Giving up eating meat

[+ouija ouija]

I'm 59 and I've been a vegetarian for 42yrs, vegan for 2 of those years.

My observation is this: people either 'get it' and become vegetarian, or they don't 'get it' and they remain carnivores. All the arguing in the world will not change anyone's point of view.

I don't understand why people get so exercised about new vegetarians 'making sure they have a balanced diet' ...... how many carnivores make sure they have a balanced diet . As for the vitamin B12 argument(this vitamin supposedly keeps depression at bay), vegetarians are often vegetarians because they are extra-sensitive ..... this is also the reason why they may appear to 'live on their nerves' or be depressed. Their enhanced awareness of,and sensitivity to, all the horrors in the world can leave them feeling almost constantly unhappy.

I'm amazed that anyone eats meat these days what with all the chemicals, steroids and antibiotics animals are pumped full of, to say nothing of what they are fed: cows are natural herbivores and yet man saw fit to feed them on the ground-up bodies of other animals ...... remember Mad Cow disease? That was what caused it.

Before man was able to catch animals to eat he had to eat what he could easily find and reach ..... fruit, nuts, leaves, roots and seeds ..... now we are in a position to go back to that diet as it is available in quantity all year round. There is no excuse for us to breed animals for food and in the process keep them in appalling conditions.

Cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all.

And yes, fish ARE 'meat'/flesh.

[Beckys_Mom]

Thanks Becky for responding. You didn't say why you think it's not healthy to give it up, but glancing through some of the other responses I expect you feel it gives a balanced diet.

I was advised by my doctor to try and eat more red meat to give me more iron...I was on the pale weaker looking side..... Fish also is very good for you... So I could never give up on meat... I like a good balance...

My great aunt Mary was a cook all her life.. She believed in eating proper food, like proper meat and veg.. and a bowl of healthy soup... This dear old woman lived until she was 106 years old.... and rarely ever got sick ..And I am not making that up .....You would never see her eat junk food....... and she could cook a good roast for dinner......

[Mr_Snstr]

"The other thing to notice is that, and this is true of all fungi, they’re what is known as primary decomposers. They exist only on dead matter. That’s the only karmaless place in the food chain. Vegetarianism compared to that is an orgy of mass slaughter..." -Terrance McKenna

[White Crane Feather]

Well yes, you did say "erroneous noble savage stereotype" while perpetuating said stereotype. If buffalo jumps were such a necessity they would have been more than a once in a lifetime event.

But, we are off topic.

Well if you call putting it to rest that it's not a fantasy that most natives used most of their kills perpetuating a stereo type, reguardless of a few tribes once in a lifetime buffalo run, then I guess you got me.

It is on topic. The takeing of an animal for most native Americans was very spiritual. This is what has been lost. People now are willing to eat the meat but can't face the animal. At least the vegetarians are willing to pick their own food. Traping, hunting, and fishing is an integral part of our history and meat has been a factor in our evolution and brain development. Even our discovery of fire and it's uses is probably related to processing meat. Instead of focusing on the real issues most not all people that choose to be vegitarian for moral reasons are more interested in how moral they look than what good they are actually doing.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Seeker79

[Michelle]

Well if you call putting it to rest that it's not a fantasy that most natives used most of their kills perpetuating a stereo type, reguardless of a few tribes once in a lifetime buffalo run, then I guess you got me.

It is on topic. The takeing of an animal for most native Americans was very spiritual. This is what has been lost. People now are willing to eat the meat but can't face the animal. At least the vegetarians are willing to pick their own food. Traping, hunting, and fishing is an integral part of our history and meat has been a factor in our evolution and brain development. Even our discovery of fire and it's uses is probably related to processing meat. Instead of focusing on the real issues most not all apologists are more interested in how moral they look than what good they are actually doing.

Aw geez, I knew you weren't going to give it up.

I have a suggestion, and I won't reply anymore...do some research on how Native Americans poisoned fish to capture them. They weren't as echo-friendly as you would like to think.

No one wasted anything back then...unless there was a mass killing like the buffalo jumps.

You appear to be under the impression that the moment "the white man" came in it was any easier for them, in the wilds, than it was for the natives...and grocery stores appeared out of nowhere!!! No one, in that time frame, had an easy life and discarded anything useful and to say otherwise shows what kind of blinders you have on.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Michelle

[White Crane Feather]

Aw geez, I knew you weren't going to give it up.

I have a suggestion, and I won't reply anymore...do some research on how Native Americans poisoned fish to capture them. They weren't as echo-friendly as you would like to think.

No one wasted anything back then...unless there was a mass killing like the buffalo jumps.

You appear to be under the impression that the moment "the white man" came in it was any easier for them, in the wilds, than it was for the natives...and grocery stores appeared out of nowhere!!! No one, in that time frame, had an easy life and discarded anything useful and to say otherwise shows what kind of blinders you have on.

Oh geese those old blinders. Got me again. The rare buffalo run makes your point. Using soap root to poison fish only stuns them with saponins, so you can collect them but fish downstream are unharmed. I have done it twice. Once in training and once for students. The second time was unsuccessful the soap root was to dry. And it is still practiced in jungle regions to this day. Good one..... Those darn native fish killers. They should just keep eating acorns and insects for their protein.

It's been fun

[Habitat]

I'm 59 and I've been a vegetarian for 42yrs, vegan for 2 of those years.

My observation is this: people either 'get it' and become vegetarian, or they don't 'get it' and they remain carnivores. All the arguing in the world will not change anyone's point of view.

I don't understand why people get so exercised about new vegetarians 'making sure they have a balanced diet' ...... how many carnivores make sure they have a balanced diet . As for the vitamin B12 argument(this vitamin supposedly keeps depression at bay), vegetarians are often vegetarians because they are extra-sensitive ..... this is also the reason why they may appear to 'live on their nerves' or be depressed. Their enhanced awareness of,and sensitivity to, all the horrors in the world can leave them feeling almost constantly unhappy.

I'm amazed that anyone eats meat these days what with all the chemicals, steroids and antibiotics animals are pumped full of, to say nothing of what they are fed: cows are natural herbivores and yet man saw fit to feed them on the ground-up bodies of other animals ...... remember Mad Cow disease? That was what caused it.

Before man was able to catch animals to eat he had to eat what he could easily find and reach ..... fruit, nuts, leaves, roots and seeds ..... now we are in a position to go back to that diet as it is available in quantity all year round. There is no excuse for us to breed animals for food and in the process keep them in appalling conditions.

Cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all.

And yes, fish ARE 'meat'/flesh.

Good post putting the vegetarian case forward. Do you eat dairy products ?

[Leonardo]

I notice a lot of fallacies being promoted about the eating of meat.

Redhen,

"the eating of meat is unnecessary (and thus, cruel)."

I would point out that, if we are to explore this premise of "unnecessary = cruel", then we can also conclude that sexual reproduction is cruel. After all, the world would get along just fine if human beings were not here, so (human) sexual reproduction is unnecessary. As you can see, that argument (your's, above) is ridiculous.

As for the generalised fallacy that the raising of animals for meat is 'inhumane', for every source pointing to a case (or cases) of the inhumane treatment (including slaughter) of animals, there are sources pointing to cases of such farming (and slaughter) being far more humane than would be the case if the animal was not farmed (e.g. wild).

The religious case for the non-eating of meat is based on either 1) the anthropomorphisation of the animal 2) the deification of animals 3) a belief in some ephemereal 'interconnectedness of spirit', which no animal can be shown to have any awareness of whatsoever. All of these religiously-based arguments treat the animal as if it had some human-level state of cognition, a level of abstract awareness that no study has ever shown to be present. They also cannot explain the predator/prey relationship that exists in the natural world.

ouija ouija,

Please name a single human being who is/was a carnivore.

It is important to note that human beings are omnivorous - not carnivorous. The use of 'carnivore' to describe those humans who enjoy an omnivorous diet is designed to be perjorative.

also,

"Cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all."

Define how the raising of a cow in a farm environment, to then be slaughtered for meat, is in any way 'crueller' than the killing of a wild auroch/buffalo/whatever by a predator for exactly the same reason (to eat)?

If you are suggesting that it is 'cruel' because we are 'aware', yet the predator is not, then you are simply promoting our intelligence as a non-natural occurence, contrary to a century and a half of evolutionary science. Perversely, by making a case for humans as 'special' you then specifically negate the point you wish to make that all other animals are 'sentient'.

As I have stated previously, there is no ethical case to be made against the eating of meat. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Leonardo

[+ouija ouija]

Instead of focusing on the real issues most not all people that choose to be vegitarian for moral reasons are more interested in how moral they look than what good they are actually doing.

My experience over 42yrs of vegetarianism, and I've met many, many vegetarians in that time, has been that ALL those who are lifelong vegetarians couldn't give a stuff how they appear to others ..... the ones who are doing it to 'look good' don't stick at it for very long.

[+ouija ouija]

Good post putting the vegetarian case forward. Do you eat dairy products ?

Very, very rarely and the same goes for eggs. I use soya milk on cereal and in drinks. I don't use leather, fur or silk.

[Beckys_Mom]

I understand the killing. And you are correct, it is dishonest to eat meat but not be willing to face the animal yourself, as it is to only eat vegetables that destroy ecosystems in the name of s concouse diet.

I disagree.. I do not call anyone who eats meat and do not face the animals themselves, even by killing them to eat the meat... it is not dishonest... If everyone who ate meat all did their own killings, a lot of butchers would be out of a job for a start... A lot of things in life we eat or use we do not make them ourselves... nor do we face those who do make them....We all eat things we do not all make ourselves

Many like the taste of meat.. but many cannot stand the sight of slaughter... each to their own... I may not be able to watch gore. I always had a keen interest in medicine but could never face being a doctor...too skiddish.....Cannot stand the smell of animals just killed either... So it is not my fault..... I never complain about those that are butchers and it is their trade...

Edited January 3, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[+ouija ouija]

for every source pointing to a case (or cases) of the inhumane treatment (including slaughter) of animals, there are sources pointing to cases of such farming (and slaughter) being far more humane than would be the case if the animal was not farmed (e.g. wild).

REPLY:50% of farming is humane? This is just nonsense.

ouija ouija,

Please name a single human being who is/was a carnivore.

It is important to note that human beings are omnivorous - not carnivorous. The use of 'carnivore' to describe those humans who enjoy an omnivorous diet is designed to be perjorative.

REPLY:Sorry, my mistake. It was late, I wasn't concentrating.

also,

"Cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all."

Define how the raising of a cow in a farm environment, to then be slaughtered for meat, is in any way 'crueller' than the killing of a wild auroch/buffalo/whatever by a predator for exactly the same reason (to eat)?

REPLY:If you can't see a difference, I can't explain it to you.

If you are suggesting that it is 'cruel' because we are 'aware', yet the predator is not, then you are simply promoting our intelligence as a non-natural occurence, contrary to a century and a half of evolutionary science. Perversely, by making a case for humans as 'special' you then specifically negate the point you wish to make that all other animals are 'sentient'.

REPLY:Humans are not 'special', they are 'different'. It is because humans are so UNaware that they are cruel! And just a personal feeling here: I think human 'intelligence' is a terrible aberration.

As I have stated previously, there is no ethical case to be made against the eating of meat. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

REPLY:This is simply your opinion.

Sorry about the 'REPLY' business but I didn't know how else to do it!

Edited January 3, 2012 by ouija ouija

[Beckys_Mom]

Sorry about the 'REPLY' business but I didn't know how else to do it!

When you hit reply. copy the persons text.....then . at the top of the box you will see your options... there is a smile face option and if you hover your mouse over the ones next to it.. it will tell you what each one does.......... You should see next to the envelope symbol a speech bubble.. hover over that.. it will read - Insert Quote..........<-- click on that....... you will then see this --> {quote][/quote} <-- lay your cursor in the middle of those two brackets...and with your space bar... make them look like this --> {quote] ... [/quote} it gives you room to paste.. paste in the text you wish to reply to in between the two quote brackets........Preview your post to see how it turns out.............I know it can seem hard for those who are new to it... but in time you will get used to it..

Edited January 3, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[redhen]

I notice a lot of fallacies being promoted about the eating of meat.

Redhen,

"the eating of meat is unnecessary (and thus, cruel)."

I would point out that, if we are to explore this premise of "unnecessary = cruel", then we can also conclude that sexual reproduction is cruel. After all, the world would get along just fine if human beings were not here, so (human) sexual reproduction is unnecessary. As you can see, that argument (your's, above) is ridiculous.

Hi Leonardo, we've been through this before, and you're right, people believe what they want to believe sometimes, this is one of those times.

If you look up any legal definition of cruel, you'll see it pertains to unnecessary violence, not sex, sleep, thirst or any other human drive, just violence. Granted that in modern societies, the routine slaughter of animals is considered necessary (wrongly in my opinion)so is not considered cruelty.

As for the generalised fallacy that the raising of animals for meat is 'inhumane', for every source pointing to a case (or cases) of the inhumane treatment (including slaughter) of animals, there are sources pointing to cases of such farming (and slaughter) being far more humane than would be the case if the animal was not farmed (e.g. wild).

Ok, show me a farm where the young animals are not mutilated (for our convenience). Show me a milk farm where the young are not taken away from their mothers. Show me ..... I could go on for ever.

Define how the raising of a cow in a farm environment, to then be slaughtered for meat, is in any way 'crueller' than the killing of a wild auroch/buffalo/whatever by a predator for exactly the same reason (to eat)?

If you are suggesting that it is 'cruel' because we are 'aware', yet the predator is not, then you are simply promoting our intelligence as a non-natural occurence, contrary to a century and a half of evolutionary science. Perversely, by making a case for humans as 'special' you then specifically negate the point you wish to make that all other animals are 'sentient'.

Again, I refer you to the definition of cruelty; if the violence perpetrated is unnecessary, it is by definition, cruel. Modern humans don't need to eat meat, therefore it is cruel.

As I have stated previously, there is no ethical case to be made against the eating of meat. It is simply a matter of personal preference.

I have laid out the immorality of eating meat before on UM, and you debated with me for some time. The fact that you argued with me on these very same points means that there is indeed an ethical argument for not eating meat, you happen not to agree with it.

p.s. I still see you have your Leonardo avatar. Again I will point out that Leonardo da Vinci was a vegetarian, like many other enlightened thinkers, expressly for ethical reasons.

[redhen]

Thank you Redhen for your input. However, I am at a loss to understand some of the quote. Maybe I need to study it or something, but at present I am utterly bemused by the idea that people would be afraid and repel others because of the smell of meat,” and who or what is “kasyapa”?

I guess maybe, if someone smells cooked meat, they will be afraid of the person who might cook them??

Kasyapa was one of the Buddha's disciples. This story is not part of the canonical texts, but it is important because of the emphasis of abstaining from meat.

If you want a more theoretical explanation, the Wiki entry on Ahimsa is a good start. They define it thus; "Ahinsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including non-human animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected".

[Leonardo]

I have laid out the immorality of eating meat before on UM, and you debated with me for some time. The fact that you argued with me on these very same points means that there is indeed an ethical argument for not eating meat, you happen not to agree with it.

The only case for the non-eating of meat is one of personal preference. The various arguments that claim an ethical basis for vegetarianism all revolve around the case of 'ethics' being all-inclusive - i.e. it is 'ethical' in the absolute, naturalistic, sense and is deemed 'right' for all. This is nonsense, else the argument would have to be extended to state that the killing of prey animals by predators is 'unethical'.

'Ethics', in the sense your argument uses the term is purely a personal issue and so the argument should not contain language which would seem to extend that argument beyond the individual - yet it does.

I agree we have debated this issue previously, and the holes in the 'ethical case for vegetarianism' remain the same. That we have argued the issue before does not necessarily indicate the 'ethical case for vegetarianism' exists. That is a fallacy of consequence.

As for your expansion upon the initial "unnecessary = cruel" to "unnecessary violence = cruel", the arguments you have set forth now, and in the past, have not made a case that the killing of farmed animals for food equates to 'unnecessary violence'.

ouija ouija,

50% of farming is humane? This is just nonsense.

That is not what I stated. I stated that, for every source claiming that shows 'inhumanity' to farmed foodstock, another source claiming how the life of a farmed animal is more 'humane' than the life of a wild animal can be posted. All this indicates is that such claims cannot be shown as being objective and/or authoritative - because of the bias in the reporting.

If you can't see a difference, I can't explain it to you.

The life of a farmed animal, using responsible farming methods, is generally much easier for the animal than a wild life. Both farmed and wild animals are destined to die and no-one can guarantee the wild animal's death will not be either bloody (through predation) nor 'natural' (in the case of disease, etc), and so the 'humaneness' of either lifestyle can only be ascertained through the relative stress the animal accrues within each lifestyle. Here, the farm lifestyle wins hands-down.

Humans are not 'special', they are 'different'. It is because humans are so UNaware that they are cruel! And just a personal feeling here: I think human 'intelligence' is a terrible aberration.

Your first sentence is a studied exercise in semantics. How is 'different' not equal to 'special'?

As for your last sentence, our intelligence is not an 'abberation' - it is not 'special' - it is entirely natural. The whole argument falls flat when you realise we are simply an animal using our naturally evolved advantages to maintain the success of our species.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Leonardo

[rashore]

My two cents... A lot of people don't face their food. They don't think about it before putting it in their mouths where that food came from. Just pick up that can, or package of whatever and eat it. This goes for animal and vegetative products.

However, there has been an increasing trend of people thinking about it before they shove it in, and I think that's AWESOME! I'm not sure if it's exactly spiritual, but yes, be introspective about what you consume, how it affects you and the world around you.

From a more spiritual standpoint. I'm an omnivore, and I'm kind of spiritual about all my food. When I buy my food, I think about where its coming from. When I pick my food, I thank the plant for giving of itself. When I cook my food, I thank the spirits of that animal or plant for yielding it's goodness to me and mine. Quite often a prayer of hope everyone else gets to eat good tonight too is thought over the cooking pot.

I cook rather well, and it's not just because I like to eat yummy food, it's also out of respect to the food. It would be disrespectful of me not to utilize that food to be as yummy as it can potentially be.

[Mr_Snstr]

The life of a farmed animal, using responsible farming methods, is generally much easier for the animal than a wild life. Both farmed and wild animals are destined to die and no-one can guarantee the wild animal's death will not be either bloody (through predation) nor 'natural' (in the case of disease, etc), and so the 'humaneness' of either lifestyle can only be ascertained through the relative stress the animal accrues within each lifestyle. Here, the farm lifestyle wins hands-down.

Therefore would it not be cruel to allow animals to continue living in the wild; outside of easier less violent, and sustainable farming? Using the logic of perpetuating unecessary violence as cruel; would it not be cruel not to cage up every wild being in a state of peaceful coexistence; knowing we have the resources and know-how to do so?

"The other thing to notice is that, and this is true of all fungi, they’re what is known as primary decomposers. They exist only on dead matter. That’s the only karmaless place in the food chain."

[Leonardo]

Therefore would it not be cruel to allow animals to continue living in the wild; outside of easier less violent, and sustainable farming? Using the logic of perpetuating unecessary violence as cruel; would it not be cruel not to cage up every wild being in a state of peaceful coexistence; knowing we have the resources and know-how to do so?

"The other thing to notice is that, and this is true of all fungi, they’re what is known as primary decomposers. They exist only on dead matter. That’s the only karmaless place in the food chain."

You could turn the argument around to suggest such a thing, Mr_Snstr, but I feel that argument would be just as invalid as the 'case for not killing'.

My argument is that there is no argument for or against the killing/farming of animals for food. It is simply an extension of the natural order of things.

As for your quote on fungi, google 'cordyceps fungi'. Not quite so 'karma-free'.

[Mistydawn]

I'm 59 and I've been a vegetarian for 42yrs, vegan for 2 of those years.

My observation is this: people either 'get it' and become vegetarian, or they don't 'get it' and they remain carnivores. All the arguing in the world will not change anyone's point of view.

I don't understand why people get so exercised about new vegetarians 'making sure they have a balanced diet' ...... how many carnivores make sure they have a balanced diet . As for the vitamin B12 argument(this vitamin supposedly keeps depression at bay), vegetarians are often vegetarians because they are extra-sensitive ..... this is also the reason why they may appear to 'live on their nerves' or be depressed. Their enhanced awareness of,and sensitivity to, all the horrors in the world can leave them feeling almost constantly unhappy.

I'm amazed that anyone eats meat these days what with all the chemicals, steroids and antibiotics animals are pumped full of, to say nothing of what they are fed: cows are natural herbivores and yet man saw fit to feed them on the ground-up bodies of other animals ...... remember Mad Cow disease? That was what caused it.

Before man was able to catch animals to eat he had to eat what he could easily find and reach ..... fruit, nuts, leaves, roots and seeds ..... now we are in a position to go back to that diet as it is available in quantity all year round. There is no excuse for us to breed animals for food and in the process keep them in appalling conditions.

Cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all.

And yes, fish ARE 'meat'/flesh.

Hi ouiga, you make a good point about meat-eaters not necessarily making sure they have a balanced diet. A lot of my meat-eater friends have begun de-tox and “new”diets for the New Year and most of what they deduce to be a good balanced diet is of processed factory made meals and dairy-products with all kinds of laboratory tested additives. Fresh veg to most of them, is a bit of steamed broccoli and a tin of processed peas.

I would agree that “cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all,” though many meat-eaters argue that humanely farmed animals is okay. How anyone can think farming any living creature is humane, is a strange concept to me. If you think you have the right to kill and eat another creature, surely whether you do it humanely or not, is only a secondary issue.

[Mistydawn]

Kasyapa was one of the Buddha's disciples. This story is not part of the canonical texts, but it is important because of the emphasis of abstaining from meat.

If you want a more theoretical explanation, the Wiki entry on Ahimsa is a good start. They define it thus; "Ahinsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including non-human animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected".

I will certainly look up “Ahinsa” as I do believe all living things are connected. Thank you Redhen for the pointer.

[Mistydawn]

I was advised by my doctor to try and eat more red meat to give me more iron...I was on the pale weaker looking side..... Fish also is very good for you... So I could never give up on meat... I like a good balance...

My great aunt Mary was a cook all her life.. She believed in eating proper food, like proper meat and veg.. and a bowl of healthy soup... This dear old woman lived until she was 106 years old.... and rarely ever got sick ..And I am not making that up .....You would never see her eat junk food....... and she could cook a good roast for dinner......

I am pretty sure, having listened to my vegetarian family members over the years advocating not eating meat, that there are veg and seeds etc that if eaten regular gives you plenty of iron..

Your Great Aunt Mary, was she born and raised in our beautiful green Isle? I think the Irish air and soil has it's very own magical elements that before we got all " clinical" about our food, produced good hearty folk! Yourself and me included!

[Mr_Snstr]

You could turn the argument around to suggest such a thing, Mr_Snstr, but I feel that argument would be just as invalid as the 'case for not killing'.

My argument is that there is no argument for or against the killing/farming of animals for food. It is simply an extension of the natural order of things.

As for your quote on fungi, google 'cordyceps fungi'. Not quite so 'karma-free'.

My point of turning it around like that was to point out the invalidity of a moral or ethical argument for or against meat eating. The same argument can be used for or against; depending on how far one takes it. It can be taken as far as one pleases in order to fit their preference, making it moot. IE I'm agreeing with you.

Yeah, there are plenty of parasitic fungi. The quote was from Terrance Mckenna; so take it for what that's worth(as I posted earlier, he then equates vegetarianism to an orgy of mass slaughter in comparison ). But I think the point to be made from his words is that primary decomposers, that is things that feed off of dead matter, while playing no part in their death; is the karmaless place. Though you're right, it does not apply to all fungi.

Everything else disrupts the life cycle of another being; except for fruitarianism; so long as you allow the seeds to perpetuate.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Mr_Snstr

[Leonardo]

I would agree that “cruelty to sentient beings diminishes us all,” though many meat-eaters argue that humanely farmed animals is okay. How anyone can think farming any living creature is humane, is a strange concept to me. If you think you have the right to kill and eat another creature, surely whether you do it humanely or not, is only a secondary issue.

I would like to point out that the farming of animals is not to benefit an individual, but a population. We made the move from nomadic hunter-gathering to sedentary town and city-dwellers. While it is unknown whether this move preceded, or was preceded by, the rise of agriculture and animal husbandry, the burgeoning population arising from the new sedentary lifestyle would not be possible without agriculture and animal husbandry.

So, farming is not about 'me', it is about 'us'. Once it is understood how necessary farming was/is, then one can begin to appreciate that 'best practise' farming is important in showing our respect to the animals we kill for food.

[Mistydawn]

I would like to point out that the farming of animals is not to benefit an individual, but a population. We made the move from nomadic hunter-gathering to sedentary town and city-dwellers. While it is unknown whether this move preceded, or was preceded by, the rise of agriculture and animal husbandry, the burgeoning population arising from the new sedentary lifestyle would not be possible without agriculture and animal husbandry.

So, farming is not about 'me', it is about 'us'. Once it is understood how necessary farming was/is, then one can begin to appreciate that 'best practise' farming is important in showing our respect to the animals we kill for food.

Leonardo, I am ashamed to admit that I shy away from your posts, not that I don’t read them I do, but I often feel flummoxed and cornered when I get your response like you are pushing me into a corner.

I would like to respond to this post, but I know that in an argument, or even just trying to make my own point, you will again strip every word I say to the bone and I will be left looking and feeling stupid.

I will save you the time and tell you, yes I am stupid.

Please don’t take offence, I am simply telling you that I can’t sustain a discussion with you, as you make me feel totally inadequate.

I watch and read with interest your debates with others though, so thank you for that.