killing nonhuman animals

[JaneGrey]

So we are exactly the same. People are given a sense of taste and smell so they can distinguish if food is rotten and bad for them or poisonous or inedible.
It just so happens, (I did not do it), that edible food tastes good. I eat food that tastes good because it is good edible food. How can you argue with that. Do you want to be like the Cure d’Ars, the devil used to speak to him and call him ‘moldy potatoes’, the Cure used to boil a lot of potatoes and hang them on the wall in a string net bag. When he was hungry he’d take one to eat as he passed by. The last few potatoes were always there so long they went moldy, but he ate them anyway. Moldy potatoes still taste the same as unmoldy potatoes, that is they still taste good, they are not rotten just moldy.
We hang meat for two weeks before cooking it, that is, the meat is decomposing for two weeks before we eat it. It still tastes good.
Mac Don’s does not taste good, it tastes of oil and salt and sugar. My neighbour got a bad case of bowel cancer from eating almost only that kind of junk food. Food that tastes good just happens to be every natural food that is edible and that has not gone rotten.

Well oil, salt, and sugar tastes good to me, wrong as that may be. If I didnt know better I would keep eating McDonalds because it is cheap and tastes good. The only thing stopping us is the increased awareness of health we have nowadays.

 

[JaneGrey]

Wow what I long post! Enough to put one off being a vegan for life!!:yawn: Why not just give us poor souls just the link?

Here is just such a link from the world largest free online natural health site that touches on this theme of yours.Dr.Mercola was formally a vegetarian until he saw that his health was being ruined;but he is not hostile towards those who choose this lifestyle.

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/28/why-vegetarianism-will-not-save-the-world.aspx?e_cid=20110928_DNL_art_3

Being vegetarian is not ruinous to the health of the average person. It is not. Lets do away with this falsehood. Because if it was intrinsically harmful to one’s health, there would be plenty more sickly individuals around.

However one can be as unhealthy being a vegetarian as they would as an omnivore.

I feel like any valuable, civil discussion about this issue is difficult to have if meat eaters are going to constantly insist that vegetarians ‘judge’ them. I am sure some do. Fact is we’ve all been judged for lesser things.

 

[Tietjen]

cultured meat is currently prohibitively expensive, but it is anticipated that the cost could be reduced to about twice that of conventionally produced meat.

… and right there is where you lost me; the fact that frankenstein meat “is anticipated” to only cost twice as much as the real thing! Let’s see, using that logic we can open up all kinds of new things. Imagine a purely synthetic gas being offered at the gas stations across the country which is only TWICE the price of normal gas. Who would ever buy into this? Besides, I don’t even begin to salivate over the idea of biting into a ribeye that was grown in a Petri dish.

 

[Newbie2]

Being vegetarian is not ruinous to the health of the average person. It is not. Lets do away with this falsehood. Because if it was intrinsically harmful to one’s health, there would be plenty more sickly individuals around.

However one can be as unhealthy being a vegetarian as they would as an omnivore.

.

No doubt that being a vegetarian takes a bit of study and knowledge in order to have a nutritionally balanced diet. We’re all innundated from childhood about the “food pyramid”, which has changed over the years, but very few people have taken the time to examine what it takes to properly balance a diet based solely on non-meat and/or non-animal products.

 

[Catholic90]

… and right there is where you lost me; the fact that frankenstein meat “is anticipated” to only cost twice as much as the real thing! Let’s see, using that logic we can open up all kinds of new things. Imagine a purely synthetic gas being offered at the gas stations across the country which is only TWICE the price of normal gas. Who would ever buy into this? Besides, I don’t even begin to salivate over the idea of biting into a ribeye that was grown in a Petri dish.

I will stick to my grass-fed beef cow, thank you very much.

 

[severus68]

Wow what I long post! Enough to put one off being a vegan for life!!:yawn: Why not just give us poor souls just the link?

Here is just such a link from the world largest free online natural health site that touches on this theme of yours.Dr.Mercola was formally a vegetarian until he saw that his health was being ruined;but he is not hostile towards those who choose this lifestyle.

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/09/28/why-vegetarianism-will-not-save-the-world.aspx?e_cid=20110928_DNL_art_3

I would not consider Dr Mercola objective and someone I would listen to. Among other things, she sort of recommends a book by former vegan Lierre Keith. On Lierre Keith’s web page, she recommends health care providers to “recovering vegetarians” as if vegetarianism is a disease. This is part of her work:
“Founding Member of RadLesFes (The Radical-Feminist Lesbian Festival)”.

I do not know and not making any comments about her but she too, is not someone whose advice I would follow.,.

 

[JaneGrey]

I will stick to my grass-fed beef cow, thank you very much.

Why does it matter how the beef came about? I cant answer this myself objectively, since, because I love meat but hate that animals are killed to obtain it, would welcome lab grown meat with open arms.

 

[JaneGrey]

I will stick to my grass-fed beef cow, thank you very much.

Why does it matter how the beef came about? I cant answer this myself objectively, since, because I love meat but hate that animals are killed to obtain it, would welcome lab grown meat with open arms.

The Catechism says that we should not inflict needless pain and suffering on animals. If we set aside the cost issue for a second, surely the existence of lab grown animal protein would take away the ‘need’ for abattoirs.

 

[You]

…

The Catechism says that we should not inflict needless pain and suffering on animals. If we set aside the cost issue for a second, surely the existence of lab grown animal protein would take away the ‘need’ for abattoirs.

If we did that the animals would become extinct, they only live because farmers keep them.

 

[severus68]

Why does it matter how the beef came about? I cant answer this myself objectively, since, because I love meat but hate that animals are killed to obtain it, would welcome lab grown meat with open arms.

The Catechism says that we should not inflict needless pain and suffering on animals. If we set aside the cost issue for a second, surely the existence of lab grown animal protein would take away the ‘need’ for abattoirs.

Agreed. I am all for lab meat, the pleasure (for those who like the taste) without the pain.

 

[Newbie2]

We already have “lab meat”…SPAM.

SPAM=Scientifically Produced Animal Matter

 

[JaneGrey]

We already have “lab meat”…SPAM.

SPAM=Scientifically Produced Animal Matter

Hmm spam. If lab grown meat turns out to be like spam in taste and texture, then I cant imagine anyone saying no to that. In terms of health though, dont even get me started…

 

[JaneGrey]

If we did that the animals would become extinct, they only live because farmers keep them.

Maybe a trend would come into effect from the change and they would start to be kept by those besides farmers? Nevertheless, their becoming extinct, while unfortunate, has no bearing on the morality of inflicting needless pain and suffering on them (supposing hypothetically that we are all agreed it was needless)

 

[You]

Maybe a trend would come into effect from the change and they would start to be kept by those besides farmers? Nevertheless, their becoming extinct, while unfortunate, has no bearing on the morality of inflicting needless pain and suffering on them (supposing hypothetically that we are all agreed it was needless)

Cattle are too expensive to keep as pets. You could look at it this way. Animals eat animals. That is how the world is ordered. Every animal has its predator and not all predators are so kind and humane killers. If you decided to keep a pet cow in New York city on your balcony You could give it a fairly long life; but, because cows have no natural predators in New York city if will eventually get old and sick and you will, for humane reasons, have to kill it. In all likelyhood you will use a humane killer as the butcher or abattoir uses. Next you will have a ton of beef to dispose of; its sort of a sin to waste that much food, a cows natural predator would not waste it. But, because of your finer feelings at having to kill the cow you feel it would not be right to eat it as well.

I can try to guess that perhaps it is not any of this that is the problem for you but things like forcing the animals all during their lives into a way of life not in accord with their instincts. Keeping animals indoors in tight compartments all their lives is unnecessary and is cruel as the animals get depressed. But free-range animals are very different, totally natural, free and healthy and happy until that final brief moment.

 

[JaneGrey]

Cattle are too expensive to keep as pets. You could look at it this way. Animals eat animals. That is how the world is ordered. Every animal has its predator and not all predators are so kind and humane killers. If you decided to keep a pet cow in New York city on your balcony You could give it a fairly long life; but, because cows have no natural predators in New York city if will eventually get old and sick and you will, for humane reasons, have to kill it. In all likelyhood you will use a humane killer as the butcher or abattoir uses. Next you will have a ton of beef to dispose of; its sort of a sin to waste that much food, a cows natural predator would not waste it. But, because of your finer feelings at having to kill the cow you feel it would not be right to eat it as well.

I can try to guess that perhaps it is not any of this that is the problem for you but things like forcing the animals all during their lives into a way of life not in accord with their instincts. Keeping animals indoors in tight compartments all their lives is unnecessary and is cruel as the animals get depressed. But free-range animals are very different, totally natural, free and healthy and happy until that final brief moment.

My issue is killing the animals itself. Thats the problem you see. I would if I had to, eat the meat of any animal which was already dead (eg sickness, old age) It might sound revolting, but my point is that it is not the consumption of meat itself which does not sit right with me, it is the killing of animals for food which follows from the assumption that because they are lower order beings they are inferior and thus we can do what we like with them.
God gave us dominion over the other creatures yes, but I suppose I have a different, more benevolent idea of what this entails.

Having said that, I cant imagine that the rearing of livestock for food is going to stop completely, at least for the next few centuries. What I would like to see in the short-term is that livestock animals have the best lives they can. ‘Free range’ as you mention. However this is difficult to do in practice due mostly to the sheer volume of demand there is for meat. Which brings us right back to my issue of meat eating. Most people in developed, industrialised societies most certainly do not need all the meat they eat. They just do not.

So basically, with they way the world perceives meat and consumes livestock, there is little chance for us to let them live out their lives in a way which is both best biologically for them, and in how I see it, morally for us.

 

[severus68]

My issue is killing the animals itself. Thats the problem you see. I would if I had to, eat the meat of any animal which was already dead (eg sickness, old age) It might sound revolting, but my point is that it is not the consumption of meat itself which does not sit right with me, it is the killing of animals for food which follows from the assumption that because they are lower order beings they are inferior and thus we can do what we like with them.
God gave us dominion over the other creatures yes, but I suppose I have a different, more benevolent idea of what this entails.

Having said that, I cant imagine that the rearing of livestock for food is going to stop completely, at least for the next few centuries. What I would like to see in the short-term is that livestock animals have the best lives they can. ‘Free range’ as you mention. However this is difficult to do in practice due mostly to the sheer volume of demand there is for meat. Which brings us right back to my issue of meat eating. Most people in developed, industrialised societies most certainly do not need all the meat they eat. They just do not.

So basically, with they way the world perceives meat and consumes livestock, there is little chance for us to let them live out their lives in a way which is both best biologically for them, and in how I see it, morally for us.

So very nicely said, Jane.

 

[You]

My issue is killing the animals itself. Thats the problem you see. I would if I had to, eat the meat of any animal which was already dead (eg sickness, old age) It might sound revolting, but my point is that it is not the consumption of meat itself which does not sit right with me, it is the killing of animals for food which follows from the assumption that because they are lower order beings they are inferior and thus we can do what we like with them.
God gave us dominion over the other creatures yes, but I suppose I have a different, more benevolent idea of what this entails.

Having said that, I cant imagine that the rearing of livestock for food is going to stop completely, at least for the next few centuries. What I would like to see in the short-term is that livestock animals have the best lives they can. ‘Free range’ as you mention. However this is difficult to do in practice due mostly to the sheer volume of demand there is for meat. Which brings us right back to my issue of meat eating. Most people in developed, industrialised societies most certainly do not need all the meat they eat. They just do not.

So basically, with they way the world perceives meat and consumes livestock, there is little chance for us to let them live out their lives in a way which is both best biologically for them, and in how I see it, morally for us.

ok. Do you mind if I run with that idea in my usual way? Maybe I will start with Genesis where some people say there was no death before the fall of creation. If that were so then animals would have been perfect and would never die no matter how long they lived. But now, after the fall, animals must die. One might take a wooden literal sense from the story, and it might not be wrong, that since the fall, animals, in order to retain their created perfection - or as much of it as they can - animals have had to resort to using reproduction and death to maintain the perfection of good undamaged genes before sickness or death got hold of them. So since the fall of perfect animals in Genesis animals have adapted the strategy of defeating the imperfections of their fall by good selective breeding and by adapting predators to capture any genes that may be disadvantageous. So animal species are kept very pure and healthy despite having to contend with a fall from perfection, by adapting a very severe solution, selection and death.
Because you are European you probably know about the Scottish deer herds all over the highlands. For several centuries there have been no predators of deer in Scotland. The wolf became extinct long ago. In the interests of preserving the vegetation of the Scottish highlands and preventing starvation it became necessary to cull the deerscottishwildlifetrust.org.uk/news/deer-cull-should-continue-says-scottish-wildlife-trust/. Some talk of reintroducing wolves to the highlands floats around at times but I see that there are 350,000 red deer in the highlands and that will mean a huge number of wolves to control them. I don’t think residents would be too happy. Now, you can extend that line of thinking across Europe. In the interests of animal welfare and nature we will let all farmed cattle go free from farms into the wild, if there is any left. The hardier breeds which did survive the first winter would quickly multiply and cover Europe. Because they have no predators they will out grow the environment and begin to die slowly of starvation and sickness, like the deer, after they have damaged the vegetation of Europe. Culling and wastage would be inevitable.
As I said in the beginning, nature has established balances for animals. Those balances don’t harm the animals, they actually benefit and help the animals to live. Animals are not people, they are not rational, they don’t manage themselves. They rely on nature to manage them. If nature fails to manage them they start to suffer. Humans are part of nature. We contribute to the management of animals and in many areas we take over the role of nature altogether where people have found they cannot tolerate living with wild predators. We do rationally what nature does by necessity.

 

[Newbie2]

Before SPAM was produced in the laboratory, it was available in the wild:

s27.photobucket.com/albums/c156/The_Simp/?action=view&current=FarSide-Spamalopes.jpg&newest=1

 

[karoleck]

I would not consider Dr Mercola objective and someone I would listen to. Among other things, she sort of recommends a book by former vegan Lierre Keith. On Lierre Keith’s web page, she recommends health care providers to “recovering vegetarians” as if vegetarianism is a disease. This is part of her work:
“Founding Member of RadLesFes (The Radical-Feminist Lesbian Festival)”.

I do not know and not making any comments about her but she too, is not someone whose advice I would follow.,.

Dr,Mercola is a He–male!!(so much for your research!)
As to Lierre Keith–well even a stopped clock is right twice a day,a person can be right in giving health advise without having same sex attraqction issues.The objective judgement is ----are these natural health experts(as well as bring experienced medical doctor such as Dr.Mercola) correct in warning about the health risks on THIS TOPIC.

I do owe you an apology as regards my assursion of you admiring Singer—though I did note that you marched in his animal rights activities.I just concluded that you are tarred with the same brush–sorry–but I am sure you would understand why I claim this of you–regards & best wishes for your health and happiness.

 

[severus68]

Dr,Mercola is a He–male!!(so much for your research!)

As to Lierre Keith–well even a stopped clock is right twice a day,a person can be right in giving health advise without having same sex attraqction issues.The objective judgement is ----are these natural health experts(as well as bring experienced medical doctor such as Dr.Mercola) correct in warning about the health risks on THIS TOPIC.

I recall once saying I would march for animal rights and I would as I would for human rights. I have never and would never march with Peter Singer. I have hated Utilitarianism ever since I read about it in Dickens’ “Hard Times”. So no tar brush.
Thank you for the apology and the wishes. I wish the same for you.