Why vegans are simply better people

[myowninvention]

Is everyone else here done and ready to let this thread die a dignified death? I am.

Spent waaaaaay too much time here instead of being productive at work. When I have to work on Sunday to make up the lost time I spent talking to people on internet forums, its time to call it quits.

Enjoy my veggie recipes.

I'm sorry you're giving up on this thread- I would have liked to continue the debate with you.

 

[myowninvention]

I doubt people need many fewer calories than they did 20,000 years ago. The nomadic lifestyle was supposed to have had shorter workdays than today.

Instead, I'd suggest that the cost of producing a calorie of food has been plummeting for some time. At the same time, we're hard wired to eat as much food as we can get our hands on.

Also, corn.

The work day may have been shorter, but compare even 4 hours of hard physical labor to a 8 or 10 hour day in front of a computer, and you have a pretty big difference in terms of calorie needs.

I agree that the current system of processing food makes it much easier to eat a lot more calories then before.

And yes- corn.

Margaret Visser's book Since Eve Ate Apples Much Depends on Dinner is a really fascinating read, looking at the history of, and culture surrounding food.

 

[citizenzen]

I understand its human nature to empathize with organisms that more closely approximate ourselves, but that is quite an absurd way to construct some kind of diet based on principal. So you’re delineating which organisms are to be treasured and which have absolutely no value based on physical approximation to yourself? Where did you learn of this universal line of moral demarcation that renders all plant life worthless and all animal life inviolable?

I don't think anyone has suggested that plant life is "worthless". IMO, needlessly killing plants is immoral. Needless killing of any living thing is amoral.

However, we do need to sustain ourselves by eating once-alive beings. We have to make some choice as to what we'll consume to sustain our own life. Eating plants reasonably minimizes the known suffering that is inflicted on living beings and allows us to sustain ourselves.

 

[Thurkon]

Eating plants reasonably minimizes the known suffering that is inflicted on living beings and allows us to sustain ourselves.

You don’t really know that. The key word is "known" suffering. You’re assuming plant life doesn’t feel pain because they don’t have a biological similarity to us. The best we can really state for certain is they don’t feel pain like we feel pain.

Regardless, is suffering really the only issue here? If we eat free range animals that are killed humanely and painlessly, is this acceptable?

Isn’t the core issue really the value of life? How do you judge the value? I like trees more than rats, but I’m not comfortable making some moral declaration which one of the two is more worthy of life. The same goes with cows and cornstalks. The problem is not so much suffering, but the emotional element that too often clouds the argument. Plants don’t seem as alive because they display that life in a way that is more alien to us.

 

[citizenzen]

You don’t really know that. The key word is "known" suffering. You’re assuming plant life doesn’t feel pain because they don’t have a biological similarity to us. The best we can really state for certain is they don’t feel pain like we feel pain.

True. But despite the uncertainty we still need to consume something to survive. The key for me is reasonably minimize suffering. I can't know for certain that plants don't feel pain, but I do know for certain that animals do, especially animals that share much of the same physiology as me.

It seems to me to be a very reasonable demarcation: beings that share similar physiology, that I know are conscious and can conceivably suffer vs. something that doesn't display consciousness on the same level and there is no proof suffering.

And to answer you other question, I appreciate that some situations are better than other for livestock. However, the end result is an animal robbed of liberty and killed for my sustenance. I choose, for myself, to not demand animals make that sacrifice.

 

[Thurkon]

True. But despite the uncertainty we still need to consume something to survive. The key for me is reasonably minimize suffering. I can't know for certain that plants don't feel pain, but I do know for certain that animals do, especially animals that share much of the same physiology as me.

It seems to me to be a very reasonable demarcation: beings that share similar physiology, that I know are conscious and can conceivably suffer vs. something that doesn't display consciousness on the same level and there is no proof suffering.

And to answer you other question, I appreciate that some situations are better than other for livestock. However, the end result is an animal robbed of liberty and killed for my sustenance. I choose, for myself, to not demand animals make that sacrifice.

As logical as your first paragraph is, I’m confused by the “robbed of liberty” statement. Is the question here the suffering of the animal, its loss of freedom, or something else?

The suffering element, at least as much as we are aware of, can be mitigated. If suffering is eliminated, then the issue is value of life. The question stands: You may well judge for yourself what life forms are more valuable, and I respect that choice, but my initial response was to the OP who has the hubris to make a comprehensive and absolute choice for everyone. I don’t think it’s quite that simple, or as humans we even have the capability to make that kind of universal moral judgment with any degree of confidence.

 

[RandFan]

You don’t really know that. The key word is "known" suffering. You’re assuming plant life doesn’t feel pain because they don’t have a biological similarity to us. The best we can really state for certain is they don’t feel pain like we feel pain.

We can't know for certain that outside of our own experience any other entity feels pain the way we do. You could very well be a zombie miming experiences that are concurrent with mine. So perhaps its presumptive of me to be concerned about your well being.

Truth is we have a pretty good understanding of the neurocorelates of pain. We even understand the different components of pain. We understand them well enough to control them and predict behavior.

But let's suppose that there could be an unknown mechanism for pain in plants. There might also be unseen spirits, therefore... (argument from ignorance). To argue that we don't know about plants and therefore it's okay eat animals is, it would seem to me, an error in logic.

ETA: I eat meat.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Don't you just hate it when these threads cease to be contentious ?

 

[citizenzen]

But let's suppose that there could be an unknown mechanism for pain in plants. There might also be unseen spirits, therefore... (argument from ignorance). To argue that we don't know about plants and therefore it's okay eat animals is, it would seem to me, an error in logic.

And that's why I keep using the terms reasonably minimize suffering. We can only work off the information that we have.

And BTW, I'm an egg and cheese eater. I help to enslave cows and chickens.

I just don't eat 'em.

 

[RandFan]

And that's why I keep using the terms reasonably minimize suffering. We can only work off the information that we have.

And BTW, I'm an egg and cheese eater. I help to enslave cows and chickens.

I just don't eat 'em.

Cool, As for me I would refer again to the work of Temple Grandin. I don't personally feel that animal husbandry is to enslave animals.

 

[citizenzen]

Cool, As for me I would refer again to the work of Temple Grandin. I don't personally feel that animal husbandry is to enslave animals.

So ... if a cow escapes and is wandering down the street, do they just let the cow continue to wander, because it is, after all, a free cow?

 

[RandFan]

So ... if a cow escapes and is wandering down the street, do they just let the cow continue to wander, because it is, after all, a free cow?

Didn't you and I have this discussion or am I confusing you with someone else?

ETA: No that was Stout. I apologize. Let me dig out my earlier posts on the subject.

 

[citizenzen]

Let me dig out my earlier posts on the subject.

Cool. I always wanted to have a debate about animal slavery.

On friendly terms, of course.

Nobody's calling you a "cracker".

 

[RandFan]

Enslaving cows:

Okay, Just as I told Thurkon, we actually have a pretty good idea of what animals experience. We have an idea of what life is like for animals in the wild. We know when they are stressed and we know how to provide for them a life free of day to day predation, disease, the elements, etc.

So, I have two examples. One is a Nova documentary hosted by Alan Alda. It's about zoos. Alda was against zoos so he sought the facts from the experts. He found out that old style zoos stressed animals and caused mental pathology and the new ones don't. You can see that video at [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"THE NEW ZOOS"[/SIZE][/FONT] (Alda does not become a proponent but agrees that the lives are appreciably different).

The second is the work done by Temple Grandin, a hero to some in the animals rights movement (In 2004 she won a "Proggy" award, in the "visionary" category, from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.)

Animals Are Not Things, A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological Complexity

When the structure of the brain and nervous system is studied, there is no black and white line between people and higher mammals such as chimps, dogs or cows. The genome project has shown that humans and mice share many genes (Gunter and Dhand, 2002). In mammals 30 to 40% of all genes are involved in nervous system development and function. The basic design of the nervous system and the neural mechanisms that process fear and pain are similar in humans and other mammals (Rogan and LeDoux, 1996). Colpaert et al. (2001) reported that rats will self medicate themselves with pain killers to relieve pain in arthritic joints.. Pain and fear both cause suffering. As nervous system and brain complexity increases the welfare needs of the animal increase and become more complex, but all animals that have sufficient nervous systems complexity to suffer from either pain or fear need basic welfare protections. Animals with complex brains also have greater social needs and a need for greater environmental enrichment.

With the framework outlined above, I can argue that animals can be property and still have a high standard of welfare. However, I will argue very strongly that animals need many protections because they are not things like a screwdriver. As the phylogenetic tree of animal species is climbed, protection from suffering must be increased. Chimps would require more protection and need different kinds of protection than frogs to insure that they would not suffer. Chimps have a more complex brain than frogs and a rich social life. As nervous system complexity increases, the animal needs increasing amounts of protection from society to insure that it does not suffer from pain, fear or a lack of environmental and social stimulation. Even though the phylogenetic tree is not linear it moves along its various branches from less complex nervous systems to more complex. Comparative physiology and psychology has shown that there is a broad range of nervous system complexity. As complexity increases a brain forms in the head of the animal that becomes increasingly complex. Different animals can be ranked in order of brain complexity. For example, ranking from less complex to more complex would be clams, lobsters, fish, birds, mice, dogs, apes, chimpanzees and people. There are some animals that are approximately equal in nervous system complexity such as dogs and pigs. Both rats and chimps should have equal protection from pain and fear, but the chimp may need additional protection to insure that it has adequate social stimulation. Chimps have a greater need for social and environmental stimulation than rats but new research indicates that even mice need social stimulation to prevent abnormal stereotypic behavior (Bohannon, 2002). Simple environmental enrichments such as materials to burrow in and several compansions are probably adequate for a rat, but a chimp needs much more.

Temple created many of the modern day methods for slaughtering cows.

Okay, so to bring it all together.

I have no illusions about animal suffering. I'm talking about the abilities of the animal with and without human intervention/interference compared to people with and without human intervention/interference.

Human slaves, regardless of their disposition, lose something very valuable. The ability to exercise their free will. When humans are not slaves we find that they often act in ways that their masters would not want them to. Choosing to sleep in rather than work. Choosing to put off making money for a time to get an education. Humans, without intervention will pursue disparate goals in pursuit of happiness.

Animals don't choose to become midwives or technicians, doctors or lawyers, charity workers or investment bankers. They don't choose between a formal education, informal education or no education at all. There is no evidence that animals think about their future at all or that they can, like humans, appreciate the future. Happiness for them is avoiding predators, avoiding hunger and starvation and avoiding problems associated with the elements.

If you want to discuss suffering, well, that's easy. You and I will find consensus. If however you want to compare the appreciable life of a human slave and that of a pet, livestock animal or an animal in a zoo (or in captivity in general) then you've got a bit more difficult job ahead of you.

The last paragraph of the above quote was edited from the original.

 

[RandFan]

Cool. I always wanted to have a debate about animal slavery.

On friendly terms, of course.

Nobody's calling you a "cracker".

Thanks zen.

 

[citizenzen]

Okay, so to bring it all together ...

Before I get to your thoughts I want to point out that while Grandin says she could argue that animals are property, she actually doesn't entertain that argument anywhere in the quote. I'd be interested to see Grandin go beyond stating that she could present the argument and actually make it.

Randfan, your point seems to boil down to free will: humans have it, animals ... you're not so sure about. I would borrow from Grandin, point out that our brains are different by a matter of degree, and suggest that free will is not unique to humans, just more developed perhaps than in other animals. Animals don't stand waiting for a command from humans to act, and in the absence of human intervention animals would be capable of eating, procreating, socializing, etc.

So let's start there. Am I correct in assuming that you're arguing humans have a unique sense of free will that animals don't possess, and therefore confining and dictating much of their existence does not and can not by definition amount to slavery?

 

[RandFan]

Before I get to your thoughts I want to point out that while Grandin says she could argue that animals are property, she actually doesn't entertain that argument anywhere in the quote. I'd be interested to see Grandin go beyond stating that she could present the argument and actually make it.

Randfan, your point seems to boil down to free will: humans have it, animals ... you're not so sure about. I would borrow from Grandin, point out that our brains are different by a matter of degree, and suggest that free will is not unique to humans, just more developed perhaps than in other animals. Animals don't stand waiting for a command from humans to act, and in the absence of human intervention animals would be capable of eating, procreating, socializing, etc.

RE: Lack of argument. She does make the argument it just wsan't included in my quote. Let's tackle free will and see where we get.

RE: Free will, I will grant for sake of argument your premise that some animals have a sense of free will that is not as developed as humans..

So let's start there. Am I correct in assuming that you're arguing humans have a unique sense of free will that animals don't possess, and therefore confining and dictating much of their existence does not and can not by definition amount to slavery?

I would not be so absolutist or presumptive. I would have difficulty accepting the word slavery as it is loaded and provocative.

 

[citizenzen]

I would have difficulty accepting the word slavery as it is loaded and provocative.

So while you don't disagree that it's an accurate description, you'd prefer something a little more politically correct? I can understand that. I'm often in the minority in that I don't mind political correctness, though like anything else it can be taken to extremes.

I think it's interesting that we're okay with attributing slave-making when it comes to other animals ... so long as those animals aren't human ...

Newly Discovered Wasp Species Enslaves Spiders

Through a not yet understood chemical process, the wasps are able to, quite literally, enslave the unsuspecting spiders to build a nest for their larva, and after all that hard work, become their first meal.​

MSU research uncovers unusual ant species

"This species only has reproducers and soldiers, so they can't feed themselves," Brown said. "They enslave other ants to work for them. This is one of only six slave-making species known to exist in the United States and was previously unknown in this area of the South."​

It's amazing that these animals do so much less than humans and earn the title "slave makers" while humans bristle at the very notion of that description. IMO, we should be able to acknowledge what it is we're doing to animals. Slavery is the most accurate description.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

One might argue ( I would, anyway .. ) that it is unlikely the creatures in your examples are aware they are being used as slaves in the sense that humans would.

 

[RandFan]

So while you don't disagree that it's an accurate description, you'd prefer something a little more politically correct? I can understand that. I'm often in the minority in that I don't mind political correctness, though like anything else it can be taken to extremes.

Political correctness isn't what comes to my mind. It's accuracy, avoiding emotionally charged rhetoric and using words that can have multiple meanings as a rhetorical device (not necessarily intentional BTW). If I'm trying to make a case against public education and I say that public education is torture, would that be an accurate use of the word in that context?

I think it's interesting that we're okay with attributing slave-making when it comes to other animals ... so long as those animals aren't human ...

Newly Discovered Wasp Species Enslaves Spiders

Through a not yet understood chemical process, the wasps are able to, quite literally, enslave the unsuspecting spiders to build a nest for their larva, and after all that hard work, become their first meal.​

MSU research uncovers unusual ant species

"This species only has reproducers and soldiers, so they can't feed themselves," Brown said. "They enslave other ants to work for them. This is one of only six slave-making species known to exist in the United States and was previously unknown in this area of the South."​

It's amazing that these animals do so much less than humans and earn the title "slave makers" while humans bristle at the very notion of that description. IMO, we should be able to acknowledge what it is we're doing to animals. Slavery is the most accurate description.

Emphasis mine. Like the word "torture" in my example above I concede that slavery could be used to convey information about captive animals. I'm just not certain for reasons given, what that information is. I don't bristle at the use of the word in general I bristle if the word is used for rhetorical effect.

But I'm willing to advance the discussion. Let's accept that animals in captivity are "slaves". What information are you trying to convey by using the word? Is it identical to that of human slaves? You yourself state that it is not the same (see bolded text) right?