Maverick

The gun I mentioned seems to deliver the killing blow. Puts a 1/4" (roughly) rod all the way through the brain. I have never seen a moving cow enter the "blood pit" where the throat is slit.

The only time I have seen a cow struggle was with the Kosher killing, and I didn't stay to watch the rest.

Maverick

SmashingIdols

The Kosher killing sounds horrible.

However, life always ends poorly for quadrapeds in the wild. It sounds as if the slaughterhouse (with the shot through the head) is more humane than being ripped open alive by predators in the wild. The cows that mill around Boulder look pretty content at least - although we all know where it ends.

"Is it better to be the wildebeast in the zoo, safe and sound <a href="http://www.creature-creations.com/g3c1e.jpg" target="_blank">from this grisly fate</a>, or the wildebeast in the wild - despite your annual run through the snapping jaws of crocodiles?"

If only cattle could talk!

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: SmashingIdols ]</p>

Free Thinkr

You've hit the nail on the head. Its like I said, I don't endorse torturing animals for sport or anything, but I believe it is perfectly acceptable to eat them, considering man always has and always will. The world is not a kind and gentle place, animals will feel pain, as will people. Frankly, I'm more concerned with human suffering.

The AntiChris

The reduction of human and animal suffering are not mutually exclusive activities.

Chris

Free Thinkr

That's a bit of wild conjecture, don't you think?

The AntiChris

No.

Chris

SmashingIdols

To a degree, the reduction of Human and Other Species suffering are mutually exclusive activities.

If we rounded up all the animals in the world and put them in zoos, we could stop most of the suffering caused by the "survival of the fittest" paradigm. Then they would all suffer the mental stress of being caged. After having destroyed all the ecological systems of the world doing this, we would all die. Doesn’t work. Besides, what exactly would we feed them in the zoo? Cupcakes?

Human suffering on the other hand is something that we may be able to correct (for the most part). However to do it without any animal suffering creates a global issue. Many people in the world are forced to eat meat - there is simply no other means of sustenance. Over 2/3 of the land area of the world is unsuitable for farming, and much of that area is grasslands with quadraped specialized in grazing it. People in these areas must hunt and herd. Many of the societies are far more sustainable with far less environmental impact than anything conceivable. We could certainly make the animal deaths more humane by urbanizing these cultures, providing state of the art kill mechanisms. But overall it would increase other specie’s suffering though the environmental impact of urbanization and technological development. I do not think the animal suffering would be decreased by this.

To prevent human caused suffering of these animals, we could repress their societies, forcing them to not eat meat; however does that fulfill the desire to reduce human and other species suffering? Social repression, relocation, and removal of livelihood constitute a form of human suffering.

Then we would have to adopt some form of Global Economic Solution, to insure that the production of food in countries like the USA provides the people indigenous to the grasslands of Africa or Asia. Does that imply reduced suffering to you?

And, if we succeeded on preventing the human caused other specie’s suffering, we have done nothing to cure the inter-species suffering caused by predation. And the very thought that we should is itself of questionable mental-soundness.

Animal suffering is a fact of life, for Humans and all others.

There is only one-way to achieve the goal: the utter destruction of all life on the planet. That would end all suffering. There is some thought that every 27 million years our solar system passes through the center-plane of the galaxy, disturbing the Ort Cloud where numerous devices of mass-extinction lay waiting for this very event… and we are overdue.

Personally I think that by best taking care of ourselves, we are best taking care of the planet. And sometimes that means animals will suffer.

Like the man said - anything else is a bit of wild conjecture.

The AntiChris

Do you know what a Straw Man is?

Actually, I had in mind something a little less ambitious.

As a start, we could amend the existing animal welfare legislation to improve the minimum standards which regulate the conditions under which farm animals are kept and slaughtered. This would certainly increase the cost of meat products to the consumer. However, the likely reduction in meat consumption would almost certainly lead to an improvement in the health of the human population.

The obvious fact that we'll never completely eliminate human-induced animal suffering is not a valid reason for doing nothing.

Chris

SmashingIdols

The Humane Society of the United States is working toward that very goal. What's even more amazing is how McDonalds is now engaging research toward this very goal. That's progress.

To a limited degree, the reduction of human and some of the other specie's suffering are not mutually exclusive.

- I doubt anyone of conscience would disagree.