Corona688

Ow! My brains!

tronvillain

Stephen T-B:
Actually, I am not convinced that people are incredibly offended by the notion of killing and eating dogs. I suspect that if dogs were as tasty and calorie heavy as pigs are that we would eat them all the time. Dogs only tend to be consumed in environments where other sources of meat are or were scarce - they are not especially good eating.

Now, I do not think it morally "repugnant" to eat horses, hamsters, squirrels, or song birds either (I can see how an animal being bute or familiar might cause some people to frown on eating that animal, but it does not significantly affect me). Nor do I think it inherently wrong to kill an animal for its horns, tusks, or skins.

Now, what I do consider immoral is killing animals in a way that inspires in me sufficient empathy to overcome the utility derived from the animal's death - to me, morality is primarily a matter of weighing empathy against other factors. As a result I frown on killing most of the more intelligent animals for any reason whatsoever.

ksagnostic

Keep in mind that comparing the "intelligence" of different animals is an apples and oranges comparison at best. Again, whales live in a very different environment from terrestrial mammals, and some of the animals that you mention, such as parrots and other birds, live in yet another very different environment, as well as depend on a completely different brain structure for their "intelligence". To me intelligence, plus dependence on learning, plus length of development (typically, the larger the animal, the longer the developmental period), are all significant. So is the presence of personality. As an aside, I do attempt to avoid pork (except when my parents serve it) partially because of pig intelligence, and also because they tend to be raised under exceptionally horrible conditions on commercial hog farms, which also cause significant environmental degradation. All of the above being said, pigs I do think are a better comparison to whales than rats because in the wild pigs live in family groups, and piglets are dependent upon their mother to learn what to eat, and to a certain extent how to behave. However, their developmental period is still substantially shorter than that of whales, particularly Sperm Whales.

One of the ways I approach the animal use issue comes down to what I call, for lack of a better name for it, the "Prime Directive" approach (taken from Star Trek). A widely occurring theme in science fiction is the ethical approach that "sentient" life forms are afforded rights, the primary right being to exist. With regards to non-human animals, I tend to look at the issue this way, if we developed a symbolic communication system potentially understandable to the other species, can the other species learn it to the extent that they can actually participate in even very simple discussions regarding subjects relating to "rights" and "expectations"? My guess is that sperm whales potentially could, because they have a sufficient developmental period to acquire such a communication system, although such a guess will remain completely theoretical when it comes to a gigantic animal that is dependent upon an open ocean environment. Pigs, bright as they are, probably could not, any more than dogs could (in fact, dog-pig comparisons are an excellent example of apple-orange comparisons).

See my first post on this thread. With Sperm Whales in particular, the question isn't only numbers, it is the age of the population. Sperm Whale populations are still disproportionately young because of whaling done 30 years ago. My objections are several (again, see my first post in my thread to see them outlined), but to be honest they do include the "intelligent" objection. There are some cultural issues that haven't really been touched on in this thread, and I don't have time to do so now, but they don't sway me with regards to whaling any more than they do with regards to bushmeat.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]</p>

Primal

I would like to note, in regards to the mention of how much whales eat. That whales do not eat much commercial fish at all and though they may eat a lot of krill (160 million tons a year for high estimates of balleen whales) there is about 7.5 billion tons of krill in the sea.

I am also not offended by eating dog as long as the practice is not overly cruel, though it makes less sense to me then eating cow. (As cows were bred via artificial selection for 6000 years to be eaten, dogs to be pets...also cows are more herbivores...dogs carnivores/omnivores i.e. you don't have to feed your meat, meat). Mainly as long as it isn't my dog that is being eaten.

I'm usually against hunting vs slaughtering though due to its unpredictable affect on ecosystems, free-for-all style competition,unorganized population changes that is caused by hunting,more cruelty in the deaths, use of guns/hunting accidents, and questionable quality of the meat, etc.

To me hunting is cruel and barbaric and hence a moral issue. Especially when it endangers a major player in a very important ecosystem. As eco-holocaust is becoming a very important moral issue, as the enviroment continues to be ravaged in ways that may lead to ecocide.


Basically for similiar reasons that I support organized punishment i.e. courts as opposed to vigilanty justice.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>