Aug 15 2007
Two Legs Good, Four Legs Equal
Cyrano’s Journal Online and its semi-autonomous subsections (Thomas Paine’s Corner, The Greanville Journal, CJO Avenger, and VoxPop) would be delighted to periodically email you links to the most recent material and timeless classics available on our diverse and comprehensive site. If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your email to
By Jason Miller
8/15/07
“The moral duty of man consists of imitating the moral goodness and benificence of God manifested in the creation towards all his creatures. Everything of persecution and revenge between man and man, and everything of cruelty to animals is a violation of moral duty.”
–Thomas Paine from The Age of Reason
Despite the trappings of a civilized culture and the incredibly persistent myth of our moral exceptionalism, we in the United States are collectively a group of mean-spirited, depraved barbarians. Sparing our psyches the pangs of conscience by ferociously devouring the corporate media’s seemingly endless supply of rationalizations, euphemisms, historical revisions, distractions, denials, distortions, and affirmations of our pathological self-absorption, we each carry a degree of responsibility in the infliction of immeasurable unnecessary pain and suffering upon the rest of the Earth’s sentient beings.
Deeply integrated into a cultural and economic system in which compassion is considered to be a weakness and in which greed, exploitation, profits, property, winning, bellicosity and selfishness are sacrosanct, we cannot escape the reality that each of us participates in the American version of Hannah Arendt’s “banality of evil” to some extent. Unless we isolate ourselves in a mountain cabin or expatriate, as US citizens we are each damned to be one of the 300 million “Little Eichmanns” who enable our cynical plutocratic masters to dominate the world both economically and militarily.
Struggling to make itself heard above the cacophonous din of sound bites, advertising jingles, clichés, tropes, memes, mythos, and various other manifestations of the false consciousness that afflicts so many of us, the voice of conscience occasionally grabs our attention and violently reminds us how badly we are fucking the rest of the world.
And when it does, the question we each need to ask ourselves is, “How much like “Eich” do I want to be?”
While there are myriad ways we can each minimize our culpability in the egregious crimes of savage capitalism and its most banal representation, consumerism, the struggle to end speciesism is at the vanguard of our much needed moral evolution. Yet is often minimized and ridiculed by sociopolitical thinkers of nearly all stripes.
Seeking to provoke a re-examination of our ghastly practices toward animals, Patrice Greanville, a force in the animal liberation movement for many years, has defined speciesism as akin to German fascism. While the comparison is doubtless inflammatory, it is well grounded in fact, since both speciesism and Nazism share a core ideology of entitlement to total dominion over anyone outside the “”master race” :
“[as] the oldest, crudest and most pervasive form of fascism or tyranny around…speciesism must be understood…as an unrecognized fascism…not so much as the organization of a mass party of thugs to beat back labor, or an outright rightwing military dictatorship, but as a form of institutionalized supremacism whereby a particular nationality, group, class, race (or species), unilaterally proclaims its ‘superiority’ over others, and proceeds to confer upon itself the right to exploit, murder, and tyrannize at will with absolute impunity.”
Infectious and insidious as racism or sexism, speciesism permeates nearly every facet of our existence—and it’s class blind: both poor and rich practice it with alacrity. Raising 4-5 billion non-human animals each year in the concentration camp-like conditions of factory farms, we torture and slaughter fellow sentient beings merely to satiate our carnivorous desires(1) or to justify any project, no matter how inane. As Peter Singer documented so well in his seminal work, Animal Liberation, we annually perform an array of horrendously brutal experiments on millions of non-human animals, including acids and solvents on restrained rabbits’ eyes (given their great sensitivity). Singer’s book clearly demonstrates that much of the “research” conducted by torturing animals involves redundant university studies that yield conclusions one could have intuited, frivolous government or military projects, and unnecessary consumer product tests designed to validate “new” brand claims.
Gandhi noted that “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated,” and he was right.
If the United States has a prayer of attaining even a fraction of the “greatness” and “moral progress” it already attributes to itself, we must engage in a fearless moral inventory and prepare ourselves to make sweeping and dramatic social, economic, and political changes.
Treating non-human animals as objects for our convenience (hence subjecting them to horrendous suffering and abuse) is certainly one of our most shameful misdeeds. It is also one for which each of us can readily begin making amends. One simple step we can take is to refuse to consume meat or products from the fast food industry, a hideous manifestation of capitalism that catalyzed and necessitates factory farming.
[As a point of disclosure, this writer is a former carnivore. While in reality he was omnivorous, his diet revolved mostly around meat and he lived to eat it. There is rarely a day that passes that he does not crave a steak, a cheeseburger, or some other form of non-human animal flesh. However, as he explained in “Another Bacon Burger Anyone?” (http://rinf.com/alt-news/contributions/another-bacon-burger-anyone/57/), he remains committed to vegetarianism based on his rejection of speciesism, the detrimental effect factory farming has on the environment, and the fact that meat production is a huge contributor to world hunger because it consumes vast resources better utilized elsewhere. While veganism is probably not on his immediate horizon, he does minimize his egg consumption and makes a conscious effort to eschew the use of animal products derived from or tested upon animals.]
Rising to the moral challenge
Every human being has a moral stake in the struggle against speciesism, whether they define themselves as Left, Right, centrist, liberal, or Libertarian. Drawing perilously close to the event horizon of the spiritual black hole spawned by the excesses of the declining American Empire, our capacity to evoke change as individuals in the face of an opulent ruling class steeped in historically unprecedented wealth and power is limited, but we are not impotent in the battle for our souls.
Consider the position of Matthew Scully, who authored Dominion: the Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy and who was a speechwriter for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, and Bob Dole (not exactly the credentials of a “bleeding heart liberal”):
“Conservatives like to think of animal protection as a trendy leftist cause, which makes it easier to brush off. And I hope that more of us will open our hearts to animals. I also believe that in factory farming and other cruelties conservatives will find some familiar problems — moral relativism, self-centered materialism, license passing itself off as freedom, and the culture of death.”
Vegetarianism, one potential cure for the disease of speciesism, has a long and rich history. A number of individuals noted for their impressive moral, intellectual, social, literary, or political accomplishments were vegetarians, including Edison, Einstein, Gandhi, Kafka, Pythagoras, da Vinci, Tesla, Plato, Tolstoy, Thoreau, Jane Goodall, Cesar Chavez, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and George Bernard Shaw.
Almost undoubtedly these conscientious individuals who respected non-human animals enough to stop eating them confronted some of the same specious, often snide, arguments against vegetarianism that defenders of speciesism still use today.
Consider a brief deconstruction of a few of them:
“A vegetarian diet is protein-deficient and vegetarians become weak, frail, and sickly.”
There is abundant medical and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate that a plant-based diet provides ample proteins for a human being to sustain health to the same extent as those eating meat. There are also some indications that we were almost exclusively vegetarian at one point in the evolutionary process (2).
“Animals do not have the same capabilities as humans, so they are not entitled to the same rights.”
That is a true statement. The first part, that is. It would be patently absurd to argue that a pig has the right to bear arms. The point is that few serious-minded people pursuing animal liberation think in terms of animal rights, per se. However, the moral equality sought by animal defenders for animals is not based on a ludicrous equality of “intelligence” between non-human and human species, since if intelligence (or lack thereof) were the criterion to confer protection from abuse, torture and death, then we would be logically justified to kill, eat and use mentally handicapped or brain-dead people in such manner, and we clearly are not about to do so. As has been repeated for a couple of decades now, the basic point is not whether they can reason like us, but whether they can feel pain as we do, and they clearly, obviously, and loudly do, as anyone can readily attest by spending just a few minutes in a slaughterhouse or similar hells. Animals are ends in themselves, and not mere means to our designs.
In Animal Liberation Singer defined the above principles in this manner:
“The argument for extending the principle of equality beyond our own species is simple, so simple that it amounts to no more than a clear understanding of the nature of the principle of equal consideration of interests. We have seen that this principle implies that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess (although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do). It is on this basis that we are able to say that the fact that some people are not members of our race does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that some people are less intelligent than others does not mean that their interests may be disregarded. But the principle also implies that the fact that beings are not members of our species does not entitle us to exploit them, and similarly the fact that other animals are less intelligent than we are does not mean that their interests may be disregarded.”
“To live is to destroy and kill.”
There is an element of truth to this statement. For instance, we inadvertently kill insects and microbes with great frequency. However, as self-conscious, relatively intelligent beings, we bear the responsibility and have the power to minimize the destruction, suffering, and death we cause. One certain way to achieve this end is to end one’s support of the industrialized murder of the meat industry.
“Vegetarians have no regard for the “suffering” of plants.”
One of the principal reasons most animal liberationists oppose meat consumption is the suffering it imposes upon non-human animals. Arguing that vegetarians are hypocritical because they eat plants is fallacious for two reasons (which are probably obvious even to those who disingenuously make this ridiculous assertion).
Lacking a central nervous system and even a rudimentary consciousness necessary to experience pain, it would be impossible for plants to “suffer” in the sense that human and non-human animals do.
Admittedly, we do violate the sanctity of life in an absolute sense when we consume a plant, which is why there is some validity to the assertion that “to live is to destroy and kill.” Yet again, as self-aware beings capable of making moral decisions, it is incumbent upon us to minimize the suffering and death which we cause simply by being. Choosing to eat plants rather than animals is one of the most viable means we have of doing so.
Abstention from eating flesh aside, many ardent speciesists argue that the entire notion of animal liberation is puerile and trivial because the world is filled with problems that are “more important” than relieving the misery of non-human animals. But remember that many of these same individuals thrive in a system of savage capitalism which provides them with an “inalienable right” to prosper through exploitation. Terrified of losing their profits, they work vigorously to prevent our society from adopting a more enlightened moral position with respect to animals.
Certainly the United States is not alone in committing shocking atrocities against non-human animals as a matter of routine, but we are the epicenter of the most advanced and malignant stages of predatory capitalism. With the complicity of all of us Little Eichmans (even those who consciously keep their participation to a bare minimum), the moneyed class comprising our de facto government is literally committing crimes on par with those for which we hanged the architects of Nazism at Nuremburg.
Despite the environment of bitter dissent and rage directed at the status quo in the United States, taking extreme action against an increasingly rickety yet still incredibly powerful system would be premature, self-defeating, and perhaps suicidal at this point.
Yet regardless of the considerable number of constraints the ruling elites have upon us, we are still the stewards of our own souls and possess the means to rise above the abject moral poverty of our nation. What better place to start than in the defense of the most vulnerable amongst us?
Here’s to the liberation of animals and of our spirits…..
SOURCES:
1. http://www.cultureandanimals.org/animalrights.htm#overabundance
2. http://www.diet-and-health.net/Diet/veg_diet.html
Jason Miller is a wage slave of the American Empire who has freed himself intellectually and spiritually. He is Cyrano’s Journal Online’s associate editor (https://bestcyrano.org/) and publishes Thomas Paine’s Corner within Cyrano’s at https://bestcyrano.org/THOMASPAINE/. You can reach him at
A SPECIAL MESSAGE TO OUR READERS.
For over two years now, Thomas Paine’s Corner has been a powerful and unwavering voice for a courageous and badly needed agenda for change. We have consistently delivered hard-hitting and insightful commentary, polemics, and analysis in our persistent efforts to persuade, educate, and inspire, and serve as a discriminating but generous platform for voices from many points of view with one thing in common: their spiritual honesty and quality of thinking.
•
Aside from the caliber of its content, Thomas Paine’s Corner’s strength is that there are no advertisers or corporations to exercise de facto censorship or orchestrate our agenda. We aim to keep it that way and we need your help!
•
As a semi-autonomous section of the multi-faceted, thoroughly comprehensive, and highly prestigious Cyrano’s Journal Online, we share Cyrano’s passion for winning the battle of communications against systemic lies, an act which is essential to attaining social and environmental justice. To help us achieve that goal, Cyrano’s Journal, besides its regular editorial pages, intends to begin producing editorial videos to expose the lack of proper context, ahistoricalism, excessive over-emphasis on inane events, and outright lies the corporate media, and in particular television, present to you and your family as a steady diet of pernicious intellectual junk food. This will be an expensive under-taking and there will be no grants forthcoming from the likes of the American Enterprise Institute, the Coors or Heritage Foundation. You can be sure of that!
•
As Greek mythology has it, the powerful are frequently defeated by their own hubris, and that’s precisely what we are witnessing today. Our rotten-to-the-core, usurping plutocracy has become so overtly and arrogantly corrupt that our patience has now reached its generous limit, and the membrane of America’s collective consciousness is about to burst. This will result in a significant restructuring of our socioeconomic and political environments, we hope (and must make sure) for the better. Considering what is at stake in the world today, Cyrano’s Journal and Thomas Paine’s Corner want to accelerate the arrival of that new day, and its promise of a new, truly well organized, kind, and honest civilization.
•
Assisting us in our cause is as simple as clicking on the PayPal button below and exercising the power of your wallet. No matter how large or how small, we thank you in advance for your donation! If you are serious about our struggle for a new society, please don’t put it off. Let us hear from you today.
•Jason Miller
Associate Editor, Cyrano’s Journal Online, and Editorial Director, Thomas Paine’s Corner.
Patrice Greanville, Editor in Chief, Cyrano’s Journal Online
Thanks for the wonderful expose, Jason! This sort of diatribe is way overdue for many people.
On another note, these sites offer good resources for anyone taking a further interest in the topic covered by Jason’s excellent indictment:
Press Articles - Rolling Stone 1
Rolling Stone magazine (USA), Issue 794, September 3rd 1998 Fast-Food Nation: The True Cost Of America’s Diet By National Magazine Award winner Eric …
www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/rollingstone1.ht
Peter Singer Interview | Mercy For Animals
Singer’s book Animal Liberation, first published in 1975, played a significant role in the formation and direction of the animal rights movement. …
www.mercyforanimals.org/peter-singer.asp
Animal abuse - intensive farming - cruelty to animals - chic…
TO ABUSE Animal Abuse. “Investigating and preventing animal rights ….. barn and saw that “the rooster had his wing extended over the hen protecting her. …
www.thewe.cc/weplanet/valued_life/humans_and_ani…
In replying to the claim that…
“Vegetarians have no regard for the “suffering” of plants.”
Mr. Miller states that:
“One of the principal reasons most animal liberationists oppose meat consumption is the suffering it imposes upon non-human animals. Arguing that vegetarians are hypocritical because they eat plants is fallacious for two reasons (which are probably obvious even to those who disingenuously make this ridiculous assertion).”
This is without a doubt a serious moral objection to the CHOICE of eating animals as opposed to vegetables, but there’s another reason which falls squarely within the logic of such questioners, assuming we’re taking such a question as being in good faith, which in almost all cases is not. And it’s this: By the meateaters’ own pretended compassion for the fate of plants, being a vegetarian ends up being far more compassionate because meateating involves the destruction of far larger quantities of plants, as animals must be fed enormous quantities of vegetable matter to convert it into animal flesh ready for human consumption. Thus, by their own logic, they lose. Which doesn’t surprise me, since that is the fate of almost all morally specious arguments. Well done, Jason!
The hypocrisy of “vegetarians” such as Jason Miller is awe inspiring. Apparently raising chickens in servitude to feed his egg habit is OK morally BECAUSE HE LIKES EGGS. Of course If I like steak, I AM A NAZI.
Here is a question - WHY is it incumbent upon us to minimise suffering and death? Suffering and death is as natural and normal in the animal kingdom as anything could be - ALL ANIMALS DIE. Unless vegetarians are also suggesting that we should prevent other animals from killing and eating each other, and unless they are suggesting that we should setup hospitals and other emergency services purely to find and “save” sick and injured animals, then they are being completely hypocritical.
Either ALL SUFFERING AND DEATH, man-made or otherwise, is immoral, or none of it is.
Is Jason Miller going to be the one who tries to feed corn to the worlds predators? I don’t think so. So as far as I am concerned, light up the grill, because my hunger says its time for another cow to suffer and die. Consider me the Lion of the Human Kingdom. Jason can be the Gazelle all he wants, but no Gazelle ever forced a Lion to eat Lentils. It’s just not going to happen.
Jason, keep on doing what you do. I don’t like what you’re saying but I know in my heart it’s true. Animals are sentient beings. When I choose to eat meat I am complicit in causing pain. I have experienced enough pain in my own life to know that I should seek to help rather than hurt. I can make excuses all I want, but at the end of the day, the fact is I have a choice. I don’t have to eat meat to survive, that’s the bottom line.
I’m not there yet (rising to the moral challenge), but I am on the path. Thanks for the reminder.
Karmakaze:
“And unless they are suggesting that we should setup hospitals and other emergency services purely to find and “save” sick and injured animals, then they are being completely hypocritical.”
We already have those Karmakaze …They are called veterinarians offices, and animal rescue centers, we also have animal rescue police forces that fine, or even prosecute people that abuse their pets - they even have their own TV show in animal planet, and are some of the most dedicated law enforcement officers. Further, Veterinarians perform emergency surgical procedures on pets that many humans can’t even get - if they have cancer we have fight it as we have cancer if we have the money (another sick thing about Capitalism…caveman economic system). Animals were one of the main concerns of Katrina relief efforts, people stayed behind up to their necks in water because they couldn’t accept losing their pets, which to them were family.
The problem with humans, up to this point, is that the animals we “value” and keep as pets, tend to be the more “cute ones” (again somewhat subjective, and culturally relative, but possums I wouldn’t say are cute, but that doesn’t mean I want to shoot them, send them to a genocidal factory farm that Hitler—if alive today and planning new death machines—would smack his forehead for not being creative enough to replicate. All Joe Six-Pack can think about is greasing the animals up with hunts BBQ sauce which resembles a K-Y Jelly Necrophiliac Rubdown, followed by throwing them on the grill - that’s not Macho Joe, and it doesn’t turn most women on.
With the introduction of synthetic fabrics, and alternative foods, there is really no need for humans to eat, or skin animals anymore. Even the Native Americans, that hunted Bison OUT OF NECESSITY had a tremendous respect for the animals they killed, utilized every part of the animal in some way shape or form, and wasted nothing. Further, they held rituals to honor the animals, and if you don’t believe me regarding their respect for nature and animals, they named fellow tribes people and children after the characteristics of the animals they revered.
We as humans have transcended that stage in our material development (in an objective sense) that we do not need to hunt, let alone slaughter billions of animals in genocidal factory farms, the question now is how long will the subjective transformation take place, or when will the “man show” mentality take a back seat, and thereby Joe Six Pack can stop getting away with saying alpha male statements, which makes him feel like a tough guy like “throw ‘em on the grill”, as he WATCHES, YES….. I SAID IT….. WATCHES….FROM A VERY SAFE DISTANCE…. FOOTBALL ON SUNDAYS …..WHILE HIS UNSATISFIED WIFE MAKES BEAN DIP FOR HIS MOSTLY SINGLE BALDING BUDDIES - To Joe’s dismay, and ignorance Ms. Six-pack most likely won’t be satisfied when he ignores her all weekend, maybe at best, stopping into the kitchen to give her a peck on the cheek to thank her for catering this idiotic event, with bean dip, shredded Kraft cheddar cheese, and sour cream breath, and all she just can do is look forward to waiting for his usurious ass to go to work on Monday, so she can fantasize about the guy coming over to the fix the dishwasher. Take that tough guy…she loves the guy with the tool belt, and he may even just eat vegetables, hence that’s why he looks healthier, and slimmer than you, and is most likely having lots sex with your wife a couple of hours before Monday night football starts, and you get home from corporate candy land.
I would turn vegetarian simply out of embarrassment to be associated with sharing the opinion of a person like Joe Six-Pack – it’s ugly.
Many people around the world are becoming vegetarians in mass numbers; many in my generation, or generation “X”, who have been taught we have no brains whatsoever, even though you constructed this idiotic madness for us, and form your opinions of us on a few MTV samples…but no blame here) and on the border of becoming vegetarian if not already so. When you consider the health benefits of not eating meat, and that fact that it is not necessary for humans to eat meat anymore, we will find that there will be a struggle between those who eat meat, and those who rather let them be in the wild, or keep the animals as co-inhabitants.
In China they would eat cats, and probably West Virginia as well where they will eat just about anything. It will be a long road, but eventually the genocide we commit against Turkey’s on thanksgiving will have to be seen as barbaric, and other such “celebrations” which always results in our giving thanks to the “invisible man, or men” ending up in the deaths of hundreds of millions of innocent animals, or at times people. At least human sacrifice has faded into the depths of history, but who knows what the future may bring???? People are just so good these days, and open minded that I would not rule out it’s return.
Here is a song my generation wrote long ago about animal rights:
Man’s best friend is beautiful and affectionate, an ideal pet.
Cats are the same, we make up their names and our love for them is real.
Listen up, I gotta ask you, how can we be so cruel?
You say you care, that’s a lie.
My true compassion is for all living things and not just the ones who are cute so I do what I can.
I wanna save lives and I’ve got a plan.
Under the table he’ll eat your dinner like the veggies we can’t stand.
What kind of meal would he make?
We don’t want to ask it.
Tradition is all that keeps him alive.
Listen up, I gotta ask how can we be so cruel?
You say you care, that’s a lie.
My true compassion is for all living things and not just the ones who are cute so I do what I can.
I wanna save lives and I’ve got a plan.
Why am I so upset.
Don’t even own a pet.
I am not trying to press my will.
I am not the first to say…
THOU SHALT NOT KILL
Full is all you want to feel.
We eat to stay alive, but it’s their lives we steal.
I think we’d like to change,
but most of us are stuck, that’s why cats and dogs have
ALL THE LUCK
Gorilla Biscuits Cats And Dogs lyrics
Hi Jason,
A few main issues related to meat eating seem to include these:
1. The higher an organism is on the phylogenic scale, the more that it is likely to feel physical pain and emotional suffering. While some scientists and philosophers speculate that all organisms have consciousness based on the understanding that any entity acting purposefully is self-aware (amongst other sorts of rationale offered as proof), we can neither substantiate, nor empirically refute, that another object has any awareness (including sentience of ANY kind) except for one’s own self. In short, all the rest is suppositional. Nonetheless, our lack of conclusively “knowing” provides all the more reason to be as careful as possible in our treatment of ALL other life forms. (Some researchers even hypothesize that molecules and electrons have “seeds” of life and some variety of seminal perception.)
2. Farm animals require a huge amount of resources (grain, water, etc.), that could go to hungry humans, were they not used for animals. For example, “it takes sixteen pounds of grain and soy to produce just one pound of beef,” supposedly. The flip side of this is that these animals would likely not be alive if humans had no use for them. (People have a way of doing away with other species that are of great use, such as over-fished marine life, or no seeming use, such as weeds. This is one of the reasons that rainforest lands are being increasingly cleared for soy production, for example. Which SEEMS, on the surface, most useful presently to humans — soy or a jungle?… The bottom line for most people is immediate profit regardless of the long term, dire consequences.)
3. Humans, likely, will breed until every eco-niche supportive of life is filled with our kind (www.countercurrents.org/spence280707.htm) at the exclusion of many other species. This has always been our (and other species’s) pattern… Regardless of whether grains are subverted to domestic animals or not, humans always reach a point wherein there simply is not enough. So in the long run, the related problems aren’t only about disproportionate sharing of world resources and taking grains directly to starving humans rather than using them for animal fodder… Besides, how many entrepreneurs would prefer to donate the grains to hungry humans rather than make as big a profit as possible on commodities markets? Without that big financial incentive, the grains would likely not be grown with which to begin.
Population growth charts and grafts spell out a connected problem, though, as did, generally, Thomas Malthus and many others. These, certainly, do: fubini.swarthmore.edu/~ENVS2/S2003/Slong3/overpu and www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17415.htm. Meanwhile, the speculation that the grains would go to hungry people if only enough people were to not eat high on the food chain is a fallacious assumption. Besides, there always is the ethanol option for the grain sellers.
4. Staying alive means killing a staggering number of organisms, including ones that will never be born due to one’s presence on Earth. In this sense, even a vegetarian, by sheer virtue of his existence, kills animals since everything is interconnected even if only remotely. For example, let’s say that I cut down a dying oak in my yard as I don’t want its decaying limbs to fall on the roof or the disease in the tree to spread. By the act, I have, in fact, deprived squirrels, birds and others of shelter and food. Further, if there are no other suitable trees in the vicinity with enough room to support additional animal life, I have effectively killed the oak’s animals (and their potential future offspring)… In the same vein, I do so if I slap a mosquito, destroy a milkweed plant (the only source of food for Monarchs), accidentally step on fish eggs on a sandy lake bottom, drive my car, which carbon loads so as to destroy polar bear environments, etc. In short, the only way to avoid these sorts of situations is to be not alive at all and the best that we can do for the world, while being alive, is to cut back on our ecological footprints (i.e., cut back on all manners of consumption) and help to limit our population, that does keep expanding at an inordinate rate.
The whole underlying dilemma is discussed at www.countercurrents.org/spence200507.htm and www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18048.htm. Meanwhile, I think that Steve Lendman in his Resource Wars composition pretty much sums up many of our difficulties, including ones related to where humankind and the whole Earth are heading.
I just read this on another section opf Cyrano, The Greanville Journal, an article called
Vegetarian Is the New Prius, by Kathy Freston. I’m quoting it here because it seems pertinent to the discussion.
“Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas guzzling consumer purchase. They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we’d need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggets, and other plant foods. On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels — and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide — as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it’s all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.”
The full article is here
I just got this from the WaPo, Mary Ann Akers column. I think it’s also relevant to our discussion here.
Rove Finds Himself in PETA’s Crosshairs
As if he hasn’t taken enough heat for what he did in the White House, Karl Rove is coming under fresh attack for what he plans to do after he leaves on August 31. Specifically, his Labor Day weekend plan to go dove hunting down in Texas, which The Sleuth disclosed earlier this week.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, was so outraged to learn about Rove’s hunting excursion that it faxed a letter to the White House late Wednesday.
“Dear Mr. Rove,” began the letter from President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “From your frequent hunting trips to your bizarre little rap at the Radio and Television Correspondents’ Association dinner (”I like to go home, get a drink, and tear the tops off of small animals”), it is clear that you lack the ability to empathize with other living beings. You consistently prove that you care less about animal welfare than Alberto Gonzales cares about habeas corpus.”
And if that isn’t enough to make you think Ingrid needs to spend some time in anger management, wait ’til you hear the rest.
Newkirk notes that the first thing Rove plans to do upon leaving the White House at the end of his month is “go dove hunting, i.e., kill little birds who are the international symbol of peace. You will leave politics to spend more time with your family only to destroy the families of other species.”
Her last line could well set off alarm bells at the Secret Service: “I have just one suggestion: Please take Dick Cheney along on your hunting trips.”
No response yet from the White House. But if we get (non-Photoshopped) photos of Rove cuddling with his dogs, you’ll be first to see them.
Considering the outrageous warmongering and environmental record of the GOP, it’s amazing to see how these moral retards can’t seem to leave anything harmless and alive alone. By the way the Akers column is HERE.
karmakaze, snide posts like yours, arguing from the standpoint of the “morality” we see in the law of the jungle mirrors your own level of moral development. Would you like human society, messed up as it is, to descend even further into a “state of nature” in which, with no police around, it’s “save your own skin” 24/7? Is that the world you would inhabit, you fucking moron? Plus, by your own logic, you also being (I’m assuming here) human, and therefore biological, “you’re going to die, too, as all animals die,” so why don’t we just kill you today?
The depth of your stupidity is as appalling as your cynicism. No wonder you like to strut around like a big macho guy. What else do you have in your squalid life but that kind of empty posturing?
Ralph Waldo Emerson stated, “You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.”
“For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.”
—Pythagoras
MEAT IS MURDER…
THOU SHALT NOT KILL….
MEND YOUR WAYS…
or
SUFFER MY WRATH!
I think leaving behind meateating, etc. is for many folks akin to being asked to forgo sex…a non-negotiable proposition (and one I sure could sympathise with). Hence all the vicious screaming. But there’s a big difference nonetheless. And it boils down to this: while there are plenty of substitutes for meats and animal-based foods, there are few substitutes for the real thing in sex. So the ideal program should be for us to have more and better sex, and less meat or no meat at all. That way we’ll have loads of fun, enjoy peace with the world, and afford plenty of good karma. And probably live longer, too.
cornbelius for president! If only my girlfriend would see the light I’d switch in a NY second!
But seriously, as the issue being discussed requires: People who love animal foods should be honest about their “addiction” to it, own up to it, and not make up dishonest arguments impugning the correctness or good faith of those who advocate vegetarianism, and/or wish to protect animals from what is, when carefully examined, a mere choice for us humans. (Animals have no dietary choices.)
Factory farming is ugly—environmentally, esthetically and morally. There is no question about it. And the fact that, as Jimminy Cricket reminds us (quoting our great Waldo Emerson), the slaughterhouse is concealed, doesn’t diminish our complicity.
Found this on a fuckin libral sight:
The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when “a chicken in every pot” was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death. What we’re seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty
read the rest of the bullshitt hear–
http://www.alternet.org/story/47668/
My take?
Who gives a fuck? Fifty years from now well all be ded anyway!
EATING MEAT IS OUR RIGHT!!!!
if you don’t eat cows, your a pussy!
“MR MEATY”
YOu wrote: “Who gives a fuck? Fifty years from now well all be ded anyway!”
Obviously, this part of the article didn’t sink in with you, brainiac:
Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison.
We are drowing and suffocating ourselves in livestock exrement right now!
what do you think of that, you pusillanimous piece of shit?
Great post, just saw it at ICH. As a longtime vegetarian(25 years) I am always shocked how little coverage the issue gets from an ethical perspective. Refraining from inflicting any unnecessary harm or suffering to other beings seems pretty bleeping obvious and basic! But no, not aparently. I just came from the comments to your article at ICH and even there, where the folks are uncommonly informed, this seems to be a foreign and naive concept!
I recommend people watching the movie at
meat.org
and the hollywood flick by Linklater: “Fast Food Nation”
I am an average American woman in my 40’s, I’ve been married for 23 years have 2.5 children (the last one is really short) and I live in a middle America farming community. I’m of average intelligence, maybe even below average because as I was reading this my first thoughts were “this guy uses a lot of ‘big words’”. (I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for your incredible writing) Still, I’m a vegetarian on my way to becoming a vegan.
How did this happen? Inadvertently, I must confess. I was helping one of my kid’s with a class project and we were researching animal issues when we happened upon a picture of dogs in a marketplace in some Asian country. The dogs were piled and smashed into these tiny cages, not much unlike the battery cages they use for chickens. The dogs legs were broken and secured behind their backs with something that looked like hollowed out soup cans. The dogs were kept alive, of course, to keep the meat fresh because of the lack of refrigeration; so I assume. What literally took my breath away was the pain I could see in the all the dogs wide open eyes; it was horrifying.
Even in my small, middle class, childlike mind, I put 2 + 2 together. My dog cries if I step on his tail or paw; these dogs are just like my dog so they must feel pain too. If they feel pain like my dog feels pain then they must be suffering horribly. There was no pretending pretty little fantasies like: “Oh, the dogs go into shock and don’t feel a thing.” Those dogs were feeling a whole hell of a lot of pain and I could see it in their eyes.
I began hating these people from whatever country it was (because I’m too simple minded to know my geography). I hated them! Then, I realized what a hypocrite I was being. How can I hate these people for treating dogs like this when we in civilized America treat other animals the same way or worse? So I became a vegetarian so I could hate people without being a hypocrite.
For years I was a closet vegetarian because being a vegetarian is something you don’t brag about at the local farm supply store where everyone goes for free coffee and to talk about the weather and the height of the corn. (I’m exagerating a wee bit) Then one night I was at a church social and someone tried to put a chicken leg on my plate and I refused. I swear the whole damn place stood still and everyone turned to see what in ‘tarnation’ was going on when the gray haired lady holding a chicken leg in a pair of silver tongs yelled, “WHAT’S THE MATTER WITH YOU? AIN’T YOU GONNA EAT NO MEAT?”
It was the defining moment of my life. The very next Sunday the Pastor preached a sermon about Jesus rebuking demons into swine and they ran into the sea and the Pastor said, “If there had been some animal rights fanatics there at the time they’d probably been protesting Jesus for putting the demons in those pigs” Chuckle, chuckle, ha, ha! as the congregation turned to look at me and everyone scooted down the pew away from me, except for my kids who for the first time ever thought I was really cool. I knew that day if I didn’t get away from those Southern Baptists that met every Sunday evening to bow hunt instead of Bible study, then they would be coming after ME to rebuke some demons!
After that, word spread across this small Central Illinois town and everywhere I went someone was asking me what was wrong with me and why I didn’t eat meat. So I told them the story about dogs and people eating dogs and I’m not a hypocrite and it’s because of dogs that I don’t eat meat. I thought I was safe with that explanation because everybody LOVES dogs and that really was the reason I became a vegetarian anyway. Right?
Well, sort of and no, because over time the wires in my brain started connecting and I started putting another 2 + 2 together: “If those dogs that people eat can feel pain like my dog can feel pain then other animals that we eat feel pain too.’ Eureka! Still, where I live, I was not about to share that epiphany with anyone. It wasn’t like I was one of those freaky “vegans” because I still ate cheese, eggs and drank milk because nobody had to suffer and die for me to have them. Right? Then I went to my first AR conference and learned how very wrong I was.
I came home from that meeting knowing that even though it was ‘acceptably’ NOT COOL to eat veal, male baby cows were killed anyway and that cows had to be pregnant all the time to give milk. (after having 3 kids myself, that alone was enough to convince me of the cruelty) and then those chickens not allowed to be chickens and being all cramped together in cages like the dogs in the Asian country… So here I was, just like the people who eat meat, wanting to make excuses because I realized if I knew and accepted the truth, that I couldn’t enjoy the things I wanted to enjoy. That was mainly just one thing and that thing was CHEESE!
So here I am, a mom of one law school student and one “God only knows what her major will be” college student and one high school student and 3 of the five people in my house are non-meat eaters. I’m in my 40’s living in a farming/hunting community and I was hired by a fairly new and fast rising Animal Rights Group that changes laws and they are doing a darn good job of getting things done.
Quite a few years ago I was a meat eater and I saw a picture of some dogs that were nothing more than a commodity and it changed my world in a world where change was very difficult. Now I have bumper stickers plastering my vehicle boldly stating “Which would you pet, which would you eat?”, some Ghandi quotes, A better world through kindness to animals, Peace begins on your plate”, etc. I may not be glamorous, or intelligent ,or even cool and I still hear all the excuses that “the meats already dead when I buy it; I didn’t kill it” and I still manage a soft smile because I know how people are where I live. My final epiphany, my final 2 + 2 equation is: If I’m not part of the problem… then I must be part of the solution.
Paul D.:
“We already have those Karmakaze …They are called veterinarians offices, and animal rescue centers, we also have animal rescue police forces that fine, or even prosecute people that abuse their pets”
So these “animal rescue police” go out and find all those mice being chased by evil cats and save them while retraining the cat to eat lentils?
“but possums I wouldn’t say are cute, but that doesn’t mean I want to shoot them, send them to a genocidal factory farm that Hitler—if alive today and planning new death machines—would smack his forehead for not being creative enough to replicate.”
Actually in my country, possums are an ecological disaster, and we can’t kill enough of them. They are destroying native forests and thus the habitats of native animals on a scale even greater than MAN pulled off. But hey, animals can’t possibly be ecologically destructive or immoral, can they???
“We as humans have transcended that stage in our material development (in an objective sense) that we do not need to hunt, let alone slaughter billions of animals in genocidal factory farms, the question now is how long will the subjective transformation take place, or when will the “man show” mentality take a back seat, and thereby Joe Six Pack can stop getting away with saying alpha male statements,”
Seriously? Are you saying that the artificial fibres, mostly made from OIL, are more ecologically sound than natural fibres etc? The fibres that never rot and are contributing to MOUNTAINS of garbage that will never go away? This is supposed to be the answer? Really?
You may as well quit with the bullsh*t Hitler comparisons by the way - Hitler certainly wasnt BREEDING Jews so that he could kill them. In fact there are more sheep and cows under current conditions than there ever would have been in natural circumstances. The only way the land can support these huge numbers of animals is with the help WE HUMANS provide to keep them well fed. So genocide is an obviously false label to use.
By the way, whats with this Joe-Six-Pack bullsh*t? You invent a persona just to shoot it down? A persona that has nothing to do with the morality of killing animals? Just plain weird.
“Many people around the world are becoming vegetarians in mass numbers;”
Utter bull. If that was the case you wouldn’t have to worry about the “genocidal meat industry” because it would go out of business. But it isn’t, is it?
As for that nutty song about cat’s and dogs - the reality is they have become pets not because they were cute and furry, but because we used them to kill other animals, and just got used to having them around. And don’t think for a second that that cute dog or cat wouldn’t eat your vegetarian ass if you died and it was hungry - hell some of these dogs wont even wait for you to die.
Listen up vegetarians - the fact is if certain animals are NOT killed they can get out of hand. These animals have evolved to deal with predation by breeding on mass. Just because you think they have a moral right to live doesn’t mean they will not destroy their own habitat, and thus their own lives, if left unchecked. As I said DEATH is natural, but beyond that it is essential to the proper balance of nature. It is NOT immoral, it is imperative.
By the way, where do you vegetarians think the cows and sheep are gonna go when you turn all their pasture into vegetable crops? Billions of animals cast out into the wild, deprived of habitat because we would need it to grow the vegetables we would have to have to replace meat. What will they eat? The habitat of other animals? Or would you prefer they all starve to death?
Or maybe you would engage in a little “humane genocide” first to cull their numbers?
delCarril:
“karmakaze, snide posts like yours, arguing from the standpoint of the “morality” we see in the law of the jungle mirrors your own level of moral development. Would you like human society, messed up as it is, to descend even further into a “state of nature” in which, with no police around, it’s “save your own skin” 24/7?”
Wait, are you telling me it isn’t? I tell you what, if you’re all about sharing etc etc, why don’t you send me 50% of your take home pay each week? Sure my battle to survive may not include (at the moment) physical battle, but I can tell you I spend far more of my time trying to survive than sitting around worrying about the morality of eating a drumstick.
“Is that the world you would inhabit, you fucking moron?”
Well, I question who the fucking moron is if you don’t see that that IS the world we inhabit. But hey, you go on living in your dream world, just don’t expect me to join you.
“Plus, by your own logic, you also being (I’m assuming here) human, and therefore biological, “you’re going to die, too, as all animals die,” so why don’t we just kill you today?”
I dunno, why don’t you try it? Then again seeing as you’re a vegetarian, I know which one of us would end up eating the other.
“The depth of your stupidity is as appalling as your cynicism.”
My stupidity? Which stupidity? The one you totally failed to mention let alone prove? Hey newsflash moron - humans kill each other every day; animals kill each other every day; killing is as natural as breathing. You don’t want to kill any animals, fine, don’t. Not so hard is it. Me on the other hand, I don’t want to kill any humans. People like you sure do push me though…
“No wonder you like to strut around like a big macho guy. What else do you have in your squalid life but that kind of empty posturing?”
You guys sure have a problem - wtf is MACHO about wanting to eat meat? Seriously? You have some sort of weird projection thing going on - I eat meat because I like it, not because it makes me feel tough - you on the other hand seem to think meat eating IS tough - some sort of Alpha Male fetish or something?
Karmakaze - What a fitting name for you!
Nobody is talking about eradicating the food chain. I don’t think I have ever heard vegetarians advocate that other animals become vegetarians. Human beings are only semi-dependent on nature though, and it is simply not necessary for us to be direct participants in the carnivorous food chain anymore. The material forces we have developed with human ingenuity no longer demand that we eat pigs, dogs, frogs, or any other animal you can think of - just deal with it. It’s true. I’m Italian, I could cook you better food in my sleep without using meats.
You made the argument that synthetics are a strain on the environment in respect to clothing????????…OK, then, what about cotton? I don’t see any vegetarians making a stink about killing plants. It didn’t take much thought, or imagination at all to solve that problem.
What we are talking about is the unnecessary suffering of animals, particular intelligent ones that are bred to be slaughtered and who suffer the most miserable existence all for nothing but to make an industry money, and to keep the world in a constant state of bad diets, resulting in heart disease, and diabetes etc …How do you plan to clean up that mess? If you are so concerned about waste. How about medical waste?
My possum reference was in regards to not wanting to kill animals for the socio-pathetic thrill game hunters get when they do so, and to then stick the stuffed head in their poorly designed office, where obviously not much reading, or civilized evolution takes place.
I understand that “vermin” often intrude into human habitats (or the other way around) and they need to be removed, but even animal rescue officers try to do this in a humane way…why you ask? Because normal people think murder and unnecessary suffering is an ugly thing, and probably putting the animal back to it’s original habitat, or at times in a zoo, is a better idea than blowing it’s brains out on the street, although humans can’t seem to stop doing that to each other - and we call them animals - scary. And no Karma, I don’t think my cats are waiting for me to die so they can eat me. If I did die, and they didn’t have food I hope they would consider the option being that would require basic “nature” at that extreme point to kick in and work it’s godlike magic.
However, it doesn’t take someone with an overdeveloped sense of morality to realize that these factory farms are horrific places, and not to mention they breed disease due to unhealthy, unsanitary conditions for a myriad of reasons, and then people eat the diseased animal and get diseases that “turn their organs into liquid shit” as George Carlin says, but hey man, throw some ketchup on it, and continue to delve into philosophy, making straw man arguments nobody here is proposing, such as eradicating the food chain.
The Joe-Six-pack reference is in response to this “throw ‘em on the grill” language and mentality, which is shared completely, and in fact, is a treasured expression of Joe Six Pack - one of his greats besides “nice rack”…of lamb. It’s the mentality of a guy who frequents Hooters.
Karmakaze:
“Listen up vegetarians - the fact is if certain animals are NOT killed they can get out of hand. These animals have evolved to deal with predation by breeding on mass. Just because you think they have a moral right to live doesn’t mean they will not destroy their own habitat, and thus their own lives, if left unchecked. As I said DEATH is natural, but beyond that it is essential to the proper balance of nature. It is NOT immoral, it is imperative.”
Yes this is true - to an extent ,almost like everything you have said thus far. For example, the only animals that seem to be destroying their own habitat are human beings, and unless you would like to start denying global warming, or nuclear waste, etc by all means please get off the bus now because this is your stop. Nobody is trying to get animals to stop participating in the food chain, it’s most likely impossible, but humans have a choice that would not throw off the natural environment. For example growing our foods in sanitary / controlled environments, where foods would be tested for nutritional content and not sprayed with harmful pesticides. Good no animal lost any food, and everyone is happy…next…
The fact is, there is not enough animal supply to feed the sick demand of humans, or the sick industries, which create the demand, which ever came first…. Hence the need to clone, or breed these animals en mass in factory farms. How else are you going to kill a billion Turkey’s at one time for a hypocritical holiday? You can’t. We are the one’s messing with the food chain - was that example not sufficient?
The fact is “Karma” that it is not a necessity to kill animals, especially in factory farms, it would hardly effect the food chain in any substantial way, and if we all started to eat vegetables instead, well, there is always agribusiness, and their endless supply of chemicals, and growth hormones to help us in that department. No need to worry, the animals will still be able to find their veggies and nature will find someway to adapt. I doubt if humans stopped eating meat the universe would implode, however if we do not discontinue many of out current practices it soon will, and then an atomic weapon will grill us all on the 4th of July.
I don’t quite understand what Karmakaze’s position is. Unless you live in the Appalachians I don’t think you’d be eating Possums, most people aren’t deer hunters and usually cats and Hawks and the like are the only ones who eat mice. So as far as humans go the animals they eat are pretty much limited to cattle, pigs, chickens, lambs. (usually not even lamb and there are others that aren’t the standard) So lets say people mostly eat cows, chickens and pigs. Those animals aren’t usually found in the wild around here, they are bred. So if there is an over abundance of these animals it is because we are breeding them. If the market was down for meat products and rises for vegetables, then the farmer is going to do the smart thing and stop breeding and producing these animals to sell and start raising crops because that is where the money will be.
Now if cattle, pigs and chickens aren’t bred then there won’t be as many of them and they won’t be taking over the world.
So the theory that animals must be killed to keep the population down doesn’t make a lot of sense unless they start packing deer and possum meat on the shelves at the local grocery chain.
Paul D:
“Nobody is talking about eradicating the food chain. I don’t think I have ever heard vegetarians advocate that other animals become vegetarians. Human beings are only semi-dependent on nature though, and it is simply not necessary for us to be direct participants in the carnivorous food chain anymore.”
We don’t need to walk either, what with technology like cars and Segway, but it’s still desirable. In any case, what we “need” is irrelevant, the case for vegetarianism was being made as a moral one, NOT a needs/wants one. Jason Miller was saying eating meat is immoral. The argument was made that we humans have no more rights than animals, but now you are arguing that animals should have MORE rights than humans!
Why should a dog be allowed to eat meat and not me? Why is a cat killing a mouse not immoral, while me killing a cow is? Where is the difference? You simply can’t have it both ways - either meat is murder and immoral and all meat eating should be stopped, or meat eating is natural and should NOT be stopped, regardless of the species doing the eating.
“You made the argument that synthetics are a strain on the environment in respect to clothing????????…OK, then, what about cotton? I don’t see any vegetarians making a stink about killing plants. It didn’t take much thought, or imagination at all to solve that problem.”
Ask a motorcycle rider what he thinks about using cotton clothing for protection when riding his bike. You’ll get a hearty laugh, if not a punch in the mouth for being such an idiot. Ask a construction worker what he thinks about having cotton safety boots - I’m sure the answer will be very similar.
“What we are talking about is the unnecessary suffering of animals, particular intelligent ones that are bred to be slaughtered and who suffer the most miserable existence all for nothing but to make an industry money, and to keep the world in a constant state of bad diets, resulting in heart disease, and diabetes etc …How do you plan to clean up that mess? If you are so concerned about waste. How about medical waste?”
Cows wondering around green pasture, being fed all the food they can eat, protected from predators, illness and injury. Oh the suffering! If its the slaughtering that you have a problem with, fine, enact laws to make it as humane as you wish. As it is animals get a far better time of it at the ends of their lives than humans do - at least we don’t starve them to death or let them rot from terminal diseases like cancer because “euthanasia is immoral”… Nope, its fast and the “suffering” if in fact there is any, is over very quickly.
“My possum reference was in regards to not wanting to kill animals for the socio-pathetic thrill game hunters get when they do so, and to then stick the stuffed head in their poorly designed office, where obviously not much reading, or civilized evolution takes place.”
Two points - what has hunting for trophies got to do with meat eating? Secondly “civilised evolution”??? Are you nuts? Evolution is anything BUT civilised - its survival of the fittest with the unfit being eaten or otherwise exterminated. If the world worked the way YOU want it to, WE would never have evolved in the first place to make such stupid arguments.
“I understand that “vermin” often intrude into human habitats (or the other way around) and they need to be removed, but even animal rescue officers try to do this in a humane way…why you ask?”
Don’t have much experience with REAL nature, huh? When I was referring to possums, I wasn’t talking about them coming into HUMAN habitats, I was talking about them destroying native forests and the animals that need them to survive.
Other species that also destroy the environments they live in are mice, rabbits, and even cows and sheep if left unchecked by predation. These species evolved to be eaten. They HAVE to be eaten or their populations will grow larger than their environment can sustain.
“And no Karma, I don’t think my cats are waiting for me to die so they can eat me.”
That’s simply your delusion. They are predators who will kill for food AND pleasure (ever seen one of your cats “playing” with a mouse or bird?). They also evolved to eat whenever given the opportunity, and if it happens to be your undiscovered corpse, you can bet they won’t be worrying about the morality of it all as they chew on your drumstick.
“However, it doesn’t take someone with an overdeveloped sense of morality to realize that these factory farms are horrific places, and not to mention they breed disease due to unhealthy, unsanitary conditions for a myriad of reasons, and then people eat the diseased animal and get diseases that “turn their organs into liquid shit” as George Carlin says, but hey man, throw some ketchup on it, and continue to delve into philosophy, making straw man arguments nobody here is proposing, such as eradicating the food chain.”
Wait, who is making the straw man arguments - this was about meat eating, NOT about factory farming. If you think factory farming is the only source of meat on the planet, once again you are sadly deluded (seems rather common amongst vegetarians).
This article, and your posts argued that eating meat was immoral - if so, ALL MEAT EATING regardless of species should be stopped. But now you say NOT all meat eating is immoral. You say animals should have the same rights as us, but we shouldn’t have the same rights as them (ie to eat meat if we want). There goes your morality AND equality arguments in one fell swoop. Now you bring up factory farming which has nothing to do with meat eating per se; People have been eating meat a lot longer than factory farms have been around.
I’m all for getting rid of factory farms - not only because of the “suffering” of the animals involved but also because of the lower quality of the product. Of course I come from a country that values quality over quantity. I prefer my meat to be raised on open natural pastures with natural foods and grown over natural time periods (sans growth hormones) basically I like things natural - including meat.
“Yes this is true - to an extent ,almost like everything you have said thus far. For example, the only animals that seem to be destroying their own habitat are human beings, and unless you would like to start denying global warming, or nuclear waste, etc by all means please get off the bus now because this is your stop.”
Ok you really ARE insane and/or ignorant. We Humans are not destroying OUR OWN habitat. Even global warming won’t DESTROY our habitat - the habitats of many OTHER species on the other hand… The fact is we humans are the top of the food chain for one reason - our adaptability. No other species on the planet can live in as wide a range of environments as humans. We have evolved enough that we can CREATE our own habitat. Just like we no longer need to follow herds of wild cattle around picking off the weak and infirm like lions, because we can now breed the herds ourselves in controlled environments.
“For example growing our foods in sanitary / controlled environments, where foods would be tested for nutritional content and not sprayed with harmful pesticides. Good no animal lost any food, and everyone is happy…next…”
Sounds like a good idea - lets call them FARMS… Of course farms take land, and land is finite - for every acre you plant with vegetables for human consumption, an acre is lost for animals. Even if we turn all the cattle and sheep farms into vegetable crops, what happens to all the cattle and sheep currently eating there? Where do all those billions of animals go? The only possible solution would be to kill all the cattle and sheep. Of course that’s what you’re AGAINST, isn’t it?
B:
“I don’t quite understand what Karmakaze’s position is”
I can tell.
“So as far as humans go the animals they eat are pretty much limited to cattle, pigs, chickens, lambs. (usually not even lamb and there are others that aren’t the standard)”
It helps to know a little about the world I suppose. Lamb is a very highly prised (and very tasty) meat in many areas of the world. But other forms of meat consumed by humans are many and varied. From turtles and horses, to dogs and cats and monkeys.
But hey lets just stick to American choices eh?
“Those animals aren’t usually found in the wild around here, they are bred. So if there is an over abundance of these animals it is because we are breeding them.”
Well not any more, because you domesticated them - but I can assure you before cattle ranches there were MILLIONS of free roaming cattle in America.
“So if there is an over abundance of these animals it is because we are breeding them. If the market was down for meat products and rises for vegetables, then the farmer is going to do the smart thing and stop breeding and producing these animals to sell and start raising crops because that is where the money will be.”
True - he would slaughter all he had left for the market that remains and switch to something more profitable - he wouldn’t release them into the wild. So if its the death of cattle you’re trying to avoid, you failed big time. In fact cattle need so much land to graze, that if we stopped eating them and turned ranches etc into vegetable farms, they would probably go extinct like most other large herbivores.
But hey as long as we didn’t EAT them right?
“So the theory that animals must be killed to keep the population down doesn’t make a lot of sense unless they start packing deer and possum meat on the shelves at the local grocery chain.”
Here is where you obviously failed to grasp the argument. The argument was made that killing animals is immoral. I pointed out that not only was it not immoral, it was in fact natural and REQUIRED. If you take all the cows alive today in America, take their grazing land and turn it into vegetable crops, where and what will those cows eat? Obviously they will either eat the habitats of other animals or they will starve to death. But killing them is immoral right? So the only option would be to set aside the same amount of land they have now for them to graze, and then WE starve to death because we are denied meat AND vegetables will not be able to fill the gap.
You cant have it both ways - either we keep them alive for our own food supply, or we deny them their food supply to replace them with vegetables in ours. Oh, and by the way, IF we keep them alive, the lack of natural predators will see their populations explode, so more and more land will have to be set aside for them to graze, OR we will have to cull their numbers on a regular basis, by killing large numbers of them, to replace the role of their natural predators.
Thus either way, we will still end up having to kill these animals. Except the way vegetarians demand will result in their deaths being meaningless and worthless. At least if we eat them we are actually fulfilling our role as the predator, and not just killing them for convenience.
http://countercurrents.org/miller160807.htm
“Whoo boy, did you scrape the bottom of the barrel for this silly and trivial article! It sure shakes my faith in your journal as a serious forum. Please stick with things of a least trivial importance.”
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9370
“whataloadacrap!
attempt deux. attempt un was summarily dropped.
Ever see film of a pride of lionesses take down a zebra (or wildebeast…)? They start eating before the poor thing is dead. Talk about suffering! Why don’t we picket the african lions - make them eat flowers?
Nature is not compassionate. Nor should it be. It’s called natural selection. It is vital for the health and maximization of potential for a species.
I am endlessly amused at human hypocrisy. I witness daily humans’ incapability to feel compassion for other humans, yet these same dispassionates well up at the plight of bunnies in a lab.
After 2 news helicopters collided and crashed in Phoenix, killing all 4 hominids aboard, an acquaintance sobbed only after learning one of the hominids had brought his dog along and the dog had also died.”
Karmakaze:
“Here is where you obviously failed to grasp the argument. The argument was made that killing animals is immoral. I pointed out that not only was it not immoral, it was in fact natural and REQUIRED.”
Humans are omnivorous. We do not need to eat meat to get protein. Hence, we have a choice to eat animals or not. In certain stages of our development, it was in fact necessary to eat meat, due to scarcities etc., basically we hunted and gathered. Today, that is not necessary, so people have a choice, and the healthy choice seems to be eating vegetables, as does the moral choice, and relying on other sources for proteins.
Why is it now a moral choice? Because it [eating animals] has become a taste or a preference, not a necessity.
Are humans at the top of the food chain? I suppose so.
Do humans need to rely on the basic Darwinian food chain to survive? NO, not when it comes to our food choices. We are not out in the wilderness anymore with a direct threat from nature, nor do we have to go out with spears to hunt anymore.
Animals, will not stop hunting other animals, but we can stop animal cruelty and changing our eating habits, is a big step in that direction. We cause mass cruelty to animals, many species are becoming extinct due to use destroying their habitats, but this is fine with you because we are “at the top of the food chain” hence when we are the only species left, what will we have left to eat?
Our species has a superiority complex. Many of us do not respect nature, but in your own world, where reality exists much different than in the world of science… to you we are not destroying the planet, global warming is a slap on the wrist to nature, deforestation is no big deal, and my cats are dying to eat me as well…
Is it immoral to kill if we don’t need to simply out of “desire” or food preference as you say? Yes, it seems to be the case, because there is no NEED.
To kill to add veal to the menu is wrong. Animals can’t help this, it is in their genetic code to do so, they do not make moral choices but rely completely on instinct, and to the dislike of many, most of nature cooperates, not competes.
I don’t think we as civilized creatures (who resort back to our primitive inclinations when it suits some of our palates or arguments) need to rely completely on instinct, and our genetic composition doesn’t facilitate that we eat meat, like you said it’s a preference for some.
Is it sometimes necessary to kill? Yes. Does the morality of killing, or relying on the food chain depend on the context of the situation? Yes.
But is killing when there is NO NEED TO wrong? For humans - yes.
We are killing these animals by the billions. Mother nature can’t even keep up, so we grow them artificially to be slaughtered? To me that is wrong. If I had the choice, which I do, I would not do that, and if you would…well aren’t you just the king of the food chain then?
Karmakase, you have it right! If there was life on a planet with non-flesh eating animals, and non-flesh eating people, I’d leave tonight. People do not need to eat meat for proper nutrition. Nobody is going to die if they stopped eating meat. In fact, more people die from health problems they develop as a result of a steady diet of meat. Among wildlife, there is a balance that maintains itself quite well when not disrupted by humans. The idea that the planet will be overcome by animals if we don’t eat them is one of the funniest, and most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a very long time. Sadly, there are too many people that actually believe this. There are also hunters who convince themselves that they must kill off the ‘over population’ of every any animal they want to kill. If people stopped consuming meats, then they wouldn’t keep breeding them for that purpose. People who have the need to kill are not doing it because there’s a food shortage. It’s because they enjoy killing. This is based on a desire to have dominion over everything and anything that walks, crawls, swims or flies. It is unconscionable, that people can take pleasure in such a ’sport’. I suppose when one is born without a conscience, they turn into these so called sportsmen. One look at a list of endangered species would tell you that without laws in place to protect certain animals, people would just keep killing them for demented pleasure, until they are gone forever. I’m sure that trying to change the world with regard to this issue is a steep uphill battle. At this point, the first steps should be the upbringing of compassionate and well educated children, who learn to respect life. Then we need to enforce humane treatment for the way animals are raised, and more than that, for the way they are put to death. Of course it may cost more money to apply such procedures, and that’s where the blinding greed takes over. As far as people who show more compassion for animals used in experiments, than for other people is something I can defend. Modern science doesn’t need to subject animals to a long, slow, painful death. Didn’t the Nazi’s try that on people? Just because man is at the top of the food chain is no excuse for taking out every animal they feel like killing and bringing the species to near extinction.
Paul D:
Thank you for proving one point:
“Animals can’t help this, it is in their genetic code to do so, they do not make moral choices but rely completely on instinct, and to the dislike of many, most of nature cooperates, not competes.”
Wait… No thinking? No feeling? Just instinct?
“Why is it now a moral choice? Because it [eating animals] has become a taste or a preference, not a necessity.”
Killing for need is moral?
“Many of us do not respect nature, but in your own world, where reality exists much different than in the world of science… to you we are not destroying the planet, global warming is a slap on the wrist to nature, deforestation is no big deal, and my cats are dying to eat me as well…”
Actually you have no idea what I think about CLIMATE CHANGE (global warming is a misnomer used by the “deniers” to fool people like you), so bringing this into the conversation is nothing but a straw man argument.
As for deforestation, where do you think we are gonna grow all those vegetables?
Also I never said your cats were dying to eat you, what I said is you were a fool to think that their “moral choices” would take precedent over their “genetic code” and “instinct” and cause them to NOT eat you, even if they had no other food.
The fact is animals are no more concerned about the “morality” of eating you than I am about the “morality” of it them. It is what it is.
“most of nature cooperates, not competes.”
Bollocks - competition is the driving force of evolution - this sentence: “but in your own world, where reality exists much different than in the world of science” applies to you far better than it does to me.
“But is killing when there is NO NEED TO wrong? For humans - yes.”
Wait, why the distinction? Is it because you know that MANY species of animal kill when there is NO need to? That many kill their own young for convenience? That - oh my God no! - animals kill for sport????
The fact is what we do is no different from what animals would and do, do. Your morality argument is nothing but a result of childish anthropomorphism. No, they are not all peace loving hippies just trying to coexist in love and harmony. Like us, they are base creatures that will and do kill for any number of reasons, many having little direct relation to survival. Even two herbivores will attempt to kill each other merely for mating and even bragging rights.
“We are killing these animals by the billions. Mother nature can’t even keep up, so we grow them artificially to be slaughtered? To me that is wrong. If I had the choice, which I do, I would not do that, and if you would…well aren’t you just the king of the food chain then?”
OK, so instead, you would kill them all to avoid them all being killed? That is your only option, because as you said, “mother nature” (another childish anthropomorphism) can not support all these animals without our intervention. Oh and by the way, if we stopped setting aside land for them (ie ranches) they would probably become extinct, and I know you aren’t suggesting we give up all that vegetable farm land we’d need.
So your way results in just as many deaths of individuals AND possibly extinction of whole species, all for no reason other than in your eyes we have no need for them any more. Now THAT is moral!
LoraA:
“The idea that the planet will be overcome by animals if we don’t eat them is one of the funniest, and most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a very long time.”
You have obviously never heard of plagues like the mouse plagues that happen in Australia or the rabbit plagues in Australia and New Zealand, or the possum plagues in New Zealand, or any other such plague around the world. But even that doesn’t excuse this ignorant statement because as you said “Among wildlife, there is a balance that maintains itself quite well when not disrupted by humans.”
If you had thought this through, you would realize that we have ALREADY disrupted the balance when it comes to large predators. The animals that keep the large herbivore populations in check (that balance you talked about), are all but extinct. So what “natural” means are going to keep these billions of food animals from becoming trillions?
Have you seen how much damage a herd of hungry cows does to the area it grazes? Do you not know why these animals need HUGE tracts of land to migrate around? Or why we humans have to provide huge amounts of feed and fertilizers to keep what land we raise them on from becoming desert?
So lets just say we humans stop killing all the cows and sheep. Then what? Do we KEEP all that land used to provide food for them, or do we let them starve to death? If we do leave them on all that land and keep supplying feed to them, where are WE going to grow OUR food?
See you foolish “morality” vegetarians have put ZERO thought into your arguments at all. If you say you’re vegetarian for health reasons, then fine, good for you, but don’t expect me to take up your health regimen. But if you think you’re SAVING animals by refusing to eat them, then you really are no more intelligent than a cow or sheep.
Here is a good mental exercise for the latter people - what happened to all the large herbivores we DON’T eat? Where did they all go? If you answered most are extinct, and many are heading there, give yourself 10 points. To win the game however, ask yourself why there are so few of them and so many of the kinds of animals we do eat.
Have any of you “morality” vegetarians asked yourself whether cows and sheep evolved to be eaten by humans? That their very success (the fact there are more sheep than humans is testament to this) is BECAUSE they are eaten by us? They evolved traits that made them desirable to keep around, and now we spend trillions keeping them here. In fact most farm reared animals live LONGER than their wild cousins, and many breed far more often.
Sounds to me like cows and sheep WON the evolutionary war by joining into a symbiotic relationship with humans - we raise and protect them, and in turn we eat them, but not so much that they become extinct. Very natural. Very successful.