Slaughter and Conscience
lilweed
Harold Hillman Mb BSc PhD
Approximately 750, 000, 000 animals and 650, 000
tons of fish are slaughtered each year for food in
Britain. The number of fishes is not known because
they are weighed,and small fishes are thrown back
dead into the sea, because it is illegal to land
them. Anglers catch an additional number of fish,
and an unknown number of birds and rabbits are shot..
http://www.hedweb.com/hillman/animpain.htm
THE VEGETARIAN CONSCIENCE
Harold Hillman Mb BSc PhD
http://www.hedweb.com/hillman/vegethic.htm
dh...@nomail.com
>THE SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS FOR FOOD.
>Harold Hillman Mb BSc PhD
> Approximately 750, 000, 000 animals and 650, 000
>tons of fish are slaughtered each year for food in
>Britain.
[...]
· Since the animals we raise for food would not be alive
if we didn't raise them for that purpose, it's a distortion of
reality not to take that fact into consideration whenever
we think about the fact that the animals are going to be
killed. When we think about the truth of it, the animals
are not being cheated out of any part of their life by
being raised for food, but instead they are getting the
opportunity to experience whatever life they get as a
result of it. ·
lilweed
If all those intentionally and artificially bred
animals weren't born taking up the massive areas
of land necessary to support them, trillions of other
wild creatures would be able to experience life.
dh...@nomail.com
>You ignore every argument David.
No I don't lil, but I don't agree with the conclusions that
people who want to promote veg*nism have come to either.
>But for pities sake-
>If all those intentionally and artificially bred
>animals weren't born taking up the massive areas
>of land necessary to support them, trillions of other
>wild creatures would be able to experience life.
Maybe. But wild animals are more welcome in grazing
areas than in crop fields from my experiences talking to
farmers, so I'm not convinced you're right. Even if you
are, why should I think it would be better for wild animals
to experience life than it would be for the animals humans
raise for food? I believe that the animals we raise for food
often have better and longer lives than many/most wild
animals do, and that they usually suffer less when they
die. There is also the fact that it would be a lot easier to
make the lives and deaths of animals in the meat industry
better, than it would be to improve the lives and deaths
of wild animals...but then that isn't what veg*ns want to
see happen is it?
lilweed
These issues have been addressed David, as you well know.
Wild animals are deliberately killed because of the
damage and demands on habitat, and as competitors.
Why aren't you demanding that the buffalo get to
experience life? or the mountain lion? ...........
You believe what you want to believe about the meat
industry; and only a dramatic reduction in the eating
of meat might improve the lot of factory farmed animals-
which are the great majority. That isn't what veg*ns
want, no. We would like to see the 'meat industry' die.
We'd also like to see the earth and other myriad wild
creatures given their due, (they do just fine without
our interference, naturally).
You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
to you, no?
dh...@nomail.com
Which would not provide meat animals with improved
lives, much less rights. "AR" is a gross misnomer when
applied to the meat industry, right?
>We'd also like to see the earth and other myriad wild
>creatures given their due, (they do just fine without
>our interference, naturally).
Starvation, disease and nonhuman predators are
not ethically superior methods of wildlife management
to human hunting imo. For one thing human hunters
do not kill baby animals as the above agents certainly
do, nor do their methods of killing cause as much
suffering. They also don't cause suffering to the prey
animals year round, or at night as the other agents do.
So as yet I have no reason to think that human hunting
is a less ethical method of wildlife management than
starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. If you
can suggest reasons to think otherwise (other than
that the other agents are "natural" or some such thing,
which means nothing in regards to how the prey animals
are influenced and therefore nothing at all in regards to
the ethics of the issue), I would be interested in knowing
what they are.
>You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
>use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
>to you, no?
I'm not "looking" for them lil. The things I mention are
very obvious and easy to see, and for me impossible to
ignore. If you think some or any of them are reasons to
continue raising animals for food and/or continue human
hunting, then we agree.
Pelicans (at least some types of them) usually have
three offspring. The stronger two will at some point drive
the weakest one out of the nest...no doubt after it has
been forced to endure much hunger, which makes it
even weaker. The baby birds are forced out into the world
to meet certain death in a variety of ways. Later, the
strongest of the remaining two will force the weaker one
out of the nest.... 2/3 of these pelicans who are born are
forced to endure hunger for a great portion of their short
lives, and then they must meet deaths which cause even
more suffering. In contrast to that, the birds we raise as
fryers have all the food and water they want for their
entire short lives, and most of them are not beaten on and
abused by the other birds they are forced to live with. The
6-8 weeks that they experience life is longer than that of
most (2/3) pelicans, and filled with much less suffering....
and this is only *one* example of that sort of thing. There
are MANY more, and this type of contrast in quality of life
is true for most wild/domestic animal situations imo.
lilweed
>
> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:36:16 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:04:28 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> >You ignore every argument David.
> >>
> >> No I don't lil, but I don't agree with the conclusions that
> >> people who want to promote veg*nism have come to either.
What conclusions don't you agree with?
> >> >But for pities sake-
> >> >If all those intentionally and artificially bred
> >> >animals weren't born taking up the massive areas
> >> >of land necessary to support them, trillions of other
> >> >wild creatures would be able to experience life.
> >>
> >> Maybe. But wild animals are more welcome in grazing
> >> areas than in crop fields from my experiences talking to
> >> farmers, so I'm not convinced you're right. Even if you
> >> are, why should I think it would be better for wild animals
> >> to experience life than it would be for the animals humans
> >> raise for food? I believe that the animals we raise for food
> >> often have better and longer lives than many/most wild
> >> animals do, and that they usually suffer less when they
> >> die. There is also the fact that it would be a lot easier to
> >> make the lives and deaths of animals in the meat industry
> >> better, than it would be to improve the lives and deaths
> >> of wild animals...but then that isn't what veg*ns want to
> >> see happen is it?
> >
> >These issues have been addressed David, as you well know.
> >Wild animals are deliberately killed because of the
> >damage and demands on habitat, and as competitors.
> >Why aren't you demanding that the buffalo get to
> >experience life? or the mountain lion? ...........
No reply?
> >You believe what you want to believe about the meat
> >industry; and only a dramatic reduction in the eating
> >of meat might improve the lot of factory farmed animals-
> >which are the great majority. That isn't what veg*ns
> >want, no. We would like to see the 'meat industry' die.
>
> Which would not provide meat animals with improved
> lives, much less rights. "AR" is a gross misnomer when
> applied to the meat industry, right?
I agree, it would not provide those potential animals
with lives at all. But it would allow the return, and
the getting to experience life for trillions of wild
creatures instead. Btw, that doesn't imply the loss
of all domestic animals.
> >We'd also like to see the earth and other myriad wild
> >creatures given their due, (they do just fine without
> >our interference, naturally).
>
> Starvation, disease and nonhuman predators are
> not ethically superior methods of wildlife management
> to human hunting imo. For one thing human hunters
> do not kill baby animals as the above agents certainly
> do, nor do their methods of killing cause as much
> suffering. They also don't cause suffering to the prey
> animals year round, or at night as the other agents do.
> So as yet I have no reason to think that human hunting
> is a less ethical method of wildlife management than
> starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. If you
> can suggest reasons to think otherwise (other than
> that the other agents are "natural" or some such thing,
> which means nothing in regards to how the prey animals
> are influenced and therefore nothing at all in regards to
> the ethics of the issue), I would be interested in knowing
> what they are.
Now you are talking about hunting. Have you given up the
argument that it is worthwhile for intensively farmed
animals to get to experience life then?
How can you state that humans don't kill animal babies?
Have you never seen on t.v a seal cub hunt, or entire
pods of pilot whales, young and all, gaffed, cut, hacked,
what about fox hunting? Dogs are trained cubbing. .. ..
I've seen 'hunters' here and in England driving around
at night with powerful lights and guns..
There is no need for it, we aren't carnivores, and we
(should) know better than carry out this brutal cruel
abuse. So is the above ethical, David? Humans need to
manage their own affairs. Wildlife is quite capable of
managing itself, it's been at it for a very long time.
> >You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
> >use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
> >to you, no?
>
> I'm not "looking" for them lil. The things I mention are
> very obvious and easy to see, and for me impossible to
> ignore. If you think some or any of them are reasons to
> continue raising animals for food and/or continue human
> hunting, then we agree.
You have given no valid reasons so far imho.
> Pelicans (at least some types of them) usually have
> three offspring. The stronger two will at some point drive
> the weakest one out of the nest...no doubt after it has
> been forced to endure much hunger, which makes it
> even weaker. The baby birds are forced out into the world
> to meet certain death in a variety of ways. Later, the
> strongest of the remaining two will force the weaker one
> out of the nest.... 2/3 of these pelicans who are born are
> forced to endure hunger for a great portion of their short
> lives, and then they must meet deaths which cause even
> more suffering. In contrast to that, the birds we raise as
> fryers have all the food and water they want for their
> entire short lives, and most of them are not beaten on and
> abused by the other birds they are forced to live with. The
> 6-8 weeks that they experience life is longer than that of
> most (2/3) pelicans, and filled with much less suffering....
> and this is only *one* example of that sort of thing. There
> are MANY more, and this type of contrast in quality of life
> is true for most wild/domestic animal situations imo.
That doesn't sound right. Where are your stats from?
All male (non) layers are killed, as all the birds will,
after a short tortuous 'life'.. Baby pelicans are not debeaked-
a most painful and traumatic experience. The life they get to
live is in freedom, in accordance with their natural instincts.
No commercially raised birds get to experience that. Agree?
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:36:16 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:04:28 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You ignore every argument David.
>> >>
>> >> No I don't lil, but I don't agree with the conclusions that
>> >> people who want to promote veg*nism have come to either.
>
>What conclusions don't you agree with?
That veg*nism is ethically superior to eating meat. If you
don't believe that it is either, then I guess we agree about it.
>> >> >But for pities sake-
>> >> >If all those intentionally and artificially bred
>> >> >animals weren't born taking up the massive areas
>> >> >of land necessary to support them, trillions of other
>> >> >wild creatures would be able to experience life.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe. But wild animals are more welcome in grazing
>> >> areas than in crop fields from my experiences talking to
>> >> farmers, so I'm not convinced you're right. Even if you
>> >> are, why should I think it would be better for wild animals
>> >> to experience life than it would be for the animals humans
>> >> raise for food? I believe that the animals we raise for food
>> >> often have better and longer lives than many/most wild
>> >> animals do, and that they usually suffer less when they
>> >> die. There is also the fact that it would be a lot easier to
>> >> make the lives and deaths of animals in the meat industry
>> >> better, than it would be to improve the lives and deaths
>> >> of wild animals...but then that isn't what veg*ns want to
>> >> see happen is it?
>> >
>> >These issues have been addressed David, as you well know.
>> >Wild animals are deliberately killed because of the
>> >damage and demands on habitat, and as competitors.
>> >Why aren't you demanding that the buffalo get to
>> >experience life? or the mountain lion? ...........
>
>No reply?
We can't promote life for every possible being. Haven't we
been through this before? Why would I, or you for that matter,
promote life for buffalo over beef cattle? On that same line of
thinking though: I would oppose the idea of preventing buffalo
and/or mountain lions from experiencing life simply because
they will be killed, just as I oppose the idea of preventing
chickens and cattle from experiencing life simply because
they will be killed. That's because all living things will be killed
by something...you are aware of that I hope. One of the prices
of life is death, and afaik it always will be.
>> >You believe what you want to believe about the meat
>> >industry; and only a dramatic reduction in the eating
>> >of meat might improve the lot of factory farmed animals-
>> >which are the great majority. That isn't what veg*ns
>> >want, no. We would like to see the 'meat industry' die.
>>
>> Which would not provide meat animals with improved
>> lives, much less rights. "AR" is a gross misnomer when
>> applied to the meat industry, right?
>
>I agree, it would not provide those potential animals
>with lives at all. But it would allow the return, and
>the getting to experience life for trillions of wild
>creatures instead.
Why would I be in favor of destroying a system
that already provides life for trillions of domestic
animals, simply to provide life for trillions of wild
animals instead?
And as I've mentioned more than once, if we
ate less meat we would grow more veggies, and
wildlife is *much* more welcome in grazing areas
than it is in crop fields. You will have to provide
some convincing info from farmers, before I would
believe that doing away with the meat industry
would really provide life for a significant number
of wild animals. Also as I'm sure I've mentioned
before, all of the animal farms that I've seen done
away with have become housing areas for humans,
or some type of industrial sites, which caused *less*
area for wildlife not more.
>Btw, that doesn't imply the loss
>of all domestic animals.
If you are in favor of the continued enslavement
of pets then you are not if favor of their right to
freedom, and therefore you are not in favor of "AR"
for pets.
>> >We'd also like to see the earth and other myriad wild
>> >creatures given their due, (they do just fine without
>> >our interference, naturally).
>>
>> Starvation, disease and nonhuman predators are
>> not ethically superior methods of wildlife management
>> to human hunting imo. For one thing human hunters
>> do not kill baby animals as the above agents certainly
>> do, nor do their methods of killing cause as much
>> suffering. They also don't cause suffering to the prey
>> animals year round, or at night as the other agents do.
>> So as yet I have no reason to think that human hunting
>> is a less ethical method of wildlife management than
>> starvation, disease and nonhuman predators. If you
>> can suggest reasons to think otherwise (other than
>> that the other agents are "natural" or some such thing,
>> which means nothing in regards to how the prey animals
>> are influenced and therefore nothing at all in regards to
>> the ethics of the issue), I would be interested in knowing
>> what they are.
>
>Now you are talking about hunting. Have you given up the
>argument that it is worthwhile for intensively farmed
>animals to get to experience life then?
What would make you think that? I don't think all of
their lives are necessarily worthwhile btw, but I certainly
do think some of them are.
>How can you state that humans don't kill animal babies?
I said that human hunters don't kill baby animals. But
as you point out, there are a very few who do.
>Have you never seen on t.v a seal cub hunt, or entire
>pods of pilot whales, young and all, gaffed, cut, hacked,
>what about fox hunting? Dogs are trained cubbing. .. ..
>I've seen 'hunters' here and in England driving around
>at night with powerful lights and guns..
>There is no need for it, we aren't carnivores, and we
>(should) know better than carry out this brutal cruel
>abuse. So is the above ethical, David? Humans need to
>manage their own affairs. Wildlife is quite capable of
>managing itself, it's been at it for a very long time.
That doesn't mean that being chased to exhaustion
and then being ripped apart by a pack of wolves,
doesn't produce more suffering than being sniped by
a human with a rifle does it? I've heard the suggestion
that "ARAs" want to reduce suffering, but maybe you
aren't an "ARA"? Or maybe you don't think trying to
reduce suffering should be applied to wildlife? Do you
think that starving to death or dying of disease involve
less suffering than being shot by a human? Do you
think that there are nonhuman predators who use killing
methods which cause less suffering than those which
human predators use?
>> >You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
>> >use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
>> >to you, no?
>>
>> I'm not "looking" for them lil. The things I mention are
>> very obvious and easy to see, and for me impossible to
>> ignore. If you think some or any of them are reasons to
>> continue raising animals for food and/or continue human
>> hunting, then we agree.
>
>You have given no valid reasons so far imho.
Well, you haven't convinced me of anything yet either.
But the things I mention are all true afaik, and the things
you suggest are not true, nor are they likely to happen imho.
>> Pelicans (at least some types of them) usually have
>> three offspring. The stronger two will at some point drive
>> the weakest one out of the nest...no doubt after it has
>> been forced to endure much hunger, which makes it
>> even weaker. The baby birds are forced out into the world
>> to meet certain death in a variety of ways. Later, the
>> strongest of the remaining two will force the weaker one
>> out of the nest.... 2/3 of these pelicans who are born are
>> forced to endure hunger for a great portion of their short
>> lives, and then they must meet deaths which cause even
>> more suffering. In contrast to that, the birds we raise as
>> fryers have all the food and water they want for their
>> entire short lives, and most of them are not beaten on and
>> abused by the other birds they are forced to live with. The
>> 6-8 weeks that they experience life is longer than that of
>> most (2/3) pelicans, and filled with much less suffering....
>> and this is only *one* example of that sort of thing. There
>> are MANY more, and this type of contrast in quality of life
>> is true for most wild/domestic animal situations imo.
>
>That doesn't sound right. Where are your stats from?
Wildlife documentariesน, and every other source I've
learned about wildlife from. Many owls have several
offspring, and only one lives to maturity...if that. Birds
who have large hatchings of chicks like ducks, quail,
pheasants, turkeys, etc. will raise only a few out of
a dozen or more who hatch. Most bear cubs don't live
to maturity. Only about 1 in thousands of baby crabs
live to maturity. By far most baby fish, turtles and
alligators don't live to maturity. Most lion cubs don't
live to maturity, nor do most hyenas, and I'll bet the
same is true for their prey. On the average, MUCH
less than 50% of the baby animals who are born live
to maturity, and probably it would be less than one
in 50 if they were all averaged together. On this same
line of thinking, human hunters allow more baby prey
animals to reach maturity than nonhuman hunters do,
whether that means anything to your ethical values
or not.
>All male (non) layers are killed,
That's about 50%, which is much better than the
average for their ancestors the jungle fowl.
>as all the birds will,
>after a short tortuous 'life'.. Baby pelicans are not debeaked-
>a most painful and traumatic experience.
I don't believe it's as bad as you want to believe it is.
And I don't believe it's as bad as being beaten on by
stronger siblings, and always being hungry for their
entire lives as the pelicans are.
>The life they get to
>live is in freedom,
They are "free" only after they are chased out of
their home (the nest), and then they die soon after
they gain that freedom. It's kinda' like when the ALF
"frees" farm raised mink I guess.
>in accordance with their natural instincts.
>No commercially raised birds get to experience that. Agree?
Their natural instinct is not to always be hungry
and at some point flee from the nest imo...those
are things which are forced on them by their siblings,
like humans force things on the animals we raise.
But since you brought up the natural way of
life idea as if it's always a good thing: Fryers were
my example in the first place (and fryers are not
debeaked), and humans live every bit as unnatural
a life as they do...a fact that doesn't bother us, so
there's no reason for me to believe chickens are
unhappy simply because they live in unnatural
conditions either.
น The documentary with the pelicans is from
"The Life of Birds" series, #9 "The Problems
of Parenthood" :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-9582952-4258412
It has other such examples as well.
lilweed
>
[..]
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:04:28 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >You ignore every argument David.
> >> >>
> >> >> No I don't lil, but I don't agree with the conclusions that
> >> >> people who want to promote veg*nism have come to either.
> >
> >What conclusions don't you agree with?
>
> That veg*nism is ethically superior to eating meat. If you
> don't believe that it is either, then I guess we agree about it.
Not killing is ethically superior to killing for no good reason.
Don't you agree?
[..]
> >> >These issues have been addressed David, as you well know.
> >> >Wild animals are deliberately killed because of the
> >> >damage and demands on habitat, and as competitors.
> >> >Why aren't you demanding that the buffalo get to
> >> >experience life? or the mountain lion? ...........
> >
> >No reply?
>
> We can't promote life for every possible being. Haven't we
> been through this before? Why would I, or you for that matter,
> promote life for buffalo over beef cattle? On that same line of
> thinking though: I would oppose the idea of preventing buffalo
> and/or mountain lions from experiencing life simply because
> they will be killed, just as I oppose the idea of preventing
> chickens and cattle from experiencing life simply because
> they will be killed. That's because all living things will be killed
> by something...you are aware of that I hope. One of the prices
> of life is death, and afaik it always will be.
Who is doing 99.999...% of the killing anyway, David?
and for what?
Enough people seem to have been supporting 'livestock'
getting to experience life, they don't need your support,
but many, many species are gravely endangered [as a result
of all these cattle, etc. 'getting to experience life'].
As you are on this 'get to live' groove, support wild
creatures getting to experience life- they really need help.
> >> >You believe what you want to believe about the meat
> >> >industry; and only a dramatic reduction in the eating
> >> >of meat might improve the lot of factory farmed animals-
> >> >which are the great majority. That isn't what veg*ns
> >> >want, no. We would like to see the 'meat industry' die.
> >>
> >> Which would not provide meat animals with improved
> >> lives, much less rights. "AR" is a gross misnomer when
> >> applied to the meat industry, right?
> >
> >I agree, it would not provide those potential animals
> >with lives at all. But it would allow the return, and
> >the getting to experience life for trillions of wild
> >creatures instead.
>
> Why would I be in favor of destroying a system
> that already provides life for trillions of domestic
> animals, simply to provide life for trillions of wild
> animals instead?
Because the artificial mono-culture of only a few species
of animals has/is;
a) destroying the natural system that comprises a brilliant,
complex, whole, interactive, symbiotic web that supports life.
b) doomed to fail anyway- see other posts re f & m, BSE..
c) cruel.
> And as I've mentioned more than once, if we
> ate less meat we would grow more veggies, and
> wildlife is *much* more welcome in grazing areas
> than it is in crop fields. You will have to provide
> some convincing info from farmers, before I would
> believe that doing away with the meat industry
> would really provide life for a significant number
> of wild animals. Also as I'm sure I've mentioned
> before, all of the animal farms that I've seen done
> away with have become housing areas for humans,
> or some type of industrial sites, which caused *less*
> area for wildlife not more.
Grazing and grain/hay feed requires vast areas of land.
Areas that would otherwise be natural habitat were we
to eat the plant foods directly. Fence in the grain &
vegetable garden if you must, and plant fruit and nut
trees..
Nature provides for us too, if we let it, you know.
> >Btw, that doesn't imply the loss
> >of all domestic animals.
>
> If you are in favor of the continued enslavement
> of pets then you are not if favor of their right to
> freedom, and therefore you are not in favor of "AR"
> for pets.
I do not consider pets to be slaves, it's the other way around :!.
I agree that companion animals have the right to a good life
though, and as long as that is the case, I'd say they choose
to stay around.
[..]
> >Now you are talking about hunting. Have you given up the
> >argument that it is worthwhile for intensively farmed
> >animals to get to experience life then?
>
> What would make you think that? I don't think all of
> their lives are necessarily worthwhile btw, but I certainly
> do think some of them are.
Which intensively farmed animals lives are worthwhile iyo?
> >How can you state that humans don't kill animal babies?
>
> I said that human hunters don't kill baby animals. But
> as you point out, there are a very few who do.
>
[..]
> >There is no need for it, we aren't carnivores, and we
> >(should) know better than carry out this brutal cruel
> >abuse. So is the above ethical, David? Humans need to
> >manage their own affairs. Wildlife is quite capable of
> >managing itself, it's been at it for a very long time.
>
> That doesn't mean that being chased to exhaustion
> and then being ripped apart by a pack of wolves,
> doesn't produce more suffering than being sniped by
> a human with a rifle does it? I've heard the suggestion
> that "ARAs" want to reduce suffering, but maybe you
> aren't an "ARA"? Or maybe you don't think trying to
> reduce suffering should be applied to wildlife? Do you
> think that starving to death or dying of disease involve
> less suffering than being shot by a human? Do you
> think that there are nonhuman predators who use killing
> methods which cause less suffering than those which
> human predators use?
I think, on the whole, that natural predators are far
better at killing swiftly and cleanly than humans, yes.
I also believe that those deaths are from _necessity_
whereas the killing by humans is in 99.999999.....% of cases
_not necessary_. Is it better to kill, or not to kill? #1
> >> >You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
> >> >use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
> >> >to you, no?
> >>
> >> I'm not "looking" for them lil. The things I mention are
> >> very obvious and easy to see, and for me impossible to
> >> ignore. If you think some or any of them are reasons to
> >> continue raising animals for food and/or continue human
> >> hunting, then we agree.
> >
> >You have given no valid reasons so far imho.
>
> Well, you haven't convinced me of anything yet either.
> But the things I mention are all true afaik, and the things
> you suggest are not true, nor are they likely to happen imho.
The truth is that the price is much too high, as we are now
finding out. Unsustainable. 100 years compared to billions.
What a shocking abysmal bloody mess .
Many animals are now dying, far more than there would
be if other species didn't have so much competition for
vital habitat and resources.
Hunters allow? Pleeeeaaase! >:{
D'you think humans are some [depraved] god to take life
at will, by caprice?
> >All male (non) layers are killed,
>
> That's about 50%, which is much better than the
> average for their ancestors the jungle fowl.
>
> >as all the birds will,
> >after a short tortuous 'life'.. Baby pelicans are not debeaked-
> >a most painful and traumatic experience.
>
> I don't believe it's as bad as you want to believe it is.
A red hot knife slicing off your nose wouldn't be too bad, yes?
You believe what you want to believe, as has been noted.
> And I don't believe it's as bad as being beaten on by
> stronger siblings, and always being hungry for their
> entire lives as the pelicans are.
See as above; fished out, polluted, dying seas..
> >The life they get to
> >live is in freedom,
>
> They are "free" only after they are chased out of
> their home (the nest), and then they die soon after
> they gain that freedom. It's kinda' like when the ALF
> "frees" farm raised mink I guess.
Those mink shouldn't be there in the first place.
I don't think that freeing them is wise, though.
You paint a very sorry picture of life in the wild.
Quite distorted methinks. Switch off your tv and go for a walk.
> >in accordance with their natural instincts.
> >No commercially raised birds get to experience that. Agree?
>
> Their natural instinct is not to always be hungry
> and at some point flee from the nest imo...those
> are things which are forced on them by their siblings,
> like humans force things on the animals we raise.
Do you still live with your parents? If so, do you
intend to stay there indefinitely?
Intensively farmed animals are forcibly separated
from their mothers as babies. That's the norm.
> But since you brought up the natural way of
> life idea as if it's always a good thing: Fryers were
> my example in the first place (and fryers are not
> debeaked), and humans live every bit as unnatural
> a life as they do...a fact that doesn't bother us, so
> there's no reason for me to believe chickens are
> unhappy simply because they live in unnatural
> conditions either.
Chickens are not free to do as they please, but
you are, within reason. Yet humans impose cruel
unnatural conditions on animals, unnecessarily.
Do you think that's fair and ethical?
> น The documentary with the pelicans is from
> "The Life of Birds" series, #9 "The Problems
> of Parenthood" :
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-9582952-4258412
> It has other such examples as well.
See as above. Nature is struggling all around,
but we are greatly responsible for much of the
suffering and hardship we see at this time.
And why add to it, we need to get our own act
together as a matter of great urgency.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>[..]
>> >> >> On Wed, 21 Mar 2001 12:04:28 +0000, lilweed <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >You ignore every argument David.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No I don't lil, but I don't agree with the conclusions that
>> >> >> people who want to promote veg*nism have come to either.
>> >
>> >What conclusions don't you agree with?
>>
>> That veg*nism is ethically superior to eating meat. If you
>> don't believe that it is either, then I guess we agree about it.
>
>Not killing is ethically superior to killing for no good reason.
>Don't you agree?
Not in all cases. The animals that we raise and kill to eat
are in the unique position that they would have no life at all
if we didn't raise them to eat, and if their lives are worth living
then it's not at all ethically superior to want to deprive them of
the experience only to prevent them from being killed imo.
>[..]
>> >> >These issues have been addressed David, as you well know.
>> >> >Wild animals are deliberately killed because of the
>> >> >damage and demands on habitat, and as competitors.
>> >> >Why aren't you demanding that the buffalo get to
>> >> >experience life? or the mountain lion? ...........
>> >
>> >No reply?
>>
>> We can't promote life for every possible being. Haven't we
>> been through this before? Why would I, or you for that matter,
>> promote life for buffalo over beef cattle? On that same line of
>> thinking though: I would oppose the idea of preventing buffalo
>> and/or mountain lions from experiencing life simply because
>> they will be killed, just as I oppose the idea of preventing
>> chickens and cattle from experiencing life simply because
>> they will be killed. That's because all living things will be killed
>> by something...you are aware of that I hope. One of the prices
>> of life is death, and afaik it always will be.
>
>Who is doing 99.999...% of the killing anyway, David?
>and for what?
Probably filter feeding whales, since they are responsible
for more deaths in one light lunch than most humans will
be in a lifetime. After the rest of the filter feeders it would
probably be insect eaters like bats and aardvarks etc, right?
Of course they do if for food, but they don't directly provide
the animals they eat with life as humans do.
>Enough people seem to have been supporting 'livestock'
>getting to experience life, they don't need your support,
As yet Polly Ward and Dutch are the only people in the
ngs I've encountered who even appear to have any
appreciation for the fact...and domestic animals need all the
support they can get to protect them from "ARAs".
>but many, many species are gravely endangered [as a result
>of all these cattle, etc. 'getting to experience life'].
The things that veg*ns contribute to like using roads,
and all types of buildings, and paper and wood products,
and products that are mined, are a bigger threat to wildlife
than are the animals we raise for food.
>As you are on this 'get to live' groove, support wild
>creatures getting to experience life- they really need help.
I'm in favor of helping wildlife too, and let's not forget
the fact that wildlife lives in plenty of grazing areas.
>> >> >You believe what you want to believe about the meat
>> >> >industry; and only a dramatic reduction in the eating
>> >> >of meat might improve the lot of factory farmed animals-
>> >> >which are the great majority. That isn't what veg*ns
>> >> >want, no. We would like to see the 'meat industry' die.
>> >>
>> >> Which would not provide meat animals with improved
>> >> lives, much less rights. "AR" is a gross misnomer when
>> >> applied to the meat industry, right?
>> >
>> >I agree, it would not provide those potential animals
>> >with lives at all. But it would allow the return, and
>> >the getting to experience life for trillions of wild
>> >creatures instead.
>>
>> Why would I be in favor of destroying a system
>> that already provides life for trillions of domestic
>> animals, simply to provide life for trillions of wild
>> animals instead?
>
>Because the artificial mono-culture of only a few species
>of animals has/is;
>a) destroying the natural system that comprises a brilliant,
>complex, whole, interactive, symbiotic web that supports life.
>b) doomed to fail anyway- see other posts re f & m, BSE..
I believe some such plagues are promoted by "ARAs".
>c) cruel.
Not in all cases, and it doesn't have to be in any.
I'm in favor of making life good for farm animals, not
preventing them from living.
>> And as I've mentioned more than once, if we
>> ate less meat we would grow more veggies, and
>> wildlife is *much* more welcome in grazing areas
>> than it is in crop fields. You will have to provide
>> some convincing info from farmers, before I would
>> believe that doing away with the meat industry
>> would really provide life for a significant number
>> of wild animals. Also as I'm sure I've mentioned
>> before, all of the animal farms that I've seen done
>> away with have become housing areas for humans,
>> or some type of industrial sites, which caused *less*
>> area for wildlife not more.
>
>Grazing and grain/hay feed requires vast areas of land.
>Areas that would otherwise be natural habitat were we
>to eat the plant foods directly.
They are already natural habitat, as are the grazing
areas.
>Fence in the grain &
>vegetable garden if you must, and plant fruit and nut
>trees..
>Nature provides for us too, if we let it, you know.
And I consider the meat industry as providing for
animal life as well as human. Veg*nism doesn't directly
provide life, only death.
>> >Btw, that doesn't imply the loss
>> >of all domestic animals.
>>
>> If you are in favor of the continued enslavement
>> of pets then you are not if favor of their right to
>> freedom, and therefore you are not in favor of "AR"
>> for pets.
>
>I do not consider pets to be slaves, it's the other way around :!.
I "have" 2 cats: one at home and one at work. One was
just there when I moved in, and the one at work was running
wild in the building for about 8 months and I finally tamed
her down. Both cats have easy access to leave whenever
they want--which they do when I get mad at them--and I
provide them with food and medical care when they need it,
but they are certainly in no way my masters...in fact I am theirs.
>I agree that companion animals have the right to a good life
>though, and as long as that is the case, I'd say they choose
>to stay around.
They stay around even when it's not their choice if someone
wants to restrain them.
>[..]
>> >Now you are talking about hunting. Have you given up the
>> >argument that it is worthwhile for intensively farmed
>> >animals to get to experience life then?
>>
>> What would make you think that? I don't think all of
>> their lives are necessarily worthwhile btw, but I certainly
>> do think some of them are.
>
>Which intensively farmed animals lives are worthwhile iyo?
Fryer chickens and their parents, the parents of laying
hens and laying hens who are not kept in cages, beef cattle,
dairy cattle, and even veal calves. My problem with veal
calves isn't that they have to stand around eating all of their
short lives, it's the hell they often must endure loading on
and off the truck. Of course there are always cases of animals
in all situations who have lives that I think would not be worth
living, but if you don't think any of them *are* worth living
then that subject would really be beyond what you allow
yourself to contemplate in any detail wouldn't it?
[...]
>I think, on the whole, that natural predators are far
>better at killing swiftly and cleanly than humans, yes.
There is no reason to believe that afaik, and you
probably can't provide one. We do know that nonhuman
predators often play with their prey before they kill it
though, like cats, and killer whales, and seals. We also
know that they will injure their prey and then give it to
their offspring to practice on. We also know that they
often chase their prey to the point of exhaustion before
they can kill it, and that they often begin to tear the
animals apart before they are dead.
>I also believe that those deaths are from _necessity_
>whereas the killing by humans is in 99.999999.....% of cases
>_not necessary_. Is it better to kill, or not to kill? #1
We all promote killing, even you.
>> >> >You are simply looking for reasons to perpetuate the
>> >> >use and abuse of animals- the animals that are of use
>> >> >to you, no?
>> >>
>> >> I'm not "looking" for them lil. The things I mention are
>> >> very obvious and easy to see, and for me impossible to
>> >> ignore. If you think some or any of them are reasons to
>> >> continue raising animals for food and/or continue human
>> >> hunting, then we agree.
>> >
>> >You have given no valid reasons so far imho.
>>
>> Well, you haven't convinced me of anything yet either.
>> But the things I mention are all true afaik, and the things
>> you suggest are not true, nor are they likely to happen imho.
>
>The truth is that the price is much too high, as we are now
>finding out. Unsustainable. 100 years compared to billions.
Which animals do you think have survived for billions of
years?
[...]
>> On this same
>> line of thinking, human hunters allow more baby prey
>> animals to reach maturity than nonhuman hunters do,
>> whether that means anything to your ethical values
>> or not.
>
>Many animals are now dying, far more than there would
>be if other species didn't have so much competition for
>vital habitat and resources.
>
>Hunters allow?
Yes.
>Pleeeeaaase! >:{
>D'you think humans are some [depraved] god to take life
>at will, by caprice?
We have as much right to do it as any other animals do.
The difference is that humans can and do try to be considerate
of the prey animals, and try to maintain particular population sizes
of the prey animals, which no other animals do.
>> >All male (non) layers are killed,
>>
>> That's about 50%, which is much better than the
>> average for their ancestors the jungle fowl.
>>
>> >as all the birds will,
>> >after a short tortuous 'life'.. Baby pelicans are not debeaked-
>> >a most painful and traumatic experience.
>>
>> I don't believe it's as bad as you want to believe it is.
>
>A red hot knife slicing off your nose wouldn't be too bad, yes?
>You believe what you want to believe, as has been noted.
We all do, and you are no exception either ya' know. But
comparing trimming the tip off of chicks' beaks to slicing off
a human's nose is not a realistic comparison. I don't believe
you think so either lil, because a person would have to be
pretty dense to think the ability to feel pain is the same in the
tip of a horny beak as it is in a fleshy nose, and I don't believe
you are so dense.
>> And I don't believe it's as bad as being beaten on by
>> stronger siblings, and always being hungry for their
>> entire lives as the pelicans are.
>
>See as above; fished out, polluted, dying seas..
Regardless of the reasons, farm animals have better lives
than wild animals in many cases imo.
>> >The life they get to
>> >live is in freedom,
>>
>> They are "free" only after they are chased out of
>> their home (the nest), and then they die soon after
>> they gain that freedom. It's kinda' like when the ALF
>> "frees" farm raised mink I guess.
>
>Those mink shouldn't be there in the first place.
>I don't think that freeing them is wise, though.
>
>You paint a very sorry picture of life in the wild.
>Quite distorted methinks. Switch off your tv and go for a walk.
When the topic we are considering is death, then that's
what we should consider in detail, and death for wild animals
is usually worse than it is for animals in the meat industry as
far as I can tell. So is life in many cases.
>> >in accordance with their natural instincts.
>> >No commercially raised birds get to experience that. Agree?
>>
>> Their natural instinct is not to always be hungry
>> and at some point flee from the nest imo...those
>> are things which are forced on them by their siblings,
>> like humans force things on the animals we raise.
>
>Do you still live with your parents?
No.
>If so, do you
>intend to stay there indefinitely?
>
>Intensively farmed animals are forcibly separated
>from their mothers as babies. That's the norm.
For which animals? The only ones I'm aware of
are veal calves.
>> But since you brought up the natural way of
>> life idea as if it's always a good thing: Fryers were
>> my example in the first place (and fryers are not
>> debeaked), and humans live every bit as unnatural
>> a life as they do...a fact that doesn't bother us, so
>> there's no reason for me to believe chickens are
>> unhappy simply because they live in unnatural
>> conditions either.
>
>Chickens are not free to do as they please, but
>you are, within reason. Yet humans impose cruel
>unnatural conditions on animals, unnecessarily.
>Do you think that's fair and ethical?
No. I'm in favor of improving their lives, not
preventing them.
>> น The documentary with the pelicans is from
>> "The Life of Birds" series, #9 "The Problems
>> of Parenthood" :
>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/002-9582952-4258412
>> It has other such examples as well.
>
>See as above. Nature is struggling all around,
>but we are greatly responsible for much of the
>suffering and hardship we see at this time.
Agreed, and we always will be even if everyone
becomes a veg*n. If that happens human diets will
no longer directly promote life for animals, only death.
>And why add to it,
We can't avoid it.
>we need to get our own act
>together as a matter of great urgency.
I agree with you about that.