PETA and the Holocaust

[Kodiak]

This shows how little you know about indutrial framing, I could berate you but I sugesst you investigate a little, especialy the way chickens and pigs are raised (And cattle to lesser extent).

I said "short, sedate, and care free". What stresses, other than their eventual demise (which they are oblivious of) do these animals suffer. They pull no wagons or plows, and they don't compete for food or mates. Berate me indeed...

Again, without man and his desire and love for meat, these animals wouldn't exist.

Just for laughs people, Would you eat a dog?

Thanks to my US Army training, I've had to eat much worse. To answer your question though, yes I would eat dog, if I couldn't find an alternative that I found preferable.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BillyTK:
The treatment of animals by humans doesn't justify their fate, because their fate is solely the result of human's desire for their meat, not any desire for their wellbeing. It's certainly preferable to treat animals as humanely (deliberate pun) as possible but this doesn't justify their deaths. Any attempt to dress it our desire for their flesh as anything else is equivalent to the fluffy-headed thinking of some of the animal rights crowd.

Speaking for myself I've never tried to dress my own desire to eat animal flesh as being primarily an exercise in animal welfare. I've never felt the need to apologise for being an active omnivore, so I've never claimed that I eat meat for the sake of the animal.

The use of "animals" and "jungle law" is a matter of semantics resulting from 19th century ideas of the natural world as the opposition of human civilisation. Consider this; how many characteristics of people termed "animals" do you actually see in the wild? How does the idea of "jungle law" match with the conditions of the natural world?

Oh please, your not trying to suggest that the natural world is like Jellystone national park?

Lions stalking and slaughtering all too sentient Wildebeest? Primates beating one another to death in vicious feuds? Foxes slaughtering far more chickens than they could possibly eat? Tom cats killing kittens? Dominance plays a major role in the natural world. Do you think animals settle questions of dominance by democratic means?

Btw I've seen the result of foxes in chicken runs, but this doesn't prove the rule; chicken runs are artificial and it's the number of chickens in a confined space which causes the fox to engage in this kind of behaviour.

Are you suggesting that the fox wouldn't eat the chickens if it came across them in the wild? BTW the dead chickens I've seen were all free range.

 

[Dancing David]

I said "short, sedate, and care free". What stresses, other than their eventual demise (which they are oblivious of) do these animals suffer. They pull no wagons or plows, and they don't compete for food or mates. Berate me indeed...

Again, without man and his desire and love for meat, these animals wouldn't exist.



Thanks to my US Army training, I've had to eat much worse. To answer your question though, yes I would eat dog, if I couldn't find an alternative that I found preferable.

I was merely pointing out the fact that the way most animals are raised today is comparable to an african jail cell, not a pleasant place, the animals are fed better. Most people think that animals live in these happy little farms like the one in Wizard of OZ, when actually they are just biological gears in an industrial setting.

I can berate you if you want? I'd really rather not, indeed. It was a rhetorical statement, in fact. Which I could retract, in practise. Altough since you don't seem offended I could, in passing.

Peace

PS The comment about the dogs was a troll, the most disgusting thing to me is liver, ew, I would have to be real hungry.

 

[RandFanJr.]

There is a moral argument against domesticating animals but I'm not confident enough to make it. As I explained to Shane in my subsequent post, I'm not objecting to the consumption of animals by humans (I'm a vegetarian, but I'm quite ambivalent about the whole thing), it's the argument that, because animals in captivity get better treatment than their wilderness counterparts, that this somehow justifies their fates.

Personally I have not tried to justify their fates based on that fact. However it is demonstrable that an animal born domestically has a far better survival rate than one in the wild. That they will suffer far less from predation and the elements. I was raised on a farm and we took great care of our animals. My father inspected them regularly and called the vet when needed. So I certainly can put my mind to rest knowing that domesticated animals that are not needlessly hurt fair better than their counter parts.

But if they're in captivity, how much better off are they? Horses and cows do get a bit of a free ride and should be made to pay taxes or somesuch ; sows are often kept pinned in cages so that their piglets can feed at anytime and to prevent the mother from rolling over and squashing them. Cattle show signs of distress even before entering the slaughterhouse; chickens and hens in confined spaces produce neurotic pecking behaviours; chicken and turkey meat is so white because they have their throats slit and blood after being rendered brain dead by electrocution; the stunning process is not always successful. Did I mention that I once worked in a turkey slaughterhouse?

My family's main source of income was chickens and rabbits. Yes, there are problems and they should be addressed. I support reasonable efforts to reduce animal suffering. I have seen cows slaughtered. I know that ruminants in the wild suffer stress on a regular basis. I think many if not most horses in captivity are well kept.

I will grant that there is an argument to be made that the lot of domesticated animals can be improved. I can't see any reason to stop using domesticated animals for food and clothing.[

Conditions in the wild are cruel--to us, imposing our values on it as we watch the cute baby get munched by the big bad carnivore on the Discovery Channel, but carefully forget that without that big bad carnivore the cute baby and pals would over-run their habitat with the environmental problems that would cause--but let's stop trying to dress up our treatment of animals as somehow more compassionate.

I think it often is. Most animals are killed and eaten shortly after they are born. That being said let me concede that I cannot truly know which life is better for any given animal. However I don't think that statistically there is any comparison.

But there's no inconsistency in decrying the slaughter of domesticated animals for human consumption and not think twice of predation in the wild, because predation in the wild is not the result of human activity; the treatment of domesticated animals is.

We will have to disagree. The very best scenario, the very best mind you is a zero sum gain. You cannot improve the over all quality of life for animals by simply removing man from the equation. Perhaps you would be happier knowing that animals only die as a result of animal predation and not as a result of humans. I don't see the distinction. While I do however think it wrong to cause needles suffering and since humans are capable of treating animals in a way that minimizes suffering then I think we should treat them as such. The fact that a man kills an animal as opposed to another animal is a function of "who" or "what" and not "if" and the human can do so in a way that allows for the animal a much better chance of surviving not only beyond birth but far longer than the average animal in the wild.

If I was going to kill a turkey tomorrow for dinner would you feel better to know that a fox got to it today?

I'm sorry but I just don't see the point.

 

[Cain]

It sucks that I usually post in the dead of night at off-peak hours, so then the next day in addition to several replies, threads start taking different directions. Constraints of time prevent the usually tedious point-by-point analysis.

Shane writes:

"...I was addressing a specific claim made by you i.e. "abuse and atrocities" inflicted on animals. I posted those links to show that "abuse and atrocities" have no place whatsoever in livestock production."

First, you're completely passing over the moral premise: Suppose -- just suppose -- that animal abuse was highly profitable. For instance, confining chickens to tiny spaces that allow little room for exercise, "debeaking" them (causing pain), and, let's just say for the sake of argument, heat waves that suffocate many of these fine birds. Scales of economy and skimping on labor costs allow for high profits.

Many people would shrug their shoulders and say "so what? They're just animals."

In which case it's silly to document atrocities and abuse because they view animals as the property of others, to be disposed as the owner sees fit.

As for my "odious comparison" to slaves, Shane writes:

"I'd point out that animal welfare laws make it illegal to transport animals the way humans were on the slave ships."

So? The argument from economic incentive is the same. Do you agree there should be welfare laws governing the transport of animals? If so, why? Because animals deserve our respect? Or does regulation exists for quality control (human-centered reasons)? Even the United States legally abolished the slave trade in 1808 -- hardly anything more than a step in the right direction.

"Purposeless violence" has no place in livestock production, thankfully.

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

From another post (reply to billy), Shane writes:

"...what protections do animals in the wild get from harm doen by other animals? Zip. OTOH animals in human captivity get regular meals, secure accomodation and a peaceful death.

I wish I could be Tyson chicken!

First, non-human animals are not moral agents, so the violence they carry out against each other (and against humans), is not comparable to our own misconduct. In the next ten years we could abolish all factory farms forever.

Whether they are bred to be exploited or not is beside the point. They have it a lot better than animals in the wild.

That's an improper comparison (though, not quite odious ). Again, if we look back on slave life over the course of the 18th century, it improved dramatically. All quality of life indicators went straight up -- but that's not a good argument for slavery. Nor are comparisons to many of the starving Africans back in the homeland at the time. Humans must be held to higher standards precisely because we are the moral animal.

-------------------------------------------------------

Kodiak writes:

Those cows wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the beef industry. Those chickens and turkeys wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the poultry industry.

Yep, we could prevent all of that useless suffering. Animal rights activists favor less animals. Singer offers an interesting example in a chapter on abortion (I think it's abortion). Imagine a woman who is pregnent, but her doctor says that the child will be born mentally retarded.... unless, she takes a miracle drug that will cause a "normal" birth. The mother refuses. Years later the retarded child learns about her mother's choice and says, "Had you chosen to take the drug, I wouldn't be retarded." The mother may always reply, "Had I chosen to take the drug, you would not exist."

----------------------------------------------

Victor writes:

What about the deaths of rodents under the blades of agricultural combines?

I believe this argument was made after a professor from Oregon(?) uncovered findings on the number of deaths each year in combines. More research needs to be done, but yes, it's a very real concern.

In keeping consistency with my views on war, these deaths cannot be brushed aside as completely "unintended" or "accidential" because we know they're inevitably going to occur (just as warplanners knew they would take the lives of innocent civilians). The difference, depending on one's stance for the war, is a matter of necessity. We need to produce food just as we need to work (peopel inevitably die on the job, regardless of the restrictions OSHA places on firms).

A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

----------------------------------------------------
Voidx writes:

I know people that have been to and worked in Chicken factory farms. Its a very efficient process. Yes, the chickens live in small cages, not even really large enough to turn around in, but whatever. They do not live in their own filth. You know why? Because factory farms make a fortune from selling Chicken feces as fertilizer.

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles (this came up on one of Randi's programs, I believe. Either he was broadcasting near chicken factory farm or a caller brought it up). Residents regularly complain about the odor. But again, these issues are derivative:

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens? Otherwise it makes little sense to argue "how bad things are" because, as I said once earlier, anyone can reply, "So what?"

Shane posted a link describing why its beneficial not to harm animals before slaughter. You refuted that, but gave no evidence or link to counter it. I want to see evidence of livestock abuse from a credible source please. And I also want to see evidence that the standards for raising livestock encourage abuse of the animals. I also want to be shown evidence or explanation on what the exact benefit is of abusing a livestock animal. These are 2 of the claims being made.

My interests are more philosophical. Anyone can paste links or reccomend books (Matthew Scully's, written from a conservative/religious point of view, tackles these issues in depth).

A quick Internet search leads me to the humane society:

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11533

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11528

http://www.hsus.org/ace/11487

More typical vegetarians can go into far greater detail on all kinds of experimentation, factory farming, the history of regulations and so on.

It just doesn't define me as a person in the same way, so these issues, though non-trivial, I view as missing a fundamental point: non-human animals deserve our respect. Even assuming a Shane-constructed livestock utopia, one over-riding ethical feature goes missing: concern for the interests of animals.

Rigorous documentation of atrocities against animals has the effect of appealing to emotions. It offers greater dimension and deeper understanding, but those efforts are completely squandered if basic moral concern is found missing.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Cain writes:

A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

Statements similar to this get thrown out frequently.. They are straw men. Such statements are akin to the " eat all your food because people somewhere else are starving " ones.

Tons of food spoil every day because there are no means or the will to distribute it. It is a logistical issue, not one of production.

I see flaws, and to some extent moral questions, regarding the meat production industry in the U.S., but the idea that the solution to feeding the world is for the U.S. or anywhere else to go vegetarian is ludicrous.

 

[Cain]

Statements similar to this get thrown out frequently.. They are straw men. Such statements are akin to the " eat all your food because people somewhere else are starving " ones.
Tons of food spoil every day because there are no means or the will to distribute it. It is a logistical issue, not one of production.

Ah, there goes another JREFer mistakenly trotting out the "straw man" accusation again.

Markets naturally account for only effective demand, so if, theoretically speaking, everyone in rich countries suddenly adopted a vegetarian diet, we cannot ispo facto expect to see dramatic nutritional improvements world-wide. Which is exactly the point Lappe makes about the maldistributions that result from a free-market (though today we scarcely possess anything approaching a free-market in this field).

The point is only that we already have enough food to feed everybody (contrary to renewed euphoria over the hopes for genetically modified crops to solve world hunger). But the preferences of wealthy/first-world consumers, the only ones who really count under current mechanisms of distribution, entails cutting down forests in Brazil so McDonalds can raise cows. So we lose biological diversity from the ecosystems that have been replaced; the cows lead wretched lives; their profligate consumption of valued resources (water figures prominently) strains sustainable development; and they produce tons of waste (methane, an important greenhouse gas, among them).

It's hardly comparable to the scene in "A Christmas Story" (for example), where a mother urges her little one to eat everything on his plate because "people are starving in China," and, indeed, Lappe addresses this exact argument on, I believe, p. 1.

Production IS a "logistical issue."

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Production IS a "logistical issue."

Got me there..

I should have stayed with ..

It is not a problem with production, but of distribution...

Both of which fall under " logistics"..

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

First, non-human animals are not moral agents, so the violence they carry out against each other (and against humans), is not comparable to our own misconduct.

You can't have it both ways. if animals aren't moral agents, then violence against them cannot be immoral. it takes two moral agents interacting to have their interaction have moral value; otherwise, there is no moral difference between kicking a rock and kicking a dog, if neither is a moral agent.

You can argue that they are moral agents, and that therefore violence against animals -- by humans or by other animals -- is immoral; or you can argue that violence against animals is not immoral per se because they are not moral agents, but then such violence by humans isn't immoral either.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I believe this argument was made after a professor from Oregon(?) uncovered findings on the number of deaths each year in combines. More research needs to be done, but yes, it's a very real concern.

Not only is it a very real concern, it's a concern sufficient for susp[ension of 'ethical vegetarianism" conclusions. Funny how most "ethical vegetarians" don't do more that shrug their shoulders.

In keeping consistency with my views on war, these deaths cannot be brushed aside as completely "unintended" or "accidential" because we know they're inevitably going to occur (just as warplanners knew they would take the lives of innocent civilians). The difference, depending on one's stance for the war, is a matter of necessity. We need to produce food just as we need to work (peopel inevitably die on the job, regardless of the restrictions OSHA places on firms).

Indeed. We need to produce food one way or another. Why do you assume that producing vegetarian diet is less expensive, in terms of animal lives, that producing meat diet? Free-range meat is not *that* much more expensive than industrially-grown meat, but seems to result in a lot less loss of animal life.

Isn't your goal supposed to be to adhere to an adequate diet that minimizes loss of life?

A consistent vegetarian outlook offers good insights, fortunately. For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef.

This is why I spoke about free-range animals: cows don't kill field mice with their combine blades.

Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

We could feed the earth with our current diet, too. The issue is not lack of food, but lack of economic and sociopolitical infrastructure that would actually allow the food to be distributed thusly. That argument is simply dishonest demagoguery. We have the technology to feed 10b population on Earth; it's not through lack of potential to produce food that people starve.

It just doesn't define me as a person in the same way, so these issues, though non-trivial, I view as missing a fundamental point: non-human animals deserve our respect.

Only if they are moral agents -- but then their deaths by other animals is no less immoral than their deaths by our hands.

Rigorous documentation of atrocities against animals has the effect of appealing to emotions. It offers greater dimension and deeper understanding, but those efforts are completely squandered if basic moral concern is found missing.

Which is why I would like to take my kids hunting someday. They should understand what it means for an animals to be killed for their meal. That doesn't make omnivorous diet be immoral, though.

 

[voidx]

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles

How does the smell have anything to do with them living in their own filth. As I explained to you, the feces and waste are collected and sold as fertilizer. This doesn't get rid of the smell, the feces is still there, but the chickens are not wallowing in it either. You're avoiding the issue of the statement you made of chickens, or more livestock in general wallowing around in their own waste.

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens?

You're misdirecting here. I asked you to provide me any evidence that animal abuse has any benefit to producing better quality meat in livestock, and whethere there was any example of the normal standards for livestock encouraging this practice. You want to assume horrendous conditions, I asked you to show me or prove that there actually are horrendous conditions, so you can't turn the question around on me. What I want to see is, 1. Examples of truly horrendous conditions for livestock, and 2. that lax standards on livestock encourage a farmer to keep livestock in those horrendous conditions, because of some imaginary benefit, which I'd also like to see proof or explanation for.

For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef.

I'll have to dig up the link, but you assume here that it is always grain, and grain alone that is used as feed for cattle. This is not true. Agricultural waste, meaning, parts of vegetables and other things that don't fit the bill for human consumption, but are fine for livestock, are often used as feed also. Its a policy of not wasting anything. Rather than toss out that agricultural waste, its fed to livestock. But as mentioned, its a moot point anyway. Say we all went vegatarian, it still wouldn't mean our new found "bounty" of food would find its way into the proper hands.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
First, you're completely passing over the moral premise: Suppose -- just suppose -- that animal abuse was highly profitable. For instance, confining chickens to tiny spaces that allow little room for exercise, "debeaking" them (causing pain), and, let's just say for the sake of argument, heat waves that suffocate many of these fine birds. Scales of economy and skimping on labor costs allow for high profits.

You're the one skirting issues here, not me. You made a statement of fact, namely that there is endemic "abuse and atrocities" of animals in the meat industry. Support this assertion before bombarding me with abstract issues.

So? The argument from economic incentive is the same. Do you agree there should be welfare laws governing the transport of animals? If so, why? Because animals deserve our respect? Or does regulation exists for quality control (human-centered reasons)?

Do I support animal welfare laws, especially those governing transport of livestock? Yes. The animals are entitled to humane conditions, both from a moral and from an economic perspective. I'll repeat, there is no economic incentive for animal abuse at any stage of the meat production process, quite the opposite in fact.

Comparing humans, and especially slavery with animals is odious. Animals continue to be articles of property (I'm sure a lot of PETA activists and vegans own pets), and lack the intellectual and moral capacities of humans.

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

Strawman. My claim that violence has no place in farming or meat production stands. Animals have to be slaughtered painlessly and clinically as part of the industrial slaughtering process.

I wish I could be Tyson chicken!

If you were a bird rather than a human, then it wouldn't be all that bad.

Again, if we look back on slave life over the course of the 18th century, it improved dramatically. All quality of life indicators went straight up -- but that's not a good argument for slavery. Nor are comparisons to many of the starving Africans back in the homeland at the time. Humans must be held to higher standards precisely because we are the moral animal.

But slaves were human beings, not animals and had infinitely more moral and intellectual capacities than even the smartest chimp or yellow lab. The gulf between us and the animal world in these respects makes any comparisons between slavery and farming plainly ridiculous.

Anyone who has gone near a factory farm knows how terrible how they smell for miles and miles

Sounds like some batchelor pads and all male college dorms I've been in.

And if odour is an overriding concern of yours I think your promotion of a diet strongly derived from legumes is a little hypocritical.

Assuming horrendous conditions produce the highest profit, do you favor regulations in the interests of chickens?

Stop peddling this. Either support your assertion with evidence, or belt up.

 

[Tmy]

TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN!!!!

Those animals are there to serve our needs. Whether we eat them or wear their fur. Thats nature for ya.

Who gets treated better. Animals raised for fur or for food. Im guessing fur.

 

[RandFanJr.]

For example, it takes anywhere from 12 to 16 pounds of grain (sources I've encountered vary) to produce a single pound of beef. Frances Moore Lappe in _Diet for a Small Planet_ uses this as anthropocentric cause for concern: we could feed everyone on earth if people in the rich countries developed a vegetarian diet.

This is quite misleading.

Animals such as ruminants convert food that is not edible for human consumption into meat that is fit for human consumption.

I grew up across from a silage field. Silage is grain that is grown for cows and other animals. When grain is grown for humans, only the grain is used. Take for instance corn. Humans consume only the kernels. Cows eat the silk, the husk, the cob, the leaves, the stalk, the whole damn thing. If you watch the harvesting of silage compared to corn for humans the difference is astounding. The grain is only a fraction of the total weight of the food. Wheat silage is the same. Humans only eat the grain while the animal eats everything. Another thing, silage is much cheaper to produce than corn that is fit for human consumption (my buddies and I stole and ate corn from silage once. It was awful). In addition to the grain, the cows grazed on open fields where native grasses grew without any cultivation or irrigation. (google BLM and grazing). Oh and I almost forgot, silage is much cheaper to store than grain for humans. It doesn't require a silo and can be left out in the elements. It is very difficult for birds to pick through tons of non edible silage to eat the grain.

So a true an accurate picture would have to take into account silage and grass that humans could not otherwise eat. That being said, it is true that the beef most preferred by consumers is "whole corn" fed beef. But this has to do with preference and not necessity.

 

[aerocontrols]

On a lighter note...


Cows with Guns is now a movie.


Pretty funny.

 

[Tmy]

I grew up across from a silage field. Silage is grain that is grown for cows and other animals. .

IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! SILAGE IS PEEEEEEOPLE!!!!!!



(apologies to Charlie Heston)

 

[RandFanJr.]

IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!! SILAGE IS PEEEEEEOPLE!!!!!!



(apologies to Charlie Heston)

Every once in awhile you go into a serious thread only to have some smart a$$ make some comment.

Well it made my day.

 

[Cain]

I apologize once again for the (relatively) delayed reply (by Internet standards).

Victor writes:

You can't have it both ways. if animals aren't moral agents, then violence against them cannot be immoral.

No, we need to make another distinction between moral agents and moral patients. Infants are not moral agents either, so can we kick them? If you want to argue that infants are *potential moral agents*, then you'll need to confront the problem of abortion (because then a zygote is a potential moral agent). What about an infant with a heart condition that will not live for very long. Can we kick her around like a rock?

Isn't your goal supposed to be to adhere to an adequate diet that minimizes loss of life?

No, the goal is minimize suffering and maximize happiness. I'm not sure why you would compare free-range meat to industrial-grown if both are inefficient in terms of protein from a dietary perspective.

We could feed the earth with our current diet, too. The issue is not lack of food, but lack of economic and sociopolitical infrastructure that would actually allow the food to be distributed thusly. That argument is simply dishonest demagoguery. We have the technology to feed 10b population on Earth; it's not through lack of potential to produce food that people starve.

In my old copy of Lappe's book (30 years, so the statistics are obviously dated), she has a neat graph with protein conversion (the first line in the Forward screams "This book is about PROTEIN"). Cows in North America are 21 to 1. Then you need to take into account the opportunity costs: how much protein can I produce on an acre of cereal than an acre of meat (Lappe's old figures give us 5 to 1). It's a side issue that I regret bringing up because the arguments are anthropocentric: stop raising animals for the benefit to humans. Yes, the benefits to humans are extremely important, maybe even overwhelmingly so, but a serious cause of concern is the unneccesary harm inflicted upon animals.

Only if they are moral agents -- but then their deaths by other animals is no less immoral than their deaths by our hands.

Again, many humans are not moral agents, but we give them rights and respect. Your criterion for moral agenthood is misguided.

Voidx writes:

You're misdirecting here. I asked you to provide me any evidence that animal abuse has any benefit to producing better quality meat in livestock, and whethere there was any example of the normal standards for livestock encouraging this practice. You want to assume horrendous conditions, I asked you to show me or prove that there actually are horrendous conditions, so you can't turn the question around on me. What I want to see is, 1. Examples of truly horrendous conditions for livestock, and 2. that lax standards on livestock encourage a farmer to keep livestock in those horrendous conditions, because of some imaginary benefit, which I'd also like to see proof or explanation for.

My comments below also apply to Shane's opening statement:

You made a statement of fact, namely that there is endemic "abuse and atrocities" of animals in the meat industry. Support this assertion before bombarding me with abstract issues.

No, I realized after my last post how "abuse" and "mistreatment" are loaded words vis-a-vis human and non-human animals. If you view "mistreating" an animal as "damaging a product" (no different than canned food), then you're missing the point.

Back to VoidX's above quote:

Because "your friends" work on a chicken farm... yes, yes. I could cite a half-dozen books (Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation_ for one, documenting the "horrendous conditions." But if animlas are nothing more than property, then who cares about "horrendous conditons"? Even I glanced over one of the links provided, which talked about chickens living in their own excrement for over a year.

Comparing humans, and especially slavery with animals is odious. Animals continue to be articles of property (I'm sure a lot of PETA activists and vegans own pets), and lack the intellectual and moral capacities of humans.

I love how it's common for us to distinguish between humans and animals. Of course as we all know, humans *are* animals and, technically, it makes more sense to draw lines between human and non-human animals. That non-human animals continued to be viewed as property is the object of dispute. No doubt many animal rights activists "own" pets. Many parents also believe that they "own" their kids, and can treat them any way possible under the "My house, my rules" principle. Of course, no sane person would allow a parent to abuse or molest their own child. Most people are also in favor of anti-cruelty laws. Just because you "own" a pet does not mean you can dispose of it in any way you see fit.

Moral or intellectual capacity is an arbitrary criterion for rights. Some humans are smarter than others, but that doesn't mean those in the top 99 percentile should be the rulers, and those in the bottom 10 percentile slaves. For moral distinctions refer to the agent/patient relationship outlined above in response to Victor.

Strawman. My claim that violence has no place in farming or meat production stands. Animals have to be slaughtered painlessly and clinically as part of the industrial slaughtering process.

As I make a point of stating on these forums every single time: a red flag must always go up whenever a JREFer resorts to "strawman." (There must be an insidious meme that has gone around for years because nearly everyone fails to properly separate the "straw" from "man", let alone correctly accuse).

Anyway, my alleged caricature went as follows:

Au contraire! the consumption of "livestock" to satisfy our bellies is most certainly unncessary (and an inefficient use of resources).

I guess it goes back to whether or not the life of a cow on a factory farm is happy (since it's indisputably unnecessary) because they're slaughtered painlessly. Of course, the same can be said in veal production, but the violence and unnecessary suffering are still there.

But slaves were human beings, not animals and had infinitely more moral and intellectual capacities than even the smartest chimp or yellow lab. The gulf between us and the animal world in these respects makes any comparisons between slavery and farming plainly ridiculous.

Once again I'll note the false distinction between humans and animals.

The use of "infintely" also bothers me (and not just because "infinity" is a nonsense word). Someone observed that if you ask a scientist why it's okay to put animals through nasty experiments she'll say, "because they're nothing like us." Ask the same scientist why they bother at all, "because they're a lot like us." The economic arguments are identical: markets allegedly provide incentives to slave-owners not to abuse and mistreat. As for respecting our moral and intellectual capacities, hell, most firms today don't give a rat's *ss.

Stop peddling this. Either support your assertion with evidence, or belt up.

This is such nonsense for reasons touched upon earlier. I've learned from arguing with Libertarians, anti-abortionists, and Chirstian fundamentalists that underlying philosophical premises must get hashed out first. An anti-abortionist, for example, will talk about the "silent scream" and how a fetus feels pain very early on. Fine. Someone argues 23 weeks, others say it's closer to nine, or even four. Whatever. If a person judges on the basis of pain to the fetus alone, then they should be willing to accept the four weeks claim (assuming forthcoming evidence). But an anti-abortion activists wants to protect zygotes, so what's the point of messing around with all this pain crap? (refer to the thread on Libertarianism for a recent example of this).

It's a simple matter of setting up goal posts. You're telling me to move the ball, but I want to know in advance what counts. Assuming the economic incentives mentioned numerous times, would you oppose market conditions out of respect for the animals' interest?

The animals are entitled to humane conditions, both from a moral and from an economic perspective.

Interesting word -- "humane". Are you considering the interests of the animal from its own perspective and for its own good? Accordingly, you would be in favor of anti-cruelty laws, correct? A person couldn't just a buy a cow to do with it as he pleases (if that means torture or whatever).

Randfan Jr.'s arguments are covered above on efficiency grounds.

 

[Malachi151]

Well, I'm new to the forum, but I have decided to weigh in on this issue, not that animal rights is something that I am involved in or care much about, but anyway.

Many people in the thread seem to be making the argument that there is nothing wrong with the way animals are currently farmed .

One of the claims of course was that "we have laws that govern this activity" (paraphrase).

Well, we had laws that governed slavery too, laws mean nothing in terms validating a method. The laws are written by the animals farmers, that's how lobbying works. And I dunno what people were talking about with the slave issue of saying that the salves were well cared for, did everyone miss the information about how slaves were crammed onto boats so thick that there were mortality rates in the 25% range and they were chained down so they had to go to the bathroom and sleep and eat, etc all in the same place.

Now, on the animals.

There are certainly problems with modern animal farming. The issue is not that raising animals for food is bad, there is nothing wrong with that, the issue is that the Industrial Revolution has changed demands on the food industry such that food production has taken on the characteristics of the Industrial Revolution.

200 years ago in America 4 out of 5 families raised their own food. Likewise in Europe there were more farmers raising smaller numbers of animals.

I'm pretty sure that if you were to take a farmer from 300 years ago to a modern chicken "farm" they would be equally as appalled as some of these PETA types are.

The practices have changed like everything, except in the case of other products what is being produced is inanimate objects, in this case we are using the practices of the Industrial Revolution to produce animals.

Where before 1 farmer may raise hundreds of chickens kept in coups that he tended daily and hand fed, and let the chickens out every day into the yard and had to deal with issues like disease and physical care in ways to keep his chickens healthy and doing well, today they use hormones to prevent disease which allows for overcrowding, they cut off the beaks so that they can't peck at each other, which again allows for overcrowding, and we have fewer "farmers" (food production corporations" producing much higher quantities of animals.

The animals have been integrated into the mechanical process of the Industrial Revolution, they are now grown in factories, not farms.

Now, as for the hormones, I see nothing wrong with the hormones themselves, it what the hormones allow, which is overcrowding and over feeding.

To put this in terms of people, it would be actually worse then the Holocaust IMO.

Here is what it would be like.

Being in a 10 X 10 room from the time you are 2 years old until you are about 20 years old. You are in there with 30 other people the whole time. You are given amphetamines and steroids so that everyone is always hopped up and jump and tens and angry, on top of the conditions that produce that effect. Because these conditions cause the people to fight the farmers pull everyone's teeth and fingernails out and tie their hand behind their backs.

You're life consists of living in this condition and awaiting food to come down a shoot every day. Due to the conditions everyone in the pen is insane and bangs their head against the wall constantly, etc. You live this way until the day you are harvested, which electricity is run through the floor and everyone in the pen is shocked to death.

That's a little different then the way things used to be 200 years ago with farmers doing real farming, and that is the issue.

Now, as for the future of food, I think that many people are going in the wrong direction with all this organic crap. The truth is that the "organic" movement is counter productive. We should be doing more genetic engineering, and looking for ways to develop brainless animals that have no senses, essentially just meat sacks Same goes for plants. Genetic engineering is what will allow us to stop using pesticides, we should not be fighting against that, we should before it.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

No, we need to make another distinction between moral agents and moral patients.

that terminology doesn't change anything. if we owe animals humane treatment, then on what basis would you say that we don't owe them protection? I can think of no rational ground upon which we could disclaim inhumkane treatment of animals by humans, but accept such treatment of animals by animals.

Infants are not moral agents either, so can we kick them?

No; but by the same token, we don't let one infant harm another.

As I said, you can't have your cake and eat it too. if animals deserve protection from us, then they must be protected from harm by humans and animals.

No, the goal is minimize suffering and maximize happiness. I'm not sure why you would compare free-range meat to industrial-grown if both are inefficient in terms of protein from a dietary perspective.

But they are efficient in terms of suffering -- the suffering of a field mouse is no less than the suffering of the cow, and so the most efficient diet in terms of animal suffering (and excluding pre-industrial agriculture) is range-raised large animals.

In my old copy of Lappe's book (30 years, so the statistics are obviously dated), she has a neat graph with protein conversion (the first line in the Forward screams "This book is about PROTEIN"). Cows in North America are 21 to 1. Then you need to take into account the opportunity costs: how much protein can I produce on an acre of cereal than an acre of meat (Lappe's old figures give us 5 to 1).

How about taking into the account the amount of suffering inflicted upon the animals by producing quantity X of protein? The comparison is not clear-cut, as you present it.

It's a side issue that I regret bringing up because the arguments are anthropocentric: stop raising animals for the benefit to humans. Yes, the benefits to humans are extremely important, maybe even overwhelmingly so, but a serious cause of concern is the unneccesary harm inflicted upon animals.

Such as the dead field mice. Right.

The extra cost of raising meat rather than crops is irrelevant. That we could grow 5X tons of wheat for every X tons of beef doesn't make any difference if we cannot do anything useful with the extra 4X tons of wheat -- and that is exactly the case now. We already make more food than we need. had Earth had 30B population instead of 6B, the efficiency argument would be relevant; but it's not. As I said, the problem is not that we can't produce enough food, but that we can't (and/or won't) get the extra food to those who need it, nor the advanced agricultural technology and distribution infrastructure to those who starve.

In short, the efficiency argument is utterly spurious. It simply is not relevant to the real conditions -- technological growth is already plenty fast enough, our ability to produce food at current diet composition (i.e. with meat) far outpaces our population size and growth. These days, famine is virtually never a function of lack of food per se (such as due to drought), not even in the third-world countries, but rather of sociopolitical factors impeding free distribution of resources.

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
I love how it's common for us to distinguish between humans and animals. Of course as we all know, humans *are* animals and, technically, it makes more sense to draw lines between human and non-human animals. That non-human animals continued to be viewed as property is the object of dispute.

It's not just common for us to distinguish between humans and animals, it's on the statute books. Doesn't the US constitution declare that "all men" are equal? Isn't violence against humans treated more severely than violence against animals? Where is the fact that animals are treated as property in dispute? Again, how many animal rights activists "own" pets?

Moral or intellectual capacity is an arbitrary criterion for rights. Some humans are smarter than others, but that doesn't mean those in the top 99 percentile should be the rulers, and those in the bottom 10 percentile slaves.

Yes, but the bottom 10 percentile of humans will still be a lot smarter than any animal.

Once again I'll note the false distinction between humans and animals.

No, it's a real and legal distinction.

This is such nonsense for reasons touched upon earlier. I've learned from arguing with Libertarians, anti-abortionists, and Chirstian fundamentalists that underlying philosophical premises must get hashed out first.

Wait a minute, you set the ball rolling here with your statement of endemic abuses. You put the statement of fact before the phiosophical discussion, not me, so put up or shut up.

Assuming the economic incentives mentioned numerous times, would you oppose market conditions out of respect for the animals' interest?

It's a false dilemma, since I've pointed out (and yopu've failed to refute) the fact that market conditions demand that the highest standards of animal welfare are adhered to. I might as well ask you would you make love to your mother ot save her life.

Interesting word -- "humane". Are you considering the interests of the animal from its own perspective and for its own good? Accordingly, you would be in favor of anti-cruelty laws, correct? A person couldn't just a buy a cow to do with it as he pleases (if that means torture or whatever).

I am in favour of anti-cruelty laws. They're already in place. As it stands a person can't just simply buy a cow and torture it.