easy to abuse and that is why I believe circuses should not have animals in their acts.***I do not think animals want to be humans.***I know about speciesism (please excuse the spelling) and understand where they are coming from. Singer’s philosophy to me works against both humans and animals."

(Sorry, my cutting and pasting messed up the autoquote function)

In my 24 years as a veterinarian, my experience has shown that most domestic animals we have as pets want to be with humans.

I’m curious, as an animal rights activist, which specific rights do you think animals have?

Respecting those who eat meat sure! But respecting their decision is difficult. I find it hard to respect a decision based on murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery ,fear, discrimination and cruelty.
Why is it a choice? Because it’s perfectly legal and socialy religiously acceptable? **Ever wondered why westerns love cats and slaughter pigs? **Is it all about money? Is being ‘delicious’ is enough reason for causing harm? Abused animals won’t actually care about the reason why we kill them, whether for food, clothes or fun. They care about keeping themselves alive and treating them with love and respect I’m not attaking you, Just questioning things.

Ever taste cat? Bleech.

(I"m kidding…never tried nor never will try cat)

Part of the answer is that pigs are extremely effecient, at least when compared to a cat, in converting food sources to meat. As cats are obligate carnivores, just from an economic POV it is impossible for them to compete with pigs.

But you do bring up an interesting point…why do we find kittens cute and cuddy and worth keeping around while we detest rats? Appearance? Disease vectors? Both? Neither?

How about other species?

Here’s some questions I have on your terms:

murder: Can we “murder” animals, or is that a term used exclusively for killing another innocent human being?

pain: If we slaughter food animals painlessly, does that make it a more moral action?

torture: I assume you mean experimentation.

abuse: Not sure how specifically food animals are abused; perhaps you mean this in a very general sense?

slavery: Again, is this a term that is reserved for human enslavement? Can we really say an animal is used as a slave?

fear: Again, if we were to remove the fear in the slaughtering process, would that make it a more moral action?

discrimination: Not sure what is meant here. Speciesm?

cruelty: Again, if we were to remove cruelty from the raising and slaughtering processes, would that make it more moral? We also need to carefully define what “cruelty” entails; it would seem to encompass a very wide range of behaviors.

I don’t have all the answers…but am posing the questions for further discussion.

 

[Flyingg]

First, we must focus on human beings. Once we stop inflicting murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery, fear, discrimination, and cruelty on ALL human beings, regardless of where they live, including their mothers’ wombs, THEN we can focus on animals. People take priority.

We can’t bring happiness to ALL humans, does it mean we should always continue in causing harm and pain to animals simply because they were born that way or simply because we consider them as being made for us and less valuable?

I heard this argument before and it only shows illogical discrimination, in my opinion it’s no different than to base our pity on a person’s sex, race, religion, nationality etc, you may say that in the case of humans it’s different, but I believe all miseries, fear and pain are the same wathever the body is, the common is that we are ALL sensitive living beings and compassion if it’s divided is cruel, I can’t attribute or respect a person choice to attribute in abusing animals, specially if humans have an alternative non- violent way of living, we pray to a powerful God to have mercy on us, while we are as powerful unwilling to give mercy to weak creatures and their families.

 

[You]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Catholic90]

We can’t bring happiness to ALL humans, does it mean we should always continue in causing harm and pain to animals simply because they were born that way or simply because we consider them as being made for us and less valuable?

I heard this argument before and it only shows illogical discrimination, in my opinion it’s no different than to base our pity on a person’s sex, race, religion, nationality etc, you may say that in the case of humans it’s different, but I believe all miseries, fear and pain are the same wathever the body is, the common is that we are ALL sensitive living beings and compassion if it’s divided is cruel, I can’t attribute or respect a person choice to attribute in abusing animals, specially if humans have an alternative non- violent way of living, we pray to a powerful God to have mercy on us, while we are as powerful unwilling to give mercy to weak creatures and their families.

I was referring to abortion. Someone cannot be an animal rights activist AND be pro-choice (please note I am not saying you are). I am saying we should FIRST work to ensure all babies who are conceived are allowed to be born, not killed while in their mothers’ wombs. Do you work as tirelessly for that cause as you do for the protection of pigs?

 

[You]

Respecting those who eat meat sure! But respecting their decision is difficult. I find it hard to respect a decision based on murder, pain, torture, abuse, slavery ,fear, discrimination and cruelty.
Why is it a choice? Because it’s perfectly legal and socialy religiously acceptable? Ever wondered why westerns love cats and slaughter pigs? Is it all about money? Is being ‘delicious’ is enough reason for causing harm? Abused animals won’t actually care about the reason why we kill them, whether for food, clothes or fun. They care about keeping themselves alive and treating them with love and respect I’m not attaking you, Just questioning things.

Plants can hear - August 30, 2007

Korean scientists think plant genes could be turned on by blasting fields with classical music. According to New Scientist (subscription required) actually playing Beethoven to rice plants in a lab had no effect but when sound was played to plants at specific frequencies two genes became more active. The ald gene became more active at 125 and 250 Hertz, and less active at 50 Hertz. In their paper in Molecular Breeding the researchers suggest that in transgenic plants the expression of any gene fused to ald could be regulated by sound.

Newspapers in the UK are having a lot of fun with the suggestions. Heir to the throne Prince Charles was ridiculed in the 1980s for saying “I just come and talk to the plants, really - very important to talk to them, they respond.” So the research is leading to a number of “Charles was right” stories (The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail).

 

[Newbie2]

We can’t bring happiness to ALL humans, does it mean we should always continue in causing harm and pain to animals simply because they were born that way or simply because we consider them as being made for us and less valuable?

I heard this argument before and it only shows illogical discrimination, in my opinion it’s no different than to base our pity on a person’s sex, race, religion, nationality etc, you may say that in the case of humans it’s different, but I believe all miseries, fear and pain are the same wathever the body is, the common is that we are ALL sensitive living beings and compassion if it’s divided is cruel, I can’t attribute or respect a person choice to attribute in abusing animals, specially if humans have an alternative non- violent way of living, we pray to a powerful God to have mercy on us, while we are as powerful unwilling to give mercy to weak creatures and their families.

Here is an embodyment of the speciest argument.

 

[Brendan]

To me God is a personal opinion too. You can if you think about it :d even if you want to use ‘God’ as reference there is millions of thoughts of what God is and what he wants, sadly God is being the ultimate excuse for many to do harm.

I understand that, but the fact remains, you cannot tell someone what is ‘ethical’ or ‘compassionate’ without having an absolute moral reference.

Without such as absolute moral reference, everything is ethical, and everything is compassionate.

There is no act, including murder and rape, that you can point to without someone else being able to claim that what they did WAS ethical, from their point of view.

That is the logical inconsistance with atheism. By defintion, there is no such thing as morality, ethics or compassion since there is no absolute moral reference.

What you did, in making the claim that the use of animals as food was unethical and harmful was to set YOURSELF up as the absolute moral reference. You, from an ethical standpoint, made yourself God.

A Theist, on the other hand, must look to an external source for moral truth, they cannot, again, by definition, set themselves up as a moral authority. They cannot make themselves the God of morals by whom all actions will be judged as the standard.

You are logically inconsistant in your claims.

 

[severus68]

I understand that, but the fact remains, you cannot tell someone what is ‘ethical’ or ‘compassionate’ without having an absolute moral reference.

Without such as absolute moral reference, everything is ethical, and everything is compassionate.

There is no act, including murder and rape, that you can point to without someone else being able to claim that what they did WAS ethical, from their point of view.

That is the logical inconsistance with atheism. By defintion, there is no such thing as morality, ethics or compassion since there is no absolute moral reference.

What you did, in making the claim that the use of animals as food was unethical and harmful was to set YOURSELF up as the absolute moral reference. You, from an ethical standpoint, made yourself God.

A Theist, on the other hand, must look to an external source for moral truth, they cannot, again, by definition, set themselves up as a moral authority. They cannot make themselves the God of morals by whom all actions will be judged as the standard.

You are logically inconsistant in your claims.

With respect, I disagree. Not all people who believe in God appear to know what is unethical and uncompassionate. Even among people of religion, there is always some diagreement. Atheists may not believe in God but they have consciences. I believe that the conscience is what makes us know what is right and wrong. For me as a Christian, my conscience is part of me, God given.