The significance of non-human life

DrStraw · **#41**

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Couldn't agree more. I can think of far more humans who life is worth way less than a moose than I can think of those whose life is worth more.

shapenaji · **#42**

At home I rarely eat meat, it's just not necessary, and my gal is a vegetarian (very occasionally, lapsed vegetarian. Bacon addiction ruins lives).

That being said, my concern with cutting out meat entirely is ecological. Though I believe it is heavily over-consumed, I think meat can be part of a sustainable structure. The consequences of releasing our entire cattle population into the wild would be catastrophic. Neither they, nor their environment are prepared for the wild (Owing to our breeding approaches). Their population now relies on our existence.

I have every concern for an animal's life and well-being. But everything dies and I don't think there's anything wrong with making use of those resources.

This is not the way we currently consume meat. But if we want to avoid having to wipe out entire populations under our purview, then I think we need to find a way to justify the exchange of resources.

Bonobo · **#43**

DrStraw wrote:

hyperpape wrote:

DrStraw wrote:

Another option would be to hunt humans, thus reducing the population and avoiding a lot of lethal road accidents. Obviously that would be a ridiculous argument but it is equally logical.

Equally logical if one thinks that human life is of equal worth to moose life, which is a big assumption.

Couldn't agree more. I can think of far more humans who life is worth way less than a moose than I can think of those whose life is worth more.

Sounds a bit like the same old dogma just with changed algebraic sign (±) … (been there, done that)

While I can understand—better: empathize—a lot with what I believe to be the underlying notion of this statement, I’d rather NOT just turn the old “human is the crown of creation” motto upside down … meanwhile I prefer something like “well, if many of my assumptions have been wrong, perhaps it’s better not to jump to new assumptions (judgements of worth) and just OBSERVE.«

Like, when finding out that I’m doing something wrong, it’s often a good idea not hastily to do something else, but first come to a halt and do a reality check.

Just a few thoughts.

Greetings, Tom

DrStraw · **#44**

shapenaji wrote:

At home I rarely eat meat, it's just not necessary, and my gal is a vegetarian (very occasionally, lapsed vegetarian. Bacon addiction ruins lives).

That being said, my concern with cutting out meat entirely is ecological. Though I believe it is heavily over-consumed, I think meat can be part of a sustainable structure. The consequences of releasing our entire cattle population into the wild would be catastrophic. Neither they, nor their environment are prepared for the wild (Owing to our breeding approaches). Their population now relies on our existence.

I have every concern for an animal's life and well-being. But everything dies and I don't think there's anything wrong with making use of those resources.

This is not the way we currently consume meat. But if we want to avoid having to wipe out entire populations under our purview, then I think we need to find a way to justify the exchange of resources.

I assume this is meant as a joke. If we all suddenly decide to stop eating meat then the suppliers would stop producing the animals and in one generation they would all be gone. It would take that long for everyone to make the switch.

shapenaji · **#45**

DrStraw wrote:

I assume this is meant as a joke. If we all suddenly decide to stop eating meat then the suppliers would stop producing the animals and in one generation they would all be gone. It would take that long for everyone to make the switch.

In order to maintain animal quality of life, you're in favor of wiping their species off the planet?

DrStraw · **#46**

Bonobo wrote:

Like, when finding out that I’m doing something wrong, it’s often a good idea not hastily to do something else, but first come to a halt and do a reality check.

Becoming a vegetarian was not something which happened overnight. There was a long period during whihc my wife and I found ourselves eating less and less meat. And when we did we were becoming more and more selective. This was partly for ethical reasons, partly environmental, and partly health related. Finally, after not having eaten it at home for quite some time, and having reduced the consumption outside of the house considerably, we just decide that it was time to stop completely. So yes, in a strict sense it did happen overnight, but the path to getting there was a long one. The same is true of my attempts to be vegan. These have failed primarily because my wife does not wish to do it.

I chose a to try veganism because I did, and still do, feel much better on the diet, but along the way I also realized that a vegan lifestyle beyond food also made me feel better. Someone in this thread said that leather products and other animal products are a byproduct of meat production but that is not true. Much of the leather which comes out of China has been shown to be the primary agent and that the meat is the by product.

DrStraw · **#47**

shapenaji wrote:

DrStraw wrote:

I assume this is meant as a joke. If we all suddenly decide to stop eating meat then the suppliers would stop producing the animals and in one generation they would all be gone. It would take that long for everyone to make the switch.

In order to maintain animal quality of life, you're in favor of wiping their species off the planet?

Why not? Cattle maintained for slaughter is not a naturally occurring species. Humans created it as a sort of Frankenspecies in order to serve their needs. Other natural species would continue to exist.

shapenaji · **#48**

DrStraw wrote:

Why not? Cattle maintained for slaughter is not a naturally occurring species. Humans created it as a sort of Frankenspecies in order to serve their needs. Other natural species would continue to exist.

Well, for one, the forced sterilization, or separation of herds required for suppliers to "stop producing", would probably raise eyebrows in the animal rights community. What kind of quality of life are we maintaining if the animals can't form familial units?

DrStraw · **#49**

Most cattle breeding takes place through artificial insemination. Our neighbor maintains several hundered acres of cattle and his profession is to go around from farm to farm performing that task for others. I have not seen any natural reproduction taking place in his fields.

shapenaji · **#50**

Perhaps cattle is a bad example then, I am not a farmer, I wasn't aware that the frankenherd couldn't actually reproduce on its own.

Is this true for pigs and chickens as well?

Longstride · **#51**

shapenaji wrote:

What kind of quality of life are we maintaining if the animals can't form familial units?

Do you know what quality of life animals who are raised for slaughter currently have?

DrStraw · **#52**

shapenaji wrote:

Perhaps cattle is a bad example then, I am not a farmer, I wasn't aware that the frankenherd couldn't actually reproduce on its own.

Is this true for pigs and chickens as well?

I don't know the answer to that. But I suspect it is the same because most of them are confined in cages for their entire life which are so small that they cannot even turn around. It is not that cattle cannot reproduce on their own. I am sure many do. But it is not the norm.

Bonobo · **#53**

I cannot watch this to the end without being driven to tears.
And I won’t ask who does NOT feel the same b/c I’d rather not know.

Greetings, Tom 8-(o)

skydyr · **#54**

shapenaji wrote:

Perhaps cattle is a bad example then, I am not a farmer, I wasn't aware that the frankenherd couldn't actually reproduce on its own.

Is this true for pigs and chickens as well?

While the old practice was to keep a bull or other relevant male animal around to do the studding, it's a lot easier to pick a stud for particular characteristics and inseminate artificially, in addition to not having to keep a bull around. I'm pretty sure this is true for just about any land animal in an industrial farm. Smaller scale farms are often different, of course, but they may just order live eggs to hatch or semen to inseminate because they don't have the space to keep an extra animal, if they don't have a neighbor who studs out a male for a reasonable fee. From what I gather, even purebred dogs are matched and breeded in this fashion on occasion.

Mike Novack · **#55**

EdLee wrote:

Mike Novack wrote:

such underlying beliefs, just saying that we should recognize the deep down bases from which we are coming.

( my emphasis. )

I for one don't belong to the above "we".
I don't accept some of the so-called postulates or axioms mentioned so far in this thread.

If the above "we" is replaced with "some people," it would be an accurate statement.

Ed, are you saying you are taking part in this discussion without any postulates left unstated? I thought I was clear enough that the two I gave were examples, not an exhaustive list of the possibilities.

What I am saying is that the very different conclusions we can come to in a discussion like this is that we aren't in agreement on where we are starting from.

Mike Novack · **#56**

hyperpape wrote:

...... we are not saying that they are bad in the same way. Most of us would say Hitler was evil, or immoral, or unjust. Each word might reflect different assumptions, but we would not apply any of them to the smell.

In the same way, a vegetarian might think that when a non-human animal eats another animal, the pain is bad. But they need not think it is immoral.

Agreed (on the "bad" question)

And I agree, the vegetarian might think exactly the way you indicated. From which I infer an unstated postulate was used along the lines ...

We (humans) are in some fundamental way way different from non-human animals.

or perhaps

We (humans) should aspire to be something better/higher than an animal.

Please! For the moment I am not arguing against either of those possibilities nor that it mightn't be something else (but along those lines). I am just saying that something of the sort had to have been used because saying "not immoral for a (non-human) animal but immoral for a (human) animal" makes no sense unless some essential difference exists between human and non-human <<but one that has not been explicitly stated>>

EdLee · **#57**

Hi Mike, I also thought I was being clear enough:

Quote:

If the above "we" is replaced with "some people," it would be an accurate statement.

I'm saying in a very sensitive discussion like this, one has to be very careful with the word "we".

tchan001 · **#58**

Longstride wrote:

Do you know what quality of life animals who are raised for slaughter currently have?

The quality of life for animals raised for slaughter highly depends on how much the end consumer is willing to pay for the meat. In the case of Japanese Kobe beef they live a very good life, but you can be sure the end consumer of their meat pay a lot to provide this privilege.

tchan001 · **#59**

EdLee wrote:

Hi Mike, I also thought I was being clear enough:

Quote:

If the above "we" is replaced with "some people," it would be an accurate statement.

I'm saying in a very sensitive discussion like this, one has to be very careful with the word "we".

When Mike is refining his 'we' to 'we (humans)' and you continue to say one has to be very careful with the word "we", how should that be interpreted?

Bantari · **#60**

Longstride wrote:

Bantari wrote:

I understand that in order to eat a cow, I have to kill a cow, and I can do it personally if I have to (although I rather not.) But it will never be a joy for me to do so, it will always be the sad necessity, not something I celebrate or even trivialize and dismiss. I will never teach my kids its *fun* to kill something. I might teach them it is necessary, and even how to do it well. But I will also teach them that it is a serious business, not fun.

My problem is not with killing per se, I understand it is necessary. It is with the attitude towards killing that some people display.

Why do you use the word "necessity" / "necessary"?

Because as much as I respect vegan/vegetarian lifestyles, I also need to respect non-vegetarian choices - they are equally valid. And as long as I respect it and agree that such choice is as valid as any other, and as long as there are people (billions!) making such choice, I also need to agree that killing animals will be *necessary* to cater to this choice. Just like growing lentils (or whatever) on a large(er) scale will be necessary for the vegans/vegetarians among us if they substantially grow in numbers.

Now, if you are trying to say that non-vegetarianism is not a valid choice, and eating meat should be forbidden, then we have something to discuss. But its a totally different discussion.

There is some more to that down below.

Longstride wrote:

Millions of vegetarians/vegans manage to live long, healthy lives without the "necessity" of killing animals for food.

It is still only a very tiny percentage of the population of this planet which are vegans/vegetarians by choice now, even if they count in millions. I am not sure we could produce enough vegan/vegetarian nutrition (especially protein) without eating animal protein to sustain the whole world. We seem to have trouble doing it as it is (although granted, there are other problems as well, like distribution.)

All in all, I think that being a vegan/vegetarian is not easy, you need to know what you are doing to get the necessary nutrients and stuff. Still, I am not an expert, and I might be wrong here. Always ready to learn.

Speaking of animals themselves:
I am not sure of exact numbers, but it will be interesting to figure out if a pasture with some cows can be really replaced with the same amount of land growing lentils to produce the same amount of nutrients - and which nutrients people need more? But even if this was the case - where would the cows graze? Or will they go extinct as a species, replaced by lentils? How about sheep, chicken, and so on... all extinct? Replaced by green beans? How about all the other ecosystems which will need to get converted to agricultural factory-farms to feed the planet? How many species will go bye-bye because we need to grow more lentils?

I have no answers to any of that. All I know that it is not trivial.

PS>
My apologies for posting so much about all this. As you can see, the issues involved are important to me.
Still, i think I have said what wanted, so unless something new pops up, I go back to lurking.

The significance of non-human life

Who is online