The Ethics of Food Production

[yellowbird]

It drives me insane the way you keep insinuating that if the baby doesn’t feel the pain of being ripped to shreds, that somehow makes it ok?

If there is LIFE in the womb, even if it is only weeks old - ending that life is murder. Just because it’s a pain-murder doesn’t make it any less wrong. In the end, it’s still a dead baby.

Know your audience. These sorts of arguments in an attempt to further your cause will get you no where on a Catholic forum.

meant to say just because it’s a pain-free murder…

 

[Cracker_Mom]

It drives me insane the way you keep insinuating that if the baby doesn’t feel the pain of being ripped to shreds, that somehow makes it ok?

If there is LIFE in the womb, even if it is only weeks old - ending that life is murder. Just because it’s a pain-murder doesn’t make it any less wrong. In the end, it’s still a dead baby.

Know your audience. These sorts of arguments in an attempt to further your cause will get you no where on a Catholic forum.

It’s off subject but kind of telling about priorities…
I wonder what the odds are of being pro-life & pro-“animal rights”? How many members of PETA are pro-life when it comes to human life in the womb?

 

[Marfran]

It’s off subject but kind of telling about priorities…
I wonder what the odds are of being pro-life & pro-“animal rights”? How many members of PETA are pro-life when it comes to human life in the womb?

Cracker Mom: I would think that all or most pro-animals rights people would also be pro-life, and if they are Catholic they would definitely be so. (This is a Catholic forum, is it not?)

I would think that people who feel that animals are ours to be used and abused (and consider them to be things) are more likely to also disrespect human life. Children who grow up torturing animals, the family pet, etc., are at serious risk for turning their aggressions to humans once they establish this pattern. Those of us who disrespect God’s other beings, I would think, would be more inclined to view abortion as permissible–and not the other way around, as you suggest.

I admit, I have not read everything that Sair has written. I am replying only to your comment that people who are concerned about issues other than, or *in addition *to abortion, or have concerns about other ethical situations, some how have their priiorities mixed up.

I think that there are many problems, and things to be concerned about in this world. I don’t know if it is in the best interest of the planet to only have *one *priority at a time.

When each of your children have a problem–you do not focus on only one child and their need or problem and neglect the others.

Your feelings on abortion are strong–and justfully so. I also recognize your frustration and feelings of powerlessness to change and correct the situation.

Abortion is another thread–maybe a bigger thread–maybe a blue thread–maybe a red thread…

I should go back and read what Sair has written. I think there is merit in his discussion. It would be great to stay on topic. And I think that we should all be open to uncover new truths, and find new ways to make the world a better place in this increasingly complicated time.

I extend my hand to you in friendship, Cracker Mom–I admire your passion!

 

[Marfran]

ADDITION: OK, I have read some of what Sair has written. I see the problem. Sair, you need to keep the topic of abortion out of this discussion. There is great merit in your discussion of the ethics of FOOD PROUCTION. Great merit indeed! But stay on topic and do not mingle with thoughts on abortion. You do your discussion a disservice by co-mingling the topics. Even if a respondent tries to tie the two together you must break the tie, or let it drop. By co-mingling the topics we can do neither topic any good. I respect ALL of life, ALL of God’s creation. And I have been misunderstood by my statements. People who feel so strongly about abortion to the point that it hurts, take offense to people having concerns for other life, for God’s other creations. I completely understand this and respect this. Everyone, take a deep breath, and do not be closed off by your own concerns and topic. Let us all open our eyes widely–you may be surprised at what falls into your path of vision!

 

[bbarrick8383]

It’s off subject but kind of telling about priorities…
I wonder what the odds are of being pro-life & pro-“animal rights”? How many members of PETA are pro-life when it comes to human life in the womb?

Hardcore PETA people think that humans are overpopulating the planet anyway. They generally support abortion as a means to control overpopulation. Kind of like deer season here in Oklahoma.

 

[mapleoak]

It’s off subject but kind of telling about priorities…
I wonder what the odds are of being pro-life & pro-“animal rights”? How many members of PETA are pro-life when it comes to human life in the womb?

PETA and Pro-Life are contradictory terms.
Their philosophy is “animal rights and to heck with people”.
One needs only peruse their website for a sampling of their agenda.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

PETA and Pro-Life are contradictory terms.
Their philosophy is “animal rights and to heck with people”.
One needs only peruse their website for a sampling of their agenda.

That’s what I’ve surmised from the info. I’ve seen.

 

[Marfran]

Hardcore PETA people think that humans are overpopulating the planet anyway. They generally support abortion as a means to control overpopulation. Kind of like deer season here in Oklahoma.

From some of the posts I am perceiving issues with the PETA organization. I have to admit that I am not up to date on this organization and was not aware that they had a position on human abortion. I think that there is merit to the discussion on ethics in FOOD PRODUCTION and how we treat animals that we use for food. Since PETA is so controversial, and since Sair is pro-PETA–maybe someone else could start a discussion on the topic sans PETA, sans Sair. No offence, Sair. I mistakenly asked people to view a video on a different thread, concerning the issue of the treatment of animals in FOOD PRODUCTION–that I believe did have ties to PETA. There is a lot of other information out there on the same subject–not tied to PETA.

bbarrick: Maybe you could start a fresh discussion? You have a lot of personal, relevant experience on the topic!

 

[Marfran]

Lying is never justified. When one has to resort to tricks and ruses to make a point, there is no point worth making.

I agree with pnewton!

 

[Sair]

No most of them care when asked, they just do not lose sleep over it. Their lives are spent making their environment better. Me for instance, I have my cows, my oil wells and another oil field business. My job is to maximize the oil production for other companies. I do the best I can and I try to keep the environment in mind while doing so. But, I am not an extremist. I know there is no such thing as global warming and Al Gore is full of it. Fargo is expected to get another foot of snow I think.

As to global warming happening, I’ve seen evidence that suggests it could go either way. Frankly, though, I think it makes sense to find ways to live in balance with the natural world if we possibly can, and that includes sustainable and humane farming.

I’m sure you wouldnt, it can be quite an experience to drive up to a new momma and see her new baby laying on the ground. And it can be quite and experience to have to pull a dead baby from her. I dont enjoy it, but I do it to feed my family.

If it’s a choice between removing the dead calf or just letting the mother die slowly, I know which option I’d prefer. Guess I won’t know for certain either way until I’ve had the chance to do it.

It’s not animal welfare be damned when it comes to dollars and cents. It’s feeding people that know they must eat meat to be healthy.

The only person I know who must eat meat to be healthy is a friend who has had most of his gut removed due to Crohn’s disease. He is physiologically a carnivore. For most people, meat-eating represents a preference rather than a necessity. We certainly don’t need to eat it in the quantities consumed in most Western nations.

How much is a damn chicken worth in dollars and cents?

A lot less than it should be.

The more regulations you force upon a business the more expensive the product becomes. Its animal welfare be damned to make sure that those who can not afford nor have the means to buy organic meat. I’ve been in organic stores, I know they are considerably more expensive.

Again, if meat is treated as the supplementary food it should be, the fact that organic and free-range meat is more expensive shouldn’t make much difference to the overall food budget. It’s a matter of caring enough to make some relatively minor changes to one’s lifestyle. Vegetarian and low-meat diets have proven health benefits, in particular lower instances of heart disease and several cancers (abdominal ones especially)

It sounds like you have never had to fight for, hunt for, clean and take care of your own food.

True. Have had success in growing my own food, though, which is what I suspect I’d be largely reliant upon if through some unforeseen catastrophe, we went back to being an old-fashioned agrarian society. Meat really would be a luxury under those conditions.

Moreover, I don’t see what difference this makes as to whether or not it’s my business to care about the welfare of farmed animals. Many of the poorest people in the world still raise their own animals in more humane conditions than those that exist on factory farms. And for the record, during the times when I’ve had to be really tight with my food budget, I stuck to a primarily vegetarian diet. Even cheap meat is more expensive than veg. Curiously enough, I didn’t once get sick during that time.

And people would care less that we shot a deer and it ran for half a mile with a bullet or arrow in it before it laid over dead. Ever cleaned a deer? Trust me its not pretty.

At least the deer under such circumstances would have been able to lead a natural life before being killed.

And, nope, I have never cleaned a deer. Closest I’ve come would probably be dissecting a rabbit in high-school science class, and cleaning the odd fresh fish. Have at least eaten meat from a whole pig carcass, and seen it hacked up for storage afterward (and, actually, the people who had spit-roasted it had managed to only partially cook it, but that’s another story). The point is, cutting up an animal that’s already dead and beyond suffering doesn’t particularly phase me. But if we’re going to rely on animals to help sustain us with their meat, the least we can do is afford them some basic respect while they’re alive.

If every one person including yourself, thought about human welfare for once instead of animal welfare, we wouldnt have something so inhumane as abortion.

Actually, I do think about human welfare. Mostly that of humans who are already born. They are the ones who suffer.

The dollars and cents of it do not add up to as much as you think they do. You fall in line with the same people who hate companies like exxon for making billions but forget the billions they pay in taxes and products they bring to the table to make life better. Did you turn out your lights last night for the earth day ordeal? Guess what, New York wasted as much power turning everything back on as they saved in that one hour.

Truthfully, I didn’t pay much attention to earth hour (We were out at the time, so all the lights for which we have personal responsibility were off anyway) - I think it’s kind of an empty gesture. Something to make people think they’re doing something when they’re not really. I prefer to focus on making my home energy-efficient and water-efficient in the long term.

 

[mapleoak]

But if we’re going to rely on animals to help sustain us with their meat, the least we can do is afford them some basic respect while they’re alive.

Requote from post #22:

Did you know a dairy cow or goat is not a profitable animal if abused and neglected? As a long time dairy farmer I can assure of the fact that the slightest discomfort or stress experienced by the animal results in a marked drop in milk production. Same with meat animals.

Farmer’s who are interested in making a living and staying viable take great strides in assuring the comfort and well-being of their animals. It is just good business sense. Sickly animals or stressed animals do not produce, contrary to what biased sources and organizations such as PETA would have you believe.

 

[bbarrick8383]

The only person I know who must eat meat to be healthy is a friend who has had most of his gut removed due to Crohn’s disease. He is physiologically a carnivore. For most people, meat-eating represents a preference rather than a necessity. We certainly don’t need to eat it in the quantities consumed in most Western nations.

I’ve got teeth and a hunger that tell me I should eat meat. Turkey and chicken are good for you, as well as most fish. Not eating them is not going to improve the methods a few companies use to raise them. And I wouldnt waste part of my life boycotting something I enjoy when it’s useless to do so.

Again, if meat is treated as the supplementary food it should be, the fact that organic and free-range meat is more expensive shouldn’t make much difference to the overall food budget. It’s a matter of caring enough to make some relatively minor changes to one’s lifestyle. Vegetarian and low-meat diets have proven health benefits, in particular lower instances of heart disease and several cancers (abdominal ones especially)

I dont see it as supplementary, I see it as the main dish with a side of veggies and potatoes. The way it should be. Lifestyle isnt a choice for everyone. I’m a believer that the biggest contributors to heart health is eating with common sense, no twinkies, and genetics.

Meat really would be a luxury under those conditions.

Not for everyone. It would not change for most people in the mid-west u.s.

Moreover, I don’t see what difference this makes as to whether or not it’s my business to care about the welfare of farmed animals. Many of the poorest people in the world still raise their own animals in more humane conditions than those that exist on factory farms. And for the record, during the times when I’ve had to be really tight with my food budget, I stuck to a primarily vegetarian diet. Even cheap meat is more expensive than veg. Curiously enough, I didn’t once get sick during that time.

I’m not trying to say that you should not care, or that I do not care. All I am trying to point out is that the only way something could be done for whatever animal(s) you feel are being treated inhumane is to learn all you can about them. Include speaking with people who own/work in those place, getting a full detail account of both sides. And trying to find a way that would ease your conscious and fit in their budget. It has to remain profitale for them to feed millions. They have to be able to pay their employees. They have to feed the animals. And they have to provide for themselves and their families as well. You may not like the way we get oil here in Oklahoma, but it’s how we make a living and it’s how we power almost everything in the world. Food is no different.

At least the deer under such circumstances would have been able to lead a natural life before being killed.

Is it still not inhumane to you, they are both suffering. Yet this is the way some people put meat on the table.

And, nope, I have never cleaned a deer. Closest I’ve come would probably be dissecting a rabbit in high-school science class, and cleaning the odd fresh fish. Have at least eaten meat from a whole pig carcass, and seen it hacked up for storage afterward (and, actually, the people who had spit-roasted it had managed to only partially cook it, but that’s another story). The point is, cutting up an animal that’s already dead and beyond suffering doesn’t particularly phase me. But if we’re going to rely on animals to help sustain us with their meat, the least we can do is afford them some basic respect while they’re alive.

The thing about skinning a dear though, you do it as soon as you kill it. I have not been in a long time. But the last time we went, my cousin shot a nice buck. He hung it from a tree and soon as we found it and skinned it right there. Had a cop pulled us over on the way home they would have thought he brutally killed someone.

Actually, I do think about human welfare. Mostly that of humans who are already born. They are the ones who suffer.

Life is not about suffering. You should be able to live with nothing at all and be happy. Those who suffered an abortion and never got to experience life like the person who aborted them are the true victims. Yet that person will spend a good portion of their life thinking they are the victims.

Dont get me wrong I know people suffer losses of loved ones and other issues. But for the most part a lot of people are suffering because of their choices.

 

[4elise]

Pro life and animal rights are not mutually exclusive; it is so frustrating to me when discussions go in this direction.

Could there be a discussion about food choice that doesn’t wind up going down this road?

I believe there are farmers who raise animals for their families who do so in a way that is kind to animals / good to the environment, etc…

I believe in our society where the majority of us purchase our meat at a grocery store, regardless if it is organic, free range, issues of unfair treatment of animals, environmental damage, excessive use of resources per person, ---- choosing not do to do so, electing for a vegetarian / vegan diet is in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching.

I wonder if some people get very defensive because they also believe this in some way — but are unwilling or believe they are unable to make this change -

Pope Benedict - before he was Pope condemned the “industrial use of creatures, so that geese are fed in such a way as to produce as large a liver as possible, or hens live so packed together that they become just caricatures of birds.” This “degrading of living creatures to a commodity” seemed to him “to contradict the relationship of mutuality that comes across in the Bible.”

mndaily.com/2009/02/22/factory-farming-moral-issue

 

[Sair]

From some of the posts I am perceiving issues with the PETA organization. I have to admit that I am not up to date on this organization and was not aware that they had a position on human abortion. I think that there is merit to the discussion on ethics in FOOD PRODUCTION and how we treat animals that we use for food. Since PETA is so controversial, and since Sair is pro-PETA–maybe someone else could start a discussion on the topic sans PETA, sans Sair. No offence, Sair. I mistakenly asked people to view a video on a different thread, concerning the issue of the treatment of animals in FOOD PRODUCTION–that I believe did have ties to PETA. There is a lot of other information out there on the same subject–not tied to PETA.

Um…if anyone has actually read my posts carefully, I have not at any stage made reference to PETA. My support for them has been assumed - falsely, I might add, for I am not an active supporter of any of their projects or policies, and have sourced my information from a variety of sites and articles. The problem obviously is that some people think anyone who supports animal welfare must automatically be a radical urban terrorist. Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Sair]

I’ve got teeth and a hunger that tell me I should eat meat. Turkey and chicken are good for you, as well as most fish. Not eating them is not going to improve the methods a few companies use to raise them. And I wouldnt waste part of my life boycotting something I enjoy when it’s useless to do so.

You sound a lot like the people who say it’s useless to recycle, cut down water use, cut down energy use, 'cause it’s not going to change anything. As with anything, the point is that if lots of people do it, change will be effected.

Just because someone is habituated to eating meat, doesn’t make it a necessity.

I’m not trying to say that you should not care, or that I do not care. All I am trying to point out is that the only way something could be done for whatever animal(s) you feel are being treated inhumane is to learn all you can about them.

In the process of doing this.

Include speaking with people who own/work in those place, getting a full detail account of both sides. And trying to find a way that would ease your conscious and fit in their budget. It has to remain profitale for them to feed millions. They have to be able to pay their employees. They have to feed the animals. And they have to provide for themselves and their families as well. You may not like the way we get oil here in Oklahoma, but it’s how we make a living and it’s how we power almost everything in the world. Food is no different.

There are so many issues involved here, it would take me far more than my allotted 7,000 words per post to say something about all of them. Essentially what you are saying is that industrial animal farming (and mining fossil fuels, which will eventually run out) are necessary to maintaining the lifestyles enjoyed by many people in the West. I don’t dispute that. What I do dispute is the impossibility of change. Would you also argue that the global economic status quo must be maintained, even though it necessitates millions of people living in poverty and being subject to exploitation? Again, that is a subject for another thread, but it highlights the problem inherent in an argument based on the “that’s just the way it is” principle.

Life is not about suffering. You should be able to live with nothing at all and be happy. Those who suffered an abortion and never got to experience life like the person who aborted them are the true victims. Yet that person will spend a good portion of their life thinking they are the victims.

Dont get me wrong I know people suffer losses of loved ones and other issues. But for the most part a lot of people are suffering because of their choices.

Happiness is a state of mind, certainly, and it is possible to achieve it with very little, perhaps even no material goods beyond the clothes on your back and the food that sustains you. This is how a lot of Buddhist monks live, and it is also the ethos of many Christian religious orders - though in the latter case, this is often accompanied by efforts to alleviate the suffering of others. Life itself is not about suffering, but quality of life is. Some people are empowered by overcoming suffering; some people are brutalised by suffering. But regardless of how people choose to respond, or are able to respond to it, it is never right to inflict suffering unnecessarily, and it is always right to seek better alternatives to an action that causes suffering.

Getting back to the “that’s the way it is” principle, assuming that people have rights to own property, assuming that people have the right to accumulate material wealth and possessions - this is what maintains economic growth, which many in the West hold up as an unassailable ideal. What room is there for simple happiness in such an environment? And when is one person’s right to material wealth more important than another person’s right to eat?

The point is, we as humans are responsible for the consequences of our actions. This holds true because we have the power to choose what we do, and we have a corresponding responsibility to think about how we are affecting others and the world around us, now and in the future. I know that changes I make to my lifestyle are not much in the grand scheme of things, but neither are they nothing.

 

[Sair]

ADDITION: OK, I have read some of what Sair has written. I see the problem. Sair, you need to keep the topic of abortion out of this discussion. There is great merit in your discussion of the ethics of FOOD PROUCTION. Great merit indeed! But stay on topic and do not mingle with thoughts on abortion. You do your discussion a disservice by co-mingling the topics. Even if a respondent tries to tie the two together you must break the tie, or let it drop. By co-mingling the topics we can do neither topic any good. I respect ALL of life, ALL of God’s creation. And I have been misunderstood by my statements. People who feel so strongly about abortion to the point that it hurts, take offense to people having concerns for other life, for God’s other creations. I completely understand this and respect this. Everyone, take a deep breath, and do not be closed off by your own concerns and topic. Let us all open our eyes widely–you may be surprised at what falls into your path of vision!

My intention here has not been to argue the case for abortion, nor to confuse the issue at hand, but merely to highlight what I see as the fundamental irrationality of thinking that is perfectly comfortable with denying basic rights to a fully functioning and sentient nonhuman animal, while at the same time crying up the same basic rights for a nonsentient collection of human cells - just because they are human.

Ethically, this is a completely arbitrary distinction. Many nonhuman animals have a far greater sentience and capacity for suffering than do humans in certain states (embryonic, vegetative, for example) and yet they are, by many people, excluded from consideration on the basis of species - not in the name of basic human need, but of human convenience.

Such thinking represents nothing other than the last vestiges of the mindset which allowed, on the basis of ascribed categorical differences, justification for slavery and for the denial of women’s civil rights.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

My intention here has not been to argue the case for abortion, nor to confuse the issue at hand, but merely to highlight what I see as the fundamental irrationality of thinking that is perfectly comfortable with denying basic rights to a fully functioning and sentient nonhuman animal, while at the same time crying up the same basic rights for a nonsentient collection of human cells - just because they are human.

Ethically, this is a completely arbitrary distinction. Many nonhuman animals have a far greater sentience and capacity for suffering than do humans in certain states (embryonic, vegetative, for example) and yet they are, by many people, excluded from consideration on the basis of species - not in the name of basic human need, but of human convenience.

Such thinking represents nothing other than the last vestiges of the mindset which allowed, on the basis of ascribed categorical differences, justification for slavery and for the denial of women’s civil rights.

Nope.The importance of being human & created in the image & likeness of God is at the crux of the issue.We come first.We have dominion over the Earth.Period.The unborn child & the patient on life support always deserve human rights.Their quality of life as opposed to a lamb or chicken should never be at issue.
We also respect God’s creation & use His resources wisely but do not worship creation only the Creator.
Food production in the large scale has worked well overall but in the long run the farmer may profit more from local specialized markets.It’s more a question of economics than ethics.
My guess again, is that animal rights advocates are not human rights advocates in the same sense.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You sound a lot like the people who say it’s useless to recycle, cut down water use, cut down energy use, 'cause it’s not going to change anything. As with anything, the point is that if lots of people do it, change will be effected.

Just because someone is habituated to eating meat, doesn’t make it a necessity.

It is pointless to recycle plastic. The amount of energy consumed to recycle plastic makes it a waste of time. Cutting back on energy, well I try to in order to cust the cost on my bill. Other than that, we have renewable energy sources and a lot of people(including our President) need to understand that you can not convert a country to cleaner energy overnight. Heck it took Denmark like 20 years and 100 percent tax on vehicles to do it. And look how tiny they are.

There are so many issues involved here, it would take me far more than my allotted 7,000 words per post to say something about all of them. Essentially what you are saying is that industrial animal farming (and mining fossil fuels, which will eventually run out) are necessary to maintaining the lifestyles enjoyed by many people in the West. I don’t dispute that. What I do dispute is the impossibility of change. Would you also argue that the global economic status quo must be maintained, even though it necessitates millions of people living in poverty and being subject to exploitation? Again, that is a subject for another thread, but it highlights the problem inherent in an argument based on the “that’s just the way it is” principle.

I’m not saying it’s impossible to change anything. I’m saying the method about which you are trying to change animal treatment is probably pointless, unless, you can provide and alternative solution, other than free range. I cant argue for poverty in other countries, it would seem that they would have figured out that whatever they are doing is obviously wrong by now. But, here in the US, and I’m going to speak in generalities here because I know there are true poor people. Poor people here have cell phones, you can not change those who truly do not want to be poor anymore. We have a saying here, broke is a temporary mindset. Some people who live in the poor areas are working their way out. And they have motivation. Those pooer people in those areas dont care. And that IS just the way it is here.

Happiness is a state of mind, certainly, and it is possible to achieve it with very little, perhaps even no material goods beyond the clothes on your back and the food that sustains you. This is how a lot of Buddhist monks live, and it is also the ethos of many Christian religious orders - though in the latter case, this is often accompanied by efforts to alleviate the suffering of others. Life itself is not about suffering, but quality of life is. Some people are empowered by overcoming suffering; some people are brutalised by suffering. But regardless of how people choose to respond, or are able to respond to it, it is never right to inflict suffering unnecessarily, and it is always right to seek better alternatives to an action that causes suffering.

Here in America, you have the ability not to suffer. Some people choose not to exercise that ability.

Getting back to the “that’s the way it is” principle, assuming that people have rights to own property, assuming that people have the right to accumulate material wealth and possessions - this is what maintains economic growth, which many in the West hold up as an unassailable ideal. What room is there for simple happiness in such an environment? And when is one person’s right to material wealth more important than another person’s right to eat?

What room is there for simple happiness in such an environment? I think I’m understanding you correctly, but there is all the room in the world for those who want it. And where in this country do the wealthy prevent the poor from eating? A stray dog can eat very well in this country if he wants.

 

[Sair]

I’m not saying it’s impossible to change anything. I’m saying the method about which you are trying to change animal treatment is probably pointless, unless, you can provide and alternative solution, other than free range. I cant argue for poverty in other countries, it would seem that they would have figured out that whatever they are doing is obviously wrong by now.

I’m not sure why you think free range and organic farming is such an unrealistic option. Of course it’s unrealistic when people are unprepared to change the way they think about where their food comes from, but I’m certainly not alone in seeking better alternatives to factory farming and feedlots. I don’t know what it’s like in America, but here in Australia, just as an example, free range eggs have been available for years, and organic eggs are increasingly available. The availability of alternatives to battery-cage eggs has brought down the price considerably. Given time and increased awareness, progress towards humane farming methods can be made. But it requires willingness to make changes.

As with just about everything in life, knowledge is the key. People can’t change anything if they don’t know what alternatives are available. This is a large part of the problem for people who live in entrenched poverty. Often they actually don’t know how to help themselves, because poverty is all they’ve ever known. This is especially true of the world’s poorest people, whose entire communities are mired in poverty - for many, it is the only life they’ve ever known.

What room is there for simple happiness in such an environment? I think I’m understanding you correctly, but there is all the room in the world for those who want it.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase that very well. There’s plenty of room for simple happiness when one chooses to seek it. The world economy, however, would crumble if everyone sought simple happiness instead of the accumulation of material wealth. A market-driven society does not encourage simple happiness.

Nope.The importance of being human & created in the image & likeness of God is at the crux of the issue.We come first.We have dominion over the Earth.Period.The unborn child & the patient on life support always deserve human rights.Their quality of life as opposed to a lamb or chicken should never be at issue.
We also respect God’s creation & use His resources wisely but do not worship creation only the Creator.

Trouble is, many people use exactly this attitude as an excuse not to respect creation. They worship convenience and profit at the expense of not just other animals, but other humans as well. As pointed out earlier, this mindset differs only in degree, not kind, from the attitude adopted by 18th-century plantation owners towards their slaves.

Food production in the large scale has worked well overall but in the long run the farmer may profit more from local specialized markets.It’s more a question of economics than ethics.

Which is why public awareness of inhumane treatment of intensively-farmed animals is vital to effecting change. Only when intensive farming no longer makes for a viable business will it cease to occur. Any business has to be profitable enough at least for its owners and employees to be able to make a living. No-one expects people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of running unviable business ventures. But viable does not have to mean exploitative. Here in Western Australia, there are local producers of organic meats whose products are so desired that they must be sold in advance, and then picked up from their markets or farm stores. But this is a completely different business ethic to which people are only just getting accustomed. These producers are not going to expand their businesses to meet demand, because doing so would compromise the quality and the ethical stance of their products - the very qualities that create the demand.

My guess again, is that animal rights advocates are not human rights advocates in the same sense.

I think if you actually looked into the issue, you’d probably be surprised. Like any cause, animal rights has its share of crackpots, but what one generally finds is that people who care about animal rights do so as part of a holistic approach to ethics. Some feel that it is beneath the dignity of humans - who have a choice in how we act, and a subsequent responsibility for the consequences of our actions - to abuse and exploit animals for our convenience. Some feel that a consistent approach to social justice demands consideration of nonhuman animal rights as well as those of humans. If you investigate moderate animal-rights advocacies like the RSPCA (here in Australia), the Humane Society or the Compassion in World Farming organisation, you will find that not a single one of them requires that animal rights be pursued to the exclusion of human rights - only that the real needs and welfare requirements of nonhuman animals be taken into consideration and met, not ignored.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

I’m not sure why you think free range and organic farming is such an unrealistic option. Of course it’s unrealistic when people are unprepared to change the way they think about where their food comes from, but I’m certainly not alone in seeking better alternatives to factory farming and feedlots. I don’t know what it’s like in America, but here in Australia, just as an example, free range eggs have been available for years, and organic eggs are increasingly available. The availability of alternatives to battery-cage eggs has brought down the price considerably. Given time and increased awareness, progress towards humane farming methods can be made. But it requires willingness to make changes.

As with just about everything in life, knowledge is the key. People can’t change anything if they don’t know what alternatives are available. This is a large part of the problem for people who live in entrenched poverty. Often they actually don’t know how to help themselves, because poverty is all they’ve ever known. This is especially true of the world’s poorest people, whose entire communities are mired in poverty - for many, it is the only life they’ve ever known.

Perhaps I didn’t phrase that very well. There’s plenty of room for simple happiness when one chooses to seek it. The world economy, however, would crumble if everyone sought simple happiness instead of the accumulation of material wealth. A market-driven society does not encourage simple happiness.

Trouble is, many people use exactly this attitude as an excuse not to respect creation. They worship convenience and profit at the expense of not just other animals, but other humans as well. As pointed out earlier, this mindset differs only in degree, not kind, from the attitude adopted by 18th-century plantation owners towards their slaves.

Which is why public awareness of inhumane treatment of intensively-farmed animals is vital to effecting change. Only when intensive farming no longer makes for a viable business will it cease to occur. Any business has to be profitable enough at least for its owners and employees to be able to make a living. No-one expects people to sacrifice themselves for the sake of running unviable business ventures. But viable does not have to mean exploitative. Here in Western Australia, there are local producers of organic meats whose products are so desired that they must be sold in advance, and then picked up from their markets or farm stores. But this is a completely different business ethic to which people are only just getting accustomed. These producers are not going to expand their businesses to meet demand, because doing so would compromise the quality and the ethical stance of their products - the very qualities that create the demand.

I think if you actually looked into the issue, you’d probably be surprised. Like any cause, animal rights has its share of crackpots, but what one generally finds is that people who care about animal rights do so as part of a holistic approach to ethics. Some feel that it is beneath the dignity of humans - who have a choice in how we act, and a subsequent responsibility for the consequences of our actions - to abuse and exploit animals for our convenience. Some feel that a consistent approach to social justice demands consideration of nonhuman animal rights as well as those of humans. If you investigate moderate animal-rights advocacies like the RSPCA (here in Australia), the Humane Society or the Compassion in World Farming organisation, you will find that not a single one of them requires that animal rights be pursued to the exclusion of human rights - only that the real needs and welfare requirements of nonhuman animals be taken into consideration and met, not ignored.

I don’t believe the Humane Society is moderate at all & do not agree with their policies.
Intensive farming works well in some situations but not in others.Economics is always an important consideration.Unless you raise stock as a hobby.Feeding people is what is most important.
And the content of posts I read in this & similar threads only confirms my guess that animal rights advocates place the rights of unborn children & the severely disabled below the "rights’ of animals.