If You Know How a Cow Feels,Will You Eat Less

[Aggie]

Just because plants don't scream, doesn't mean they don't suffer when we cut them. Just because they don't have a nervous system, doesn't mean they don't feel, in fact experiments have shown how plants react to music and caring hands.

Unfortunately we need to eat, we need protein and vitamins, and that can only come from the food we eat. Let's not forget that even drinking water means we are swallowing and digesting bacteria that is not visible to the naked eye.

I know animals suffer when I kill them to eat them and I am ever grateful for their sacrifice.

Should we eat less meat? Absolutely.

Should we give them a quick peaceful death? Absolutely.

The day might come when we'll all be able to survive on oxygen and sunlight....but that is not happening yet.

[Frank Merton]

I don't think your argument holds much water. We know animals suffer when we kill them; the pain of the plants that you suggest is entirely hypothetical, and with little if any evidence, just a pretty vivid imagination.

Live on corn if you have to -- that has been harvested after the plant is already dead.

[Aggie]

That is my personal opinion and what I believe, I am not trying to convince you of anything.

Living on corn only won't give you all the nutrients you need and we need vitamin B12 and the only 'natural' way to get is from animal sources (by natural I mean without the help of technology). That shows me that we need to ingest animal food, that we have evolved or we were created to ingest animals.

[Frank Merton]

I generally refrain from eating meat because there is good reason to think they qualify as sentient beings. This means they have emotions and feel experiences such as pain and other qualia as demonstrated by the fact that they have serotonin receptor pathways.

This seems to me a rational way to deal with a difficult moral subject, and enables me to have an adequate diet.

[Aggie]

Frank, do you eat fish?

[Frank Merton]

Yes and some other animals that don't show serotonin pathways; I may have this wrong -- it may be just my rationalization since most Buddhists and most of the tradition says anything with eyes is sensate -- but it is the current best scientific thinking I know of. It seems sensate existence first appeared in the mammal-like reptiles and persisted in birds and mammals and dinosaurs although is not present in most modern reptiles who descended from prior reptiles.

I think if a world could be organized where domestic animals do not suffer and live longer than in nature, then eating meat would be morally acceptable, but that does not see to be in the making.

[Aggie]

I used to be a vegetarian for 6 years, an ovo-lacteo vegetarian cause I didn't want to kill animals. My friend was a vegan. I was so healthy and fit and strong, and blossomed, whilst my friend deteriorated. She didn't want to take any man made supplements, and the lack of vitamin B12 made her very ill. I then started researching and found out that vitamin B12 is essential and that the only way to get it is from animal sources...I was fine because I was eating dairy products.

But that made me think: if B12 is essential and the only natural way is from animal products...that means we have been created or we have evolved needing animal products.

I went back to being a omnivorous once again, although I eat vegetarian 3 or 4 days a week cause I know we do not need that much meat.

This is my own belief, Frank and what I believe is right for me and my family, just like you do with your belief.

BTW, my father and son are called Frank...and they are carnivorous!! lol

(sorry, a bit off topic but I had to say it..lol)

Edited August 3, 2013 by Aggie

[Frank Merton]

I have no problem with milk; to me this is an an aesthetic or health issue but an ethical issue. I am aware that dairy cattle are often mistreated but this can be dealt with with a little investigation. I think most vegans and so on are aware of the Vitamin B12 issue

[Skep B]

Surely you jest. We've bred cattle so that the females have udders so big they can barely walk, so we can have all the milk we want. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Yeah, I jest. I do think there's reasons we're supposed to eat meat but evolution based on taste ain't one of them.

[Frank Merton]

The way I understood that was a little different -- that we evolved to enjoy the taste of meat not because of some such destiny but because including it in our diet improved our survival. Plain ol' natural selection. That blind evolution did this does not mean we have to eat meat. Now that we are more aware, perhaps we can override such animal aspects of our natures.

[redhen]

Just because plants don't scream, doesn't mean they don't suffer when we cut them. Just because they don't have a nervous system, doesn't mean they don't feel, in fact experiments have shown how plants react to music and caring hands.

It never ceases to amaze me how so many people claim that plants suffer and feel pain. I'm sure this is done so they can justify their meat eating habits and accuse ethical vegetarians of hypocrisy. I'm sure none of them seriously believe their own claims and demonstrate outside vegetable markets with protest signs denouncing the horror of vegetable slaughter.

Unfortunately we need to eat, we need protein and vitamins, and that can only come from the food we eat.

All these nutrients can be found in non-animal products. Not only can vegans remain healthy, they can become Olympic athletes like Carl Lewis who racked up 9, including 4 Gold medals.

"Lewis is vegan. Lewis credits his outstanding 1991 results in part to the vegan diet he adopted in 1990, aged thirty. He has claimed it is better suited to him because he can eat a larger quantity without affecting his athleticism and he believes that switching to a vegan diet can lead to improved athletic performance."

And he's not the only vegan athlete.

Let's not forget that even drinking water means we are swallowing and digesting bacteria that is not visible to the naked eye.

Ok, first plants, now one-celled micro-organisms feel pain and suffer. Really?

I know animals suffer when I kill them to eat them and I am ever grateful for their sacrifice.

Sacrifice? You think they volunteered, like a Shmoo?

Should we eat less meat? Absolutely.

Should we give them a quick peaceful death? Absolutely.

Again, it is unecessary to consume animal flesh (unless you live in a culture where all there is to eat are seals and fish, i.e. Eskimos). If it's unecessary, and it causes harm to animals, well that is the legal defintion of animal cruelty.

The day might come when we'll all be able to survive on oxygen and sunlight....but that is not happening yet.

reductio ad absurdum

Edited August 3, 2013 by redhen

[markdohle]

I do however have a more serious problem with what you say now that the pedantic part is over: suffering is suffering. What the hell difference does it make if the animal dying for our benefit suffers a lot or only a little?

Animals eat each other, they suffer, it is part of nature, not nice I know and I think we should rethink how we treat animals, that does not mean that we will stop eating them....maybe we will, who knows.

Peace

mark

[Skep B]

The way I understood that was a little different -- that we evolved to enjoy the taste of meat not because of some such destiny but because including it in our diet improved our survival. Plain ol' natural selection. That blind evolution did this does not mean we have to eat meat. Now that we are more aware, perhaps we can override such animal aspects of our natures.

Our minds are part of the prospect of evolution, everything within our world is the way it was meant to be.

If in the course of things we kill off every animal and ourselves, I fully believe that was what was meant to happen.

This has nothing to do with meat I guess, but if we want to eat meat, if our brains see and animal and we think "mmm, tasty" then absolutely we should eat it.

Our society, our thoughts, everything humans have. Is part of the evolutionary process, we can't say we do thins against nature because we are a part of nature.

We are generally considered the most dangerous animals because we are the smartest animal, so if the thing that makes us dangerous, our brains, tell us to do something. Then I'd say we should follow it

[Frank Merton]

Yes of course we are part of nature. That's kinda like a kid saying he should be allowed to do something because all the other kids do it.

[Skep B]

I'm not talking about overprotective parents or bratty kids.

we have sharp teeth, we recognize animals as edible. These things serve no other real purpose but to be eaten. If not by us then some other animal.

We can do it, so why not do it.

[Frank Merton]

Do what you want; its your karma and eating meat as offences against karma go is minor. You should just think about whether you want to participate in an industry that involves suffering to others.

[Skep B]

Never bought into karma.

The cattle aren't able to stop us, so i say do it. If we aren't meant to eat an animal, then nature would cause somethign to stop us from it, either it being poison, or able to fight back.

[redhen]

we have sharp teeth, we recognize animals as edible. These things serve no other real purpose but to be eaten. If not by us then some other animal.

Purpose, that's an ancient belief going back to bronze age religions and Greek philosophers who held that obviously the purpose of a cow is to give us milk and meat to consume. The purpose of a sheep is to give us wool and meat. The purpose of the earth is to support human life as the deities had intended. Oh yeah, and the purpose of slaves are to free us from menial chores, obviously.

Besides that anthropomorphic argument, there is no purpose in nature. Cattle, including wild, pre-domesticated cattle were not meant for other animals to eat it. Richard Dawkins has a good lecture on these presuppositions.

[media=]

[/media]

We can do it, so why not do it.

I'll just crosspost from another thread.

http://www.unexplain...howtopic=252047

[Skep B]

I don't see that my argument is anthropomorphic, if anything I'm saying that we don't need to try to apply morals to humanity, because we're animals and putting rules in place like ethics and what have you is energy that can be better used elsewhere.

I guess by purpose, I meant use.

I don't think these things are created to be used for what we want.

But, we have found a use for them.

as for slaves, i don't see how that's comperable, slaves are the same species as us. Worse than that, they would live entire lives under another person. Animals we kill and eat, they don't have the minds to think that we do.

[redhen]

Our society, our thoughts, everything humans have. Is part of the evolutionary process, we can't say we do thins against nature because we are a part of nature.

Again, the evolutionary biologust Richard Dawkins wrote about this in the 1970's in a book called The Selfish gene. We can and do certainly act against our greatest biological imperative, the need to pass on genes. Whatever your moral views on it, contraception and abortion are certainly not natural.

We are generally considered the most dangerous animals because we are the smartest animal, so if the thing that makes us dangerous, our brains, tell us to do something. Then I'd say we should follow it

If that's true, then we should all immediately remove our brains because they're too damm dangerous.

Seriously, since the dawm of human consciousness (whenever that was), people have acted on either their new found minds or their biological drives/needs. It's never just one or the other. So we have to careful about logical appeals to nature "in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural"

[Skep B]

That's it though, there's no such thing as unnatural, what we call unnatural is just what our brains make, which themselves are natural.

the contraception/aborting thing.

It's very much a part of nature, other animals eat their young after birth, we just stop them from being born.

Our biological imperative is our species going on, so population control is part of that

I don't think there's such a thing as too dangerous, because its all part of the bigger picture. If we didn't have our brains then something that's faster, stronger or with sharper teeth or claws would take our place

Good/bad doesn't factor into it. It's the perogative of each species to remain it its place in the food chain, or go higher. We exert that by eating things lower than us.

[redhen]

I don't see that my argument is anthropomorphic,

sure it is, every other animal is there for our purpose.

if anything I'm saying that we don't need to try to apply morals to humanity, because we're animals and putting rules in place like ethics and what have you is energy that can be better used elsewhere.

surely you can't be suggesting we should throw morals, ethics, law and justice out the window?

I guess by purpose, I meant use.

I don't think these things are created to be used for what we want.

But, we have found a use for them.

We created modern cows, pigs and sheep through selective breeding to make them docile and tasty.

as for slaves, i don't see how that's comperable, slaves are the same species as us.

I was just describing the ancient Greek beliefs and Abrahamic religious teachings that man is the only moral agent and every other species is there for our use.

Worse than that, they would live entire lives under another person. Animals we kill and eat, they don't have the minds to think that we do.

So because non-human animals don't the same mental capacties as us, we can treat them like sticks and stones? I think you would be surprised to see how intelligent some of these other species are. There's a fascinating Youtube video of a crow that had figured out Archimedes principle, something seven year old humans consistently failed to do.

[Skep B]

sure it is, every other animal is there for our purpose.

I don't see a problem with that.

surely you can't be suggesting we should throw morals, ethics, law and justice out the window?

Laws are rules to follow in a society they are made by the most powerful members of that society, justice is the means those in power use to keep people within those laws. Laws are a convenience. Morals and ethics are subjective things people try to make to justify the things they do. They don't have a real use outside of making us feel nice

We created modern cows, pigs and sheep through selective breeding to make them docile and tasty.

We didn't create we modified from an existing template. using the brains we evolved to help us survive and thrive.

I was just describing the ancient Greek beliefs and Abrahamic religious teachings that man is the only moral agent and every other species is there for our use.

Yes

So because non-human animals don't the same mental capacties as us, we can treat them like sticks and stones? I think you would be surprised to see how intelligent some of these other species are. There's a fascinating Youtube video of a crow that had figured out Archimedes principle, something seven year old humans consistently failed to do.

dropping a rock into some water isn't enough of a reason for me not to eat something.

So, in answer to your question, yes. Unless something stops us we don't have a reason to stop

[redhen]

That's it though, there's no such thing as unnatural, what we call unnatural is just what our brains make, which themselves are natural.

One word, necrophelia. Find me another species that regularly seeks out dead members of its own species for sex. That's what I like to call unnatural. Humans do all sorts of unnatural things.

the contraception/aborting thing.

It's very much a part of nature, other animals eat their young after birth, we just stop them from being born.

But they don't eat them because they've decided that their too much effort and time to raise, they eat them because they're starving. Anyways, if it's all so natural, why don't humans eat their babies, even when they are starving?

Our biological imperative is our species going on, so population control is part of that

That's a logical contradiction.

Good/bad doesn't factor into it.

Sure it does. I suspect all governments on the planet have some form of animal welfare laws concerning cattle raising and slaughter (well ok, maybe not in some Muslim countries). Even if these laws are hopelessly inadequate it shows that they have some twinge of guilt inflicting pain, suffering and death upon these animals.

It's the perogative of each species to remain it its place in the food chain, or go higher. We exert that by eating things lower than us.

Perogative? That's just as unsound as purpose. Anyways, exhibit A for a counter-argument; the Giant Panda. This species was going along just fine after it evolved from a top carnivorous predator into a herbivore, that is until humans drove them to near extinction. We rock!

[shrooma]

I don't know how we can possible assess whether cows are self-aware or not.

.

there is only one, true test of self-awareness Frank, and that is knowlege of your own death.

as far as i know, no animal is aware that it will one day die.....