Offensive PETA ad / Animal ethics?

[Gustav]

so ahh sam
what do jains eat? i read this....

Jains make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. They admit that plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, but they only accept such violence inasmuch as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants. Jains don’t eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions, roots and tubers, because tiny life forms are injured when the plant is pulled up and because the bulb is seen as a living being, as it is able to sprout. Also, consumption of most root vegetables involves uprooting & killing the entire plant. Whereas consumption of most terrestrial vegetables doesn't kill the plant (it lives on after plucking the vegetables or it was seasonally supposed to wither away anyway).(wiki)

..and wonder what would be served at the dinner table. can a human survive by only eating shit that "seasonally withers away"? what would that be anyway? just fruit?

 

[S.A.M.]

so ahh sam
what do jains eat? i read this....

Jains make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. They admit that plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, but they only accept such violence inasmuch as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants. Jains don’t eat root vegetables such as potatoes, onions, roots and tubers, because tiny life forms are injured when the plant is pulled up and because the bulb is seen as a living being, as it is able to sprout. Also, consumption of most root vegetables involves uprooting & killing the entire plant. Whereas consumption of most terrestrial vegetables doesn't kill the plant (it lives on after plucking the vegetables or it was seasonally supposed to wither away anyway).(wiki)

..and wonder what would be served at the dinner table. can a human survive by only eating shit that "seasonally withers away"? what would that be anyway? just fruit?

They eat pulses, cereals, fruits, vegetables. All crops except tubers. I don't know if they avoid GLV [green leafy vegetables] which are generally plucked alongwith roots to retain freshness. The primary problems they have are with iron and B12, which they can overcome with supplements. Jain monks eat only fruits and beans, afaik. They fast a lot too and have been known to starve themselves to death rather than eat a forbidden food.

And yes, they have been doing it for thousands of years, even before supplements, so its obviously a viable diet

As a note to all meat eaters, fur wearers etc, it might help to understand the opposing views if you took time to read up on the subject:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Libe...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290584239&sr=1-1

Just to bring some talking points into this discussion on moral objections or justifications:

One of my bone of contentions [bones of contention? bone of contention?] with vegetarian crusaders is that they don't look beyong the obvious. The cow being sacred in India means that it is not consumed as much as it is in the west. So, is it better off? We only waste resources on the health of animals we consume. Everything else is left to "nature" until it hits the endangered list after which it becomes a talking point for more crusaders. I'm sympathetic to those who want to save the trees and endangered species as well as to those who make a conscious decision not to benefit from animal suffering, but when I go to pet shelters and see all the animals on the hit list of the next round of euthanasia, I wonder if that is the ultimate destination of all the animals who take up space on which we've called dibs on the planet.

On vegetarianism: I don't know any persons who eat only meat. But I do know that the animals we eat will be competing with us for food if we all turn vegetarian. So how many vegetarians here are providing food for the animals they don't eat? How many of them are working to sustain animals they do not want hunted for fur or horn? What are you doing for the animals you are not exploiting?

PETA has a euthanasia rate of a staggering 97% - those are all dogs and cats and other animals that no one is eating. So either death by eating or death by euthanasia? Is there a third option?

One of the arguments made in favour of vegetarianism is that it costs more to be a meat eater because we have to set aside farmland to feed the animals as well. So what happens when that farmland is used only to feed people? Where will the animals go? What will they eat? Or is a massive bout of euthanasia to take care of all these animals?

I find myself more easily persuaded by rational logical and objective arguments than emotional tantrums on whose moral relativitism is more valid. So lets hear the responses.

 

[wsionynw]

Just to bring some talking points into this discussion on moral objections or justifications:

One of my bone of contentions with vegetarian crusaders is that they don't look beyong the obvious. The cow being sacred in India means that it is not consumed as much as it is in the west. So, is it better off? We only waste resources on the health of animals we consume. Everything else is left to "nature" until it hits the endangered list after which it becomes a talking point for more crusaders. I'm sympathetic to those who want to save the trees and endangered species as well as to those who make a conscious decision not to benefit from animal suffering, but when I go to pet shelters and see all the animals on the hit list of the next round of euthanasia, I wonder if that is the ultimate destination of all the animals who take up space on which we've called dibs on the planet.

On vegetarianism: I don't know any persons who eat only meat. But I do know that the animals we eat will be competing with us for food if we all turn vegetarian. So how many vegetarians here are providing food for the animals they don't eat? How many of them are working to sustain animals they do not want hunted for fur or horn? What are you doing for the animals you are not exploiting?

PETA has a euthanasia rate of a staggering 97% - those are all dogs and cats and other animals that no one is eating. So either death by eating or death by euthanasia? Is there a third option?

One of the arguments made in favour of vegetarianism is that it costs more to be a meat eater because we have to set aside farmland to feed the animals as well. So what happens when that farmland is used only to feed people? Where will the animals go? What will they eat? Or is a massive bout of euthanasia to take care of all these animals?

I find myself more easily persuaded by rational logical and objective arguments than emotional tantrums on whose moral relativitism is more valid. So lets hear the responses.

Yes the third option is they could just let unwanted animals roam the streets to be picked off by traffic, weirdos, illness, starvation, etc.

Regarding the switch from mass consumption of meat to a meat free diet, I don't think that will ever happen for lots of reasons. I have a recent artical from New Scientist that covers this exact idea, would it be better for the planet if we didn't eat meat? I'll try to dig it out and post some of the conclusions.

Remember that animals bred for meat, fur, whatever only exist because humans made it happen. Stop breeding them and the issue goes away. This extends to protection of habitat for wild animals so that we leave enough room for both farming and conservation...a difficult balance that we are currently failing to achieve.

Don't forget SAM that if it wasn't for the actions of moral crusaders the quality of life for millions of people (and animals) would be drastically reduced. Surely you can appreciate this?

 

[wsionynw]

And my point is that I am perfectly justified in having my ethics derived from any source I choose. Be it fashion, a book, a person or a philosophy. I don't think one needs to expand on the "morality" of why they pick and choose between a certain species or subspecies as a source of energy. Life feeds on life, excluding things like cola and extruded proteins made from artificially produced amino acids.

Yes that's true, you are free to think what you like of course. I suggest that we should however consider the larger implications of our actions, never mind where our ethics are derived from. To live you must feed, but HOW you choose to feed is something worthy of consideration if it affects others.

 

[James R]

SAM:

I have sent you a response to your post by PM.

I find myself more easily persuaded by rational logical and objective arguments than emotional tantrums on whose moral relativitism is more valid

Add you to the list of people more concerned with labelling the other side as crazy fanatics than in honestly discussing the issue. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm out of this. I have better things to do than to argue with people who post in bad faith.

 

[Enmos]

It's absolutely pathetic.

They're comparing the systematic annihilation of an entire ethnic race to sustaining the US population! FREAKIN' A! If PETA could propose a viable method of sustaining 307 million people without the need to kill millions of animals on-demand, I might just jump on the bandwagon, but until they have their own 'final solution' I suggest they shut the fuck up. Stop wasting money on ads like this and spend it on research. People don't change their dietary consumption simply because you post a sign with statistics on it. And if they do then that's their problem.

How do you feel about the 12 million animals that perish, for your taste, every 4 hours (in the US alone)?
The amount of meat consumed in the US goes far far beyond the basic needs for food. They could easily do with perhaps a fourth of that (or maybe even less) and still have healthy diets, assuming that they are eating healthy now that is.
Maybe they should donate the excess to poor countries... But that doesn't really happen, does it? So your point above is kind of moot.

 

[Enmos]

i would prefer it if everyone had to kill their own meat to eat.

Now that would be a true holocaust. At least the gross of animals killed for food now is domesticated and thus not taken from nature.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes the third option is they could just let unwanted animals roam the streets to be picked off by traffic, weirdos, illness, starvation, etc.

Regarding the switch from mass consumption of meat to a meat free diet, I don't think that will ever happen for lots of reasons. I have a recent artical from New Scientist that covers this exact idea, would it be better for the planet if we didn't eat meat? I'll try to dig it out and post some of the conclusions.

I would be interested in that for lots of different reasons. One of the major stumbling blocks I've seen in nutritional considerations is the factoring in of personal foibles when it comes to food choice. I know people who do not eat anything with visible seeds, people who eat only white meat exclusively, people who cannot tolerate food with a single chilly in it and people who will pick out vegetables and put them on one side of the dish while eating. I also know people who will chew on penises, crunch on fish eyeballs and suck on baby octopuses without a qualm [I tend to fall in the latter category]. What I find most interesting however are food cravings. I consider food cravings to be the body's mechanism for indicating malnutrition but what surprises me most about them is how they never venture into taboo foods. But all that is beside the point. To cut to the chase, I think food is too complex a physiological phenomenon to be relegated to a moral issue.

Remember that animals bred for meat, fur, whatever only exist because humans made it happen. Stop breeding them and the issue goes away.

Do you really believe that? Do you have pets? What would happen to them if you returned them to their natural environment. In fact, what is their natural environment?

This extends to protection of habitat for wild animals so that we leave enough room for both farming and conservation...a difficult balance that we are currently failing to achieve.

So animals bred for food and fur would then have to disappear since they do not "belong" either to the wilderness or to farmlands. Do you also advocate the same fate for all domesticated animals?

Don't forget SAM that if it wasn't for the actions of moral crusaders the quality of life for millions of people (and animals) would be drastically reduced. Surely you can appreciate this?

I think that kind of outlook is true if we bracket the consequences of our actions within certain time frames and assign an arbitrary value to the importance of the perpetuation of certain species over others. Whether we do it for food or for environment

Yes that's true, you are free to think what you like of course. I suggest that we should however consider the larger implications of our actions, never mind where our ethics are derived from. To live you must feed, but HOW you choose to feed is something worthy of consideration if it affects others.

?? How you choose to feed? I choose to eat foods that are wholesome and nutritious. If something has to die everytime I eat, thats an indication of how fresh it is. Given a choice between fabricated foods and farm produce, including meat, I know what I would choose. I enjoy sea food the most but I like variety in my diet even more so I take care to eat from a wide variety of food groups. Eating for me is not a moral position, its a biological prerogative. Trapped in the Andes after a flight crash, you'd find me among the people who would be willing to cannibalise on dead crew members. I don't believe in pointless moral rhetoric - I'm first and foremost a realist and a pragmatist. You won't find me among Jain monks who starve rather than eat taboo foods. Luckily I practise a pragmatic faith and such moral considerations never bother me.

SAM:

I have sent you a response to your post by PM.



Add you to the list of people more concerned with labelling the other side as crazy fanatics than in honestly discussing the issue. Ho hum. I'm glad I'm out of this. I have better things to do than to argue with people who post in bad faith.

No problem James. Everyone has their buttons and this is clearly yours. I'll read your response but I won't reply to it.

How do you feel about the 12 million animals that perish, for your taste, every 4 hours (in the US alone)?
The amount of meat consumed in the US goes far far beyond the basic needs for food. They could easily do with perhaps a fourth of that (or maybe even less) and still have healthy diets, assuming that they are eating healthy now that is.
Maybe they should donate the excess to poor countries... But that doesn't really happen, does it? So your point above is kind of moot.

I agree with some of your points. I am a firm believer in not wasting any food and I agree that conspicuous consumption is bad for society. Its one of the challenges of modern society to waste as little as possible. And thats not just restricted to food. With the decrease in potable water, we're going to see a less sustainable society for all in the near future.

 

[Kennyc]

Didn't you already say that? You're just as wrong this time as the other three times you've said that. Why repeat yourself? Why are you still in this thread at all?

You should ask yourself that. Have you not ranted and raved the same thing in dozens of posts even in this thread. Has it made a difference, caused anyone to change their mind or perhaps just driven them further from your cause. :shrug:

Edit: Oh, nevermind I see he's gone away...

 

[wsionynw]

Do you really believe that? Do you have pets? What would happen to them if you returned them to their natural environment. In fact, what is their natural environment?


So animals bred for food and fur would then have to disappear since they do not "belong" either to the wilderness or to farmlands. Do you also advocate the same fate for all domesticated animals?



I think that kind of outlook is true if we bracket the consequences of our actions within certain time frames and assign an arbitrary value to the importance of the perpetuation of certain species over others. Whether we do it for food or for environment



?? How you choose to feed? I choose to eat foods that are wholesome and nutritious. If something has to die everytime I eat, thats an indication of how fresh it is. Given a choice between fabricated foods and farm produce, including meat, I know what I would choose. I enjoy sea food the most but I like variety in my diet even more so I take care to eat from a wide variety of food groups. Eating for me is not a moral position, its a biological prerogative. Trapped in the Andes after a flight crash, you'd find me among the people who would be willing to cannibalise on dead crew members. I don't believe in pointless moral rhetoric - I'm first and foremost a realist and a pragmatist. You won't find me among Jain monks who starve rather than eat taboo foods. Luckily I practise a pragmatic faith and such moral considerations never bother me.

My only pets are two cats that we took in because their owners could not afford to keep them anymore. The cats are free to run away whenever they please, but I hope they don't.

Animals need not disappear, they could be left to live in their natural environment in whatever numbers they could sustain. I'm talking about the millions of animals bred in captivity just to die.

I would think our planet and the animals that live on it are a valuable not just because of commercial reasons but what they add to our sense of wonder and what can be learned from them. A painting is not just a piece of canvas, it has a value that cannot be quantified so easily. The same goes for animals, maybe when we have lost the wild tiger, rhino, etc we will regret our actions and lament that more wasn't done to save them, just as we would grieve for the loss of all the collected examples of human artistic expression that exist on the planet. Who knows?

I'm not suggesting people starve or become ill due to a lack of nutrition, none of my posts have ever suggested that. Your religious views are personal, why should another animal or human needlessly suffer for them? It might be pragmatic at least in the short term to wipe out every square inch of rainforest to make a profit from breeding cattle, but do you think it is worth considering what we would lose in the long term? Is it not worth considering the suffering of others, including animals, just to satisfy personal whims?
Or is this not covered by your pragmatic faith based outlook?

 

[Stryder]

How do you feel about the 12 million animals that perish, for your taste, every 4 hours (in the US alone)?
The amount of meat consumed in the US goes far far beyond the basic needs for food. They could easily do with perhaps a fourth of that (or maybe even less) and still have healthy diets, assuming that they are eating healthy now that is.
Maybe they should donate the excess to poor countries... But that doesn't really happen, does it? So your point above is kind of moot.

It should be duly noted that the "Consumption" of meat isn't necessarily through ingestion. Stocking fast food outlets on the pretence that the food is available *if* needed is why the figures are so high. (Gluttony) Due to meat being feasted on by bacteria all too easily as apart of the natural process of decay, any produce that is stored frozen for a few months, or cooked but then allowed to cool down etc, Has to be dumped. (Or becomes degraded to "Not Fit for Human Consumption" and fed to other animals)

Technically Meat waste should really be placed into a separate waste process because of the potential of diseases and various forms of bacteria, instead of just being placed into general waste. (Of course I doubt anyone would want the job of collecting meat wastes in a biohazard/environment suit)

Is it "Moral or Ethical to kill animals for food", obviously the argument there can be seen from at least two angles.

Some people from a religious view or from a personal empathic point of view will see killing of animals as wrong generally, however they might understand that people eat meat, they might reason that in all of human history there have always been human Omnivores. What their actual concern is probably more to do with "Killing unnecessarily", like I mentioned previously "Overstock" is the main reason for "killing unnecessarily", I mean take a look at the Mad Cow Disease (CJD) outbreaks, even though they culled herds of cattle to stop the spread, were any of those predominant meat eaters out there "short a steak?".

(One point on Ethic's and Morality, While it's known that us humans can delude ourselves with empathetic quandaries, it can be implied that what we might feel sort for might well not see things the same way from their relativistic perception.

An example of this is a priest might be too scared to tread the surface of the earth for fear of squishing an ant, however if that priest was sat having a picnic in a meadow that ant won't think twice about biting him to work out if he is food.)

The argument from those that eat meat is "well it's something there use to, the world has had omnivores throughout it's history. Why should they give up something that don't usually place into a moral situation".

A come back argument would likely ensue that "If you killed and cooked your own meat, then it would be acceptable" of course the problem here is that some people would be seen as "Cruel" in how they slaughter their food, or perhaps even play sick games with it (Like watching a headless chicken run with the obvious absence of it's head spurting blood from it's throat as the body suddenly comes to terms with the fact that it's no longer capable of living.)

(Incidentally a fact which you can throw to one side as being trivial, Since "Meat" has been accepted as a human food source it can be posed that it's the only reason cannibalism has ever occurred.)

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not suggesting people starve or become ill due to a lack of nutrition, none of my posts have ever suggested that. Your religious views are personal, why should another animal or human needlessly suffer for them?

They shouldn't. And they don't. I only eat food when I am hungry. Its not at all "needless" In the principle of equal consideration I also feed my pets non-vegetarian food [supplemented with some fabricated food, same as me] - I fully permit other people to indulge in their food choices [including vegetarians] and I would not blame my animals for feeding on me in case I died and they were trapped with no other food source.

I'm curious. Are your cats vegetarians?

 

[wsionynw]

They shouldn't. And they don't. I only eat food when I am hungry. Its not at all "needless" In the principle of equal consideration I also feed my pets non-vegetarian food [supplemented with some fabricated food, same as me] - I fully permit other people to indulge in their food choices [including vegetarians] and I would not blame my animals for feeding on me in case I died and they were trapped with no other food source.

I'm curious. Are your cats vegetarians?

No, to the best of my knowledge it is not possible to feed a cat meat free diet and expect them to remain healthy:
http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com/qa/can-cats-or-dogs-live-vegetarian-diet

The difference between me and a cat is that I don't need to eat meet.

 

[S.A.M.]

No, to the best of my knowledge it is not possible to feed a cat meat free diet and expect them to remain healthy:
http://www.bbcfocusmagazine.com/qa/can-cats-or-dogs-live-vegetarian-diet

The difference between me and a cat is that I don't need to eat meet.

Well let me assure you on that point. I personally know vegetarians who feed their cats vegetarian diets and their cats are perfectly healthy. The cats are fed a combination stew of pulses, cereals and mixed vegetables. However, if you still have compunctions, there are both vegan and vegetarian cat foods available, supplemented with the nutrients that cats need in optimal proportions.

Vegetarian or vegan cat food has been available for many years, and is targeted primarily at vegan and vegetarian pet owners. While a small percentage of owners choose such a diet based on its perceived health benefits, the majority do so due to ethical concerns. Despite this, most believe that a vegetarian diet is healthier than a conventional diet.

As obligate carnivores, cats require nutrients (including arginine, taurine, arachidonic acid, vitamin A, vitamin B12 and niacin) found in meat sources that cannot be obtained in sufficient amount in plant sources. Vegetarian pet food companies attempt to correct these deficiencies by supplementing their products with synthetically produced nutrients. According to the National Research Council, "Cats require specific nutrients, not specific feedstuffs." While there is "no scientific reason why diets comprised entirely of plant, mineral and synthetically based ingredients" cannot satisfy the nutrient requirements of cats, Former HSUS Vice-President Dr Michael W. Fox argues that "To use the science of nutrition that is still in its infancy to support the feeding of vegetarian food to cats is to ignore the precautionary principle with regard to 'synthetically based ingredients', as well as the basic biology of the cat as a carnivore."

http://www.tititudorancea.com/z/cat_food.htm

There are some concerns about lower than normal serum levels for some nutrients, but not sub-clinical ones and similar to concerns about the bioavailability of iron and B12 nutrition in vegetarian people i.e. easily addressed by supplementation.

So will you now switch to veg foods for your cats?

Of my own cats [4 of them], I feed them a variety of foods based on their personal choices. They are all brought up offered the same variety [raw or cooked meat/fish, cat treats, biscuits, milk and glucose biscuits etc] but grow up developing their own tastes and likes and dislikes.

 

[Stryder]

So will you now switch to veg foods for your cats?

You can feed a cat a vegetarian diet, however since it is a cat, it's not necessarily confined to moral or ethical dilemmas about who or what it eats when fending for itself, so it could just run outside, hop on the nearest bird and promptly chomp on it's head. (Then brings it's body home to offer as some sort of gift to thank you for feeding it and identify that it can be a "forager too".)

 

[S.A.M.]

You can feed a cat a vegetarian diet, however since it is a cat, it's not necessarily confined to moral or ethical dilemmas about who or what it eats when fending for itself, so it could just run outside, hop on the nearest bird and promptly chomp on it's head. (Then brings it's body home to offer as some sort of gift to thank you for feeding it and identify that it can be a "forager too".)

Sure but as the person supplying the food to the cat and being overly consumed by the moral and ethical dilemma of having living things suffering as food, its good to know that there are artificially produced substitutes for those prey. I mean, whats worse, low serum taurine in your pet or the suffering of animals killed to provide adequate taurine to them?

Which makes me wonder. If plants are proven to feel pain, will all moral vegetarians resort to synthetic foods as a last resort? Will breakfast lunch and dinner become a series of pills and potions?

 

[Kennyc]

Sure but as the person supplying the food to the cat and being overly consumed by the moral and ethical dilemma of having living things suffering as food, its good to know that there are artificially produced substitutes for those prey. I mean, whats worse, low serum taurine in your pet or the suffering of animals killed to provide adequate taurine to them?

Which makes me wonder. If plants are proven to feel pain, will all moral vegetarians resort to synthetic foods as a last resort? Will breakfast lunch and dinner become a series of pills and potions?

Exactly what I was getting at..... life is life is life in all it's myriad forms. It is :shrug: to place any one kind above another.

Life feeds on itself....

 

[The Esotericist]

I have some questions for vegetarians

1. What is your opinion of using products, any products, whose safety and efficacy for human consumption has been determined through animal experimentation. Do you use any product which has been tested on animals? If yes, what are your moral justifications for doing so?

I sort of have a don't ask don't tell policy here. I don't research every product I use, so how would I know? Do they test the road salt they de-ice the roads in the winter on the squirrels that cross them to see if it causes them cancer? I have no idea. If it did, I'm not going to stop driving. But then, if you read my posts, I'm mostly against ingesting the animal. . . other humans are going to cause animals pain for the benefit of my society, and I am going to use that society for my gain. . . yeah. I just don't want that toxic animal DNA in MY body.

2. Do you have any pets? What is your position on keeping pets in the home? Would you keep a human child as a pet?

Nope, no pets. I might make friends with an animal again if it came to me, but I will never "imprison a pet."

3. If you were to find that using a vegetarian product may be harmful for your child and for health reasons you needed to use a product of animal origin, what choice would you make? Why?

I have greatly decreased my use of textured soy protein. It is not the healthiest stuff in the world. I only use it about twice a month now. It's still healthier than say. . . ground beef, MSP, or MS Pork, but still, it's not the healthiest. But, my child is not a vegetarian. I believe children (or at least my child), should not be. The human brain and nervous system needs to be awash in protein while it's developing. I was raised in an omnivorous home. So he would not be very intelligent if he had to rely on my vegetarian cooking skills to make sure he got enough protein.

4. I've read research on soy formula which asserts that the level of isoflavones in it is equivalent to giving five birth control pills to a child every day. Given that we know so little about food components, what is your position about imposing your food beliefs on your child?

My son was breast fed, which is best, and then on a formula that was best met his needs. I think people should do what is proven healthiest for their children of course. I would never base my conclusions on one study of course. . . . I've heard some not so good things about high concentrations of soy though. It makes me wonder if this is natural soy, or GMO soy.

4b. If your child wanted to eat any food of animal origin, what would be your response?

Not an issue, see 3. above.

5. If you were offered a choice between two life saving treatments, one which had been tested on animals and one which had been tested only on yeast, which would you choose, given that you could only choose one? Why?

That scenario sounds so fanciful. lol I guess I'd ask the doctor's and surgeon's what one they recommend and I would go with their expert guided opinion. Who am I? That's not my area of expertise.

6. If research showed that plants feel pain on being eaten alive, would it affect your position on vegetarianism?

They don't. They do however feel YOUR pain. Let's say, you are eating a salad. If you are a happy person, that salad is grateful to be your meal, it is united it's energy with you as one, for a good cause, the beneficence of keeping a good organism, a good thing energized.

But if you are negative, always sad, ornery, etc. It senses that before you take the first bite. In a way, the water molecules, the DNA of the plant, the vibe of it. . . It picks up on that, and it's united consciousness reaction is a sort of. . . . "oh shit" and no, it doesn't really appreciate being eaten by you if you are having a bad day. Go have a burger instead, it's already completely dead.

A friend of mine (he's a hard core carnivore) and I were talking about the whole dimensional consciousness thing and eating animals, which ones are most "here," sentient, whatever. He told me that he thinks that even though plants aren't, that as "groups" he feels that they just might be. And if you have ever been in a field of corn, or deep in a forest hiking, or by a circle of mushrooms, in a field of daisies, or a coral reef. . . you might know what I am talking about. It's a way different level of consciousness than animal consciousness. But then, plants ARE way different. So to these vegetarians flippantly writing off the vegetable matter they eat. . . be aware of it's sacredness every bit as much as the meat eater treats the animal with a sacredness befitting it's station in this world.

 

[wsionynw]

Sure but as the person supplying the food to the cat and being overly consumed by the moral and ethical dilemma of having living things suffering as food, its good to know that there are artificially produced substitutes for those prey. I mean, whats worse, low serum taurine in your pet or the suffering of animals killed to provide adequate taurine to them?

Which makes me wonder. If plants are proven to feel pain, will all moral vegetarians resort to synthetic foods as a last resort? Will breakfast lunch and dinner become a series of pills and potions?

To clarify, my wife and son are not vegetarian so neither are our cats since they seem to prefer a mostly meat based diet. We have meat in the house along with some vegetable based dry food for them to eat. No doubt they also eat the odd mouse or bird and I've even seen them eat flies, spiders and grass!

Kenny, I admit that life feeds on life, my point is that it is morally right that we try to reduce our impact on other species where possible. I'm not suggesting we all kill ourselves in case we accidentally tread on an ant. Most veggies that I've spoken to would like to see far more compassion shown in the farming of animals, and drastically reduced meat consumption which would benefit both humans, animals and our environment. I'm not some loony that wants the Veg Police to round up meat eaters and have them shot
'We' object to the idea that animals are simply food waiting to be killed and of no worth other than short term profit and the satisfaction of personal tastes, whims and prejudices. It's no surprise that parallels are drawn up with the issue of human slavery.

The question of plants feeling pain is wide open but from what I've seen and read there is no evidence to suggest plants feel pain and fear in the same way animals and humans do. Of course if certain plants did show this I would not eat them if possible. Triffids would be on the menu though.

 

[Gustav]

Will breakfast lunch and dinner become a series of pills and potions?

that would be nice. i would like to evolve into a gutless human lacking the stomach for feeding

imagine there's no shitting
its easy if you try
no abattoirs round the corner
nor a mcdonalds too
imagine a shot of nutrients
that get you thru the day......tadadaaaaa