Re: thoughts on anti-carnivory

[Guest guest]

Mike-

>The recent cultural

>phenomenon of regarding the animal case differently may be linked to

>the novel man-animal relationships that emerged in the pastoral

>cultures that came into dominance after the last Ice Age.

Domestication and whatever you might call the somewhat different

relationship man has to pets like dogs and cats undoubtedly heightened the

phenomenon, but look at the varying degrees to which man tends to empathize

with animals -- it's fairly well correlated with the degree of closeness,

similarity and relation. Mammals seem most " deserving " of compassion, good

treatment, etc., because they are most like us and most emotionally

readable by us. Contrast a cow or a lemur with a komodo dragon or a gecko,

for example.

>A basis for treating the

>animal case any differently is completely absent in my mind,

If there's no difference, then why not argue that a cow should be killed as

casually as a weed? You seem to be suggesting that there's an unbridgeable

gulf -- a literal gap in the continuum -- between man and the rest of

nature. Morals and ethics can be extrapolated, I'd argue, to the degree

that they are or might be shared. Some species, for example, have social

organizations somewhat similar to our own growing out of similar or even

identical drives, evolutionary pressures, etc. Why pretend there are no

commonalities where there are? Plainly many mammals experience some

semblance of our experience of individuality, whereas plants (even if they

do possess some sort of distance analog of, say, pain) do not.

The moral argument against carnivory is bogus on several grounds. First,

as noted earlier in this thread, it's based on the mistaken assumption (or

lie) that vegan agriculture would be bloodless when in fact many more

animals are killed by horticulture than are eaten. Second, it's plain that

humans are biologically adapted to and require animal foods in order to

enjoy anything even remotely resembling good (let alone optimal)

health. Third, vegan agriculture is almost certainly not sustainable, at

least on a mass scale.

It sounds to me like you're arguing that no moral or ethical arguments

whatsoever can be made about treatment of other species. Am I

misunderstanding you?

-

[Guest guest]

@@@@ :

> If there's no difference, then why not argue that a cow should be

killed as

> casually as a weed? You seem to be suggesting that there's an

unbridgeable

> gulf -- a literal gap in the continuum -- between man and the rest

of

> nature.

@@@@@@@

Absolutely. It's kind of wet and grey and weighs a few ounces,

hardly indistinguishable upon visual inspection from wet and grey

stuff in other species, especially the bulk of the three pound unit

it's part of.

The relative casualness of killing cows and weeds I'll get to below.

@@@@@@

Morals and ethics can be extrapolated, I'd argue, to the degree

> that they are or might be shared. Some species, for example, have

social

> organizations somewhat similar to our own growing out of similar or

even

> identical drives, evolutionary pressures, etc. Why pretend there

are no

> commonalities where there are?

@@@@@@@@@@

It's absurd to impute a broad denial denial of commonalities to my

remarks! But that 1% or whatever physiological difference maps onto

an incalculably massive cognitive gulf.

Morals and ethics could certainly be identified in other species, but

all such systems originate and are shaped on an exclusive intra-

species basis. To compare the ethical systems of other species to

humans is like comparing the reproductive systems of other species to

those of humans. Would you #@!% a monkey?

Any putative extrapolation of our ethical system to other species is

in fact just a misconceptualization of the locus of benefit to an

ethical act. When we treat animals well, it is for the ethical

benefit to humans, not the animals. Maintaining ethical

relationships with other animals follows from an exclusively human

ethical system that does not overlap with the analogous systems in

other systems; in such cases the animals are the objects of our

ethical system, not participants.

@@@@@@@@

Plainly many mammals experience some

> semblance of our experience of individuality, whereas plants (even

if they

> do possess some sort of distance analog of, say, pain) do not.

@@@@@

This may factor in to the distinctions our ethical systems make among

different forms of life, but it doesn't constitute an extrapolation

of our ethical system to the " lucky " life forms. Our ethical systems

also apply to such natural entities as oil deposits and rivers.

@@@@@@@@@

> The moral argument against carnivory is bogus on several grounds.

First,

> as noted earlier in this thread, it's based on the mistaken

assumption (or

> lie) that vegan agriculture would be bloodless when in fact many

more

> animals are killed by horticulture than are eaten.

@@@@@@@@@

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Based on the argument of that

article about animals killed by modern grain-farming? That's not an

argument against veganism; it's an argument against certain

agricultural practices extrinsic to veganism.

@@@@@@@@@@

Second, it's plain that

> humans are biologically adapted to and require animal foods in

order to

> enjoy anything even remotely resembling good (let alone optimal)

> health.

@@@@@@@@

Now you're talking! That's a fundamental premise of deriving the

ethicality of carnivory for humans. Can't be overemphasized!! Very

on-topic too!

@@@@@@@@@

Third, vegan agriculture is almost certainly not sustainable, at

> least on a mass scale.

@@@@@@@@@

In one interpretation I believe this is an open scientific question

that'll never be tested, but your claim seems dubious to me. In

another interpretation, vegan agriculture could be identical to non-

vegan agriculture except that no food from the animals is eaten.

@@@@@@@@

> It sounds to me like you're arguing that no moral or ethical

arguments

> whatsoever can be made about treatment of other species. Am I

> misunderstanding you?

@@@@@@@@

Yes, absolutely misunderstanding. I hope the above clarified it. I

don't want anyone to think I don't believe in ethical treatment of

animals! Quite the opposite!

I appreciate your sharp challenges!

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

>

>As this matter of the splendor and deep state of life-ing plainly

>witnessed by plants becomes the object of my ruminations with ever-

>increasing frequency, it struck me I could not possibly place greater

>ethical value on the life of an animal over a plant if I even were to

>assign ethical value outside of the human realm in which the

>cognitive phenomenon of " ethical value " originated and evolved as a

>cultural adaptation.

What I've witnessed is that the most avid hunters are not

" animal haters " -- they have that deep reverence for animals

of which you speak (at least the ones I know). One, a young

man who is not normally the emotional empathetic type, talks of how

he and the animal become one, and he does the butchering

himself because it is a " spiritual " experience. I have to say

that since witnessing one butchering, I have a LOT more

reverence (if that is the word) toward our meat ... I really

hate wasting it and I feel a sense of appreciation or thankfulness

toward the steer that provided it. And he was a beautiful

animal too.

I do think your average vegetarian would not get this.

But I think it would be better for everyone if we were

closer and more involved with our food sources. Farmers

tend to really appreciate their animals ... I think the problem

with our society is that we have " commodified " animals

along with plants and crackers into supermarket items.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>

>

>I do think your average vegetarian would not get this.

>But I think it would be better for everyone if we were

>closer and more involved with our food sources. Farmers

>tend to really appreciate their animals ... I think the problem

>with our society is that we have " commodified " animals

>along with plants and crackers into supermarket items.

>

>-- Heidi

yeah - i agree with this exactly, and with the article about killing field

animals. the people who want to feel morally superior can wave their flag

of " i'm not hurting anything " , except that they are hurting lots of things.

they would be far better off to spend their money wisely on a responsibly

farmed spectrum than what they're doing.

that and still, life is life, whether it's a flower or a cow. we have to

kill to eat and that's just a truth.

[Guest guest]

>yeah - i agree with this exactly, and with the article about killing field

>animals. the people who want to feel morally superior can wave their flag

>of " i'm not hurting anything " , except that they are hurting lots

>of things.

if they really want to kill fewer lives by their food choices then they

should probably eat a diet of buffalo and nothing else. the equivalent kcal

in conventional crops would apparently result in hoards and hoards of mice,

voles and all the other field animals being killed, and thus buffalo would

be a more humane choice than a vegan diet if the number of lives taken is

the criteria for humaneness.

too bad the mamoths died out, one of those could probably last a very

loooonnnggg time and result in even fewer deaths per kcal than just about

anything else.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

>