Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KJELLMUSIC · 04-03-2002, 03:05 PM

Is it limited to life that qualifies as "animal"?
What if you were in an enviroment (natural or unnatural) with limited food supply and eating animals was necessary for survival?
How does survival factor into it? Before learning to grow crops surviving meant also eating animals. I'm not sure that you can define eating meat as ONLY a pleasureable activity because there are other food choices. You assume that the same choices are always there for everyone, always have been and always will be. When starving, eating just about anything would be pleasurable because you are fullfilling your body's needs.
Then does choice equal immorality or unethical behavior?
How do other meat-eating animals and the web of life fit into this? Or does it only apply to the human species because they fallen out of sync with the natural world?

tronvillain · 04-03-2002, 04:44 PM

YHWH666:

Quote:

also eating animals is bad for humans too. We feed so much grain to animals in order to fatten them up for consumption that if we all became vegetarians, we could produce enough food to feed the entire world.

Of course, you probably wouldn't. It would obviously be less profitable, and it's not clear that it would be profitable at all. The cost to the domestic consumer might very well rise significantly.

Quote:

In the U.S., animals are fed more than 80 percent of the corn we grow and more than 95 percent of the oats. The world's cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people—more than the entire human population on Earth. vegetarianisim could easily solve world hunger.

Of course, oat production is the smallest of all grain crops, with the US producing only 148 million bushels in 1999/2000 with a price averaging around $1.00-1.10 US per bushel. Apparently high quality oats (#1CW) find a market as performance oats (feed for horses), humans consume lower grade milling oats (#1CW, #2CW, and in some cases suitable #3CW), and feed oats are of lower grade still (#3CW, #4CW). Out of curiosity, where did you get that percentage for oats? I've seen a lot of different numbers, but 95% seems unlikely, considering human consumption, seed, and industrial use.

Anyway, here's an interesting essay: <a href="http://www.pathwai.org/truth_about_animal_agriculture.htm" target="_blank">The Truth About Animal Agriculture and Food Supply</a>.

tronvillain · 04-03-2002, 04:46 PM

Oh, and when you say that argument has you convinced, do you mean that it changed your mind or that it told you what you wanted to hear?

Bokonon · 04-03-2002, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:<a href="http://www.pathwai.org/truth_about_animal_agriculture.htm" target="_blank">The Truth About Animal Agriculture and Food Supply</a>.[/QB]

You'd be all over a link like that if someone from the other side used it to support an argument.

The guy quotes 2 sources for the entire work. He's a member of the Cattleman's Association. The first mention from the USDA Crop Production had some merit. I need to investigate that further. But the argument for the second source was a non-argument at it's best.

I also find it odd he provides no further information on the study by the University of Nebraska.

He gives no sources to back up his animal abuse claims.

I distrust any information provided by PETA largely due to the fact that they rarely provide sources. They tend to distort data to fit their own agenda (an agenda I share, but I'm not willing to compromise integrity over it). This man clearly has his own agenda. He ignores the mounds of study that show regular meat consumption increases one's risk for heart disease. He distorted that issue much in the same way he criticizes PETA for distorting other issues.

tronvillain · 04-03-2002, 05:22 PM

Yes, but I didn't use it to support an argument. I just linked to it as an interesting article - I was primarily interested in the first half.

Bokonon · 04-03-2002, 05:32 PM

For the record, the statistics PETA uses for most of the water usage/grain arguments come from John Robbins' Diet for a New America.

I don't own the book, so I'm not sure where he gets the numbers. It was published over a decade ago, and this is the first questioning I've ever read on it. Excuse me for being suspicious until I can confirm what the Rancher has to say.

While I haven't read any of his works yet, I know John Robbins to be a man of integrity. He's confronted Robert Cohen (The NotMilk Man) and others about his bending of studies to suit his agenda. I've read tirades by the Beef and Dairy Councils, but no arguments of substance. Robbins was the heir to the Baskin-Robbins chain, but he refused and dedicated his life to the animal rights cause.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

tronvillain · 04-03-2002, 05:44 PM

Anyway, by his animal abuse claim I assume you mean his response to this:

Quote:

“Animals on factory farms are treated like machines. Within days of birth, for example, cows have their horns torn from their heads and chickens have their beaks seared off with a hot blade. Male cows and pigs are castrated without painkillers. All of these animals spend their brief lives in crowded and ammonia-filled conditions, many of them so cramped that they can't even turn around or spread a wing. Many do not get a breath of fresh air until they are prodded and crammed onto trucks for a nightmarish ride to the slaughterhouse, often through weather extremes and always without food or water.”

1)Cattle do not have their horns "torn from their head" - their horns are treated so that they don't grow in the first place.

2)Cattle are castrated without anaesthetic, and while it appears to be traumatic, they recover immediately.

3)Cattle spend most of their lives on rangeland and in pastures.

4)Cattle are transported in trucks, but while unpleasant the experience is not accurately described as "nightmarish." It a brief period of crowding, motion, and slight hunger and thirst, but "weather extremes are irrelevant."

I'm not going to comment on chickens since I don't know that much about them, but I'm less concerned about them than cattle anyway.

In my experience, his reply is quite accurate:

Quote:

PeTA seems to overlook the profit motive and basic business practice, if nothing else. Livestock represents a huge capital investment for farmers and ranchers who are often getting by on a shoestring. It flies in the face of reason to suggest that farmers and ranchers would deliberately mistreat animals upon which their livelihood depends.

To make matters worse, PeTA omits the fact that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) tightly regulates producers of animals for human consumption. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service monitors food processing facilities for cleanliness, sanitation, and good handling practices, while the Farm Service Agency supplies support to farmers and ranchers in modernization of animal husbandry technique.

The majority of animals raised for food receive excellent veterinary care, spend a significant portion of their lives at pasture, and when the time comes for slaughter, are killed quickly and humanely.

Cattle simply do not live miserable lives.

tronvillain · 04-03-2002, 05:52 PM

Bokonon:

Quote:

While I haven't read any of his works yet, I know John Robbins to be a man of integrity.

Having read Diet for a New America, I'd have to say that I don't. I grew up on a ranch, and what he had to say about the cattle industry was laughable. If he wasn't lying or deliberately attempting to decieve, he didn't do his research too well.

pug846 · 04-03-2002, 08:09 PM

YHWH666 said:

Quote:

the quality "happiness" has intrinsic value.

Since argument by assertion works with you, I would like to assert that the quality �misery� has intrinsic value. Clearly, eating as many animals as possible is the right thing to do.

Quote:

animals can feel happiness and they can also feel suffering. therefore it is as immoral to kill an animal as it is to kill a human of the same intelligence.

This is a non-sequitor. Under the system you have provided us with, we would be fine if we could just kill the animal in a painless fashion. And what does intelligence have to do with suffering?

Quote:

i think most people here (including the subjectivists) would consider it immoral to kill a severly mentally retarded person for pleasure (at least for the pleasure equivelent of a hamburger).

Unfortunately, you aren�t able to claim that killing a severely mentally retarded person for pleasure is wrong. Lets say I for some reason DO derive some small amount of pleasure in killing this MR child. As long as I kill him or her in a painless way, I�m home free.

Besides those small problems, your argument seems pretty solid.

YHWH666 · 04-03-2002, 08:14 PM

"Cattle simply do not live miserable lives. "
"Cattle do not have their horns "torn from their head" - their horns are treated so that they don't grow in the first place."
__________________________________________________ ______

Um... no. i'm afraid this is blatantly incorrect. i doubt that any quotes or statistics would change your view. you could easily claim it was exaggerated or made up. but i don't think you would doubt your own eyes so i must direct you toURL=http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/peta/video_general/meatyourmeet_176x132.rm]video proof[/URL]if graphic abuse and torture of animals disturbs anyone i suggest they not view this video

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2002, 03:05 PM	#51
KJELLMUSIC Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: The midwest Posts: 65	Is it limited to life that qualifies as "animal"? What if you were in an enviroment (natural or unnatural) with limited food supply and eating animals was necessary for survival? How does survival factor into it? Before learning to grow crops surviving meant also eating animals. I'm not sure that you can define eating meat as ONLY a pleasureable activity because there are other food choices. You assume that the same choices are always there for everyone, always have been and always will be. When starving, eating just about anything would be pleasurable because you are fullfilling your body's needs. Then does choice equal immorality or unethical behavior? How do other meat-eating animals and the web of life fit into this? Or does it only apply to the human species because they fallen out of sync with the natural world?

04-03-2002, 04:46 PM	#53
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Oh, and when you say that argument has you convinced, do you mean that it changed your mind or that it told you what you wanted to hear?

04-03-2002, 05:22 PM	#55
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Yes, but I didn't use it to support an argument. I just linked to it as an interesting article - I was primarily interested in the first half.

04-03-2002, 05:32 PM	#56
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	For the record, the statistics PETA uses for most of the water usage/grain arguments come from John Robbins' Diet for a New America. I don't own the book, so I'm not sure where he gets the numbers. It was published over a decade ago, and this is the first questioning I've ever read on it. Excuse me for being suspicious until I can confirm what the Rancher has to say. While I haven't read any of his works yet, I know John Robbins to be a man of integrity. He's confronted Robert Cohen (The NotMilk Man) and others about his bending of studies to suit his agenda. I've read tirades by the Beef and Dairy Councils, but no arguments of substance. Robbins was the heir to the Baskin-Robbins chain, but he refused and dedicated his life to the animal rights cause. [ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Bokonon ]</p>

04-03-2002, 08:14 PM	#60
YHWH666 Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: North America Posts: 457	"Cattle simply do not live miserable lives. " "Cattle do not have their horns "torn from their head" - their horns are treated so that they don't grow in the first place." __________________________________________________ ______ Um... no. i'm afraid this is blatantly incorrect. i doubt that any quotes or statistics would change your view. you could easily claim it was exaggerated or made up. but i don't think you would doubt your own eyes so i must direct you toURL=http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/peta/video_general/meatyourmeet_176x132.rm]video proof[/URL]if graphic abuse and torture of animals disturbs anyone i suggest they not view this video

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.