Animal rights vs. meat eaters... - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 169 Old 02-07-2004, 09:58 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by CanOBeans

I'd really prefer to find info saying meat is not necessary -- that plant and especially grain sources of nutrients are adequate and/or (especially) superior to meat sources. So far the research I've seen leads me to believe that we are healthier when we get at least part of our needs met through animal sources. The fact that some nutrients that we NEED are readily available from animal sources but are much more difficult, or in the case of B12, for example, impossible to get from non-meat sources argues for a carnivorous/omnivororous basis for our diets. Please, feel free to offer references to the literature that support the idea that humans were or are meant to be herbivores.
Again, a search for vegan or rawfood web sites will provide you with this information.
Here are a few...

http://www.rawfoodfocus.com/
http://www.rawfood.com/
http://vegsource.com
http://www.vegan.org/about_veganism/index.html
http://www.living-foods.com/
Mona is offline  
#122 of 169 Old 02-07-2004, 10:04 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by anothermama

Is is possible for someone to be an "animal activist" and still be a meat eater?
If so, how come?
If not, why not?
Now, to answer the original post.... :LOL

I agree with those who have suggested that if you are an animal activist, you would not be eating that which you are being an acitivist for.
To support an industry which slaughters and causes suffering to millions of animals.... no, you would not be an activist for THOSE animals. That is just my opnion. It does not make you a bad person. There is no judgement.

Now, if you limit to your eating of animals to those which are free range, or hunted fairly by yourself/friend/ ect, I think that is an excellent start to being an animal actvist.

Now, I have only offerred my perspectives here. Which is what the OP requested.

If you eat meat, and are fine with that, who really cares?

Mona is offline  
#123 of 169 Old 02-07-2004, 10:29 PM
 
TingTing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
TingTing- where did you find that debunkment of the myth of man as a hunter? The point is not whether all human groups were primarliy hunters exactly 30,000 years ago. Our bodies DO adjust to a certain food in 50-60 generations so isn't it more relevant to see what people subsisted on then? As said already, a meat-based diet produces good, healthy humans. How can that be if humans aren't by nature supposed to eat meat? If assuming this, NO group whatsoever living on a meat-based diet would be healthy, right?
I’ve read it in too numerous places to name, but most recently in the New Internationalist's No-Nonsense Guide to World History (published in 2001). I can’t quote the text because of the copyright policies on this forum, but on pages 12-13 there is a subsection titled “The Myth of Man the Hunter” - the main thrust of the section actually has to do with gender roles among early humans, but it does iterate what Snowy Owl wrote above about "Hunter-gatherers". Like I said, at any given point in history, human beings have done what they had to do to survive, and there are of course tons of things we can consume for calories/fat/nutrients without immediately keeling over and dying. What I meant was that for people with access to the wide range of plant foods that someone like myself, and my neighbors and probably the vast majority of posters here are, meat is not a nutritional necessity. I know too many healthy vegetarians/vegans (all of whom I think I can safely assume come from primarily meat-eating recent lineage) to believe otherwise. Chocolate and wine aren’t necessary either, and can be included in generally healthy diets, but chocolate and wine don’t involve deliberately killing animals, nor have consumption of either “raped” the land the way our meat consumption arguably has. You seem to be advocating a return to hunting – conversely, I would think that having to hunt for one’s own meat might result in the largest conversion to plant-based diets in recorded history! lol

Quote:
I'd really prefer to find info saying meat is not necessary -- that plant and especially grain sources of nutrients are adequate and/or (especially) superior to meat sources.
Well, indeed, research so far has produced mixed results, and a lot of what I’ve personally looked at in this vein does seem to be linked to the firmly entrenched political camps that have arisen around the meat issue (ie. not just radical vegetarian but radical pro-meat consumption, strange though that is to me). Whatever one’s opinion on the matter, I find it a little unlikely that the American Dietetic Association, for example, would have found that vegan and vegetarian diets are perfectly healthy if meat was so necessary in the human diet. Personal eating habits aside, this is actually not my personal pet cause insofar as having the kinds of stats you're looking for offhand. I have seen them, though, so I'm surprised that your own search has been so unfruitful. Based on what I've read, it's my own belief that human diets are highly adaptable, depending on what any given environmental (both physical and social) circumstance dictates. In other words, we can go either way. I guess that would make us omnivores more than anything else, but I could well be wrong.
TingTing is offline  
#124 of 169 Old 02-07-2004, 11:56 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 4,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It seems to me that the only way, in our new age and our new culture, to provide meat for the masses of people that demand it is to factory farm.
If we took really good care of these animals.... ie, free range, no hormones, no antibiotics, no suffering, etc... we would wouldn't have that much space left for anything but these animals.
We can't go out and hunt our meat, either. We've exterminated the buffalo, we're killing off the deer habitat, many animals that were once hunted for food are now extinct.....
so we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, are we not?
Wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do, to not eat meat now that we live in a society where, firstly, it is no longer necessary, and secondly, it would be impossible to feed the masses their meat totally freerange and organic?
It would be one thing if we could go out and hunt - fairly - freeroaming wild animals, such as deer and buffalo. But we can't anymore. We have to change with the times.
candiland is offline  
#125 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
It seems to me that the only way, in our new age and our new culture, to provide meat for the masses of people that demand it is to factory farm.
If we took really good care of these animals.... ie, free range, no hormones, no antibiotics, no suffering, etc... we would wouldn't have that much space left for anything but these animals.
We can't go out and hunt our meat, either. We've exterminated the buffalo, we're killing off the deer habitat, many animals that were once hunted for food are now extinct.....
so we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, are we not?
Wouldn't it be the responsible thing to do, to not eat meat now that we live in a society where, firstly, it is no longer necessary, and secondly, it would be impossible to feed the masses their meat totally freerange and organic?
It would be one thing if we could go out and hunt - fairly - freeroaming wild animals, such as deer and buffalo. But we can't anymore. We have to change with the times.
I don't believe that to be true.

I think the wise thing to do would be to encourage responsible eating, in all areas but in particular in meat eating. We will never eradicate meat eating in this nation. As many have pointed out, its really an "up in the air" thing if it's necessary....lets not argue that. It may or may not be. We are going to do it...make it responsible. I don't know about you but I've found people who know a little more about where there food comes from usually eat less meat and eat more healthily. I would bet that if we made some sort of "meat reform" issue, there would be a drop in the consumption of meat.

Also, "free range" doesn't mean 70 acres for each chicken. When I was a kid, we had 2 horses and anywhere from 10 to 12 chickens on just about a 1/2 acre. IDEALY cows and such would have acres and acres...but its not a requirement for them to still be comfortable, happy, and treated well. Think about the ammount of free space we have in this nation....MOST of the country is undeveloped...you'd just never know it living in a metro area. Especially if the government got involved...man, there's plenty of room.
anothermama is offline  
#126 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:39 AM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 4,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yes, but wouldn't/doesn't all that animal farming wreak havoc on the environment?
I'm just brainstorming here. Keep it comin'!
candiland is offline  
#127 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 02:18 AM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
Yes, but wouldn't/doesn't all that animal farming wreak havoc on the environment?
I'm just brainstorming here. Keep it comin'!
I honestly don't know all the technicalities of it...I suppose it would if you keep TONS of animals on SMALL spaces...

I grew up in a very rural area where *most* of my friends kept horses, cows, pigs...whatever on their property. And it really seemed self sustaining to me. I mean, you use the manure to fertalize other things and you keep just the right ammount of livestock to keep your grass and weeds down. The hardest thing I can see would be water issues I guess.

If the ammount of animals needed in the US to supply the demand for meat were spread out so that there were respectfully raised, I bet it could also be a situation where it is really not too detrimental to the environment. I think the environmental issues come in and things start to "wreak havoc" when you have too many animals for the space they are in.

My grandparents bring IN a herd of goats every summer to trim back their property. It often times can help more than it hurts.
anothermama is offline  
#128 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 05:59 AM
 
CanOBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a lovely blue bubble
Posts: 1,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
Yes, but wouldn't/doesn't all that animal farming wreak havoc on the environment?
I'm just brainstorming here. Keep it comin'!
Why would it? I think we can all agree that pesticides and genetically altered plant foods are a huge problem that wreaks great havoc on our environment. Without their use, would farms be able to produce as much plant food as would be required for the whole world to stop eating meat?

I'm just musing here, myself. Back later!
CanOBeans is offline  
#129 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 08:57 AM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
the amount of rainforest that has been and continues to be destroyed in the name of meat eating is astronomical. it is land used for animals to graze upon. that is not factory farming, per se, but it has horrible effects just the same.

i like where this conversation has gone, even if it's off topic. we do need to find solutions to these problems...

Mona is offline  
#130 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 09:26 AM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is also a bit T , but it's perfect for those who don't think animals are worth fighting for, or don't see the link bw human welfare and animal welfare.

"When non-vegetarians say that "human problems come first," I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals."
-Peter Singer
Princeton University Professor of Bioethics.


now on with the discussion at hand....

Mona is offline  
#131 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 11:02 AM
Banned
 
morsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: southern Oregon
Posts: 504
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Mona- are YOU being serious??!!!!
I mean if you did the "research" correctly you would either have to find some comfortable way to disregard the facts, or you would have to be brave for once to actually think through your previous misconceptions.
I have read PLENTY of the studies backing up veganism and the like. I used to be a semi-vegetarian seriously considering veganism until I came upon other studies.

I did my (personal) work, yes.

I'm trying to have a discussion about the conceivability of a meat-free future and I am, unlike you, able to see and accept that there's no absolute truth about man as either meat- or plant eater. I just find it weird to think that anyone can hope for something that goes against what many believe to be human nature, or just their own personal nature. This is far more powerful than any scientific research and other shallowness.

Considering your attitude, it feels as though you're pretty convinced that everyone besides you and your fellow vegans are just plain dumb. If only they knew what their cravings were stemming from...etc, etc. Cravings are a sign that your body is lacking something. Who knows best what that something is, you or me? It's all about being intuitive. I thought I had sugar cravings because I ate meat everyday. I gave up meat for the most part and I still craved sugar. Just a random example.

It's comforting to know that there is a human form of all-knowing out there to set us straight when we falter.

I would say you're pretty gaullible to think that all you need to read are studies proving the dangers of meat to comfortably put yourself on the vegan bandwagon.

I also must assume that you've been disregarding some of the information provided by CanOBeans and Shantimama (sp?) about healthy societies subsisting primarliy on animal food, since you are oblivious to what I have been referring to.

Still no one has addressed the assumption that if meat was absolutely dangerous for humans as a species (that is what our commonly used term "human nature" is referred to on this thread right?), then no single group of our species could possible thrive on a animal-based diet. Why hasn't anyone since there are so many of you here arguing that meat-eating is not human nature? I thought this would be an easy one for you. I just can't see the reasoning in this....

Rainforest being destroyed.... Hmmmm........what about the amount of soy beans that have been cultivated at the Rainforest's expense?

TingTing-- the fact that you know "too" many vegans friends to not conclude that meat is not necessary ONLY, yes ONLY, shows that meat is not necessary for THEM. It says absolutely nothing about humans as a species. I don't even think there is a one way that all of us are shaped to either do well on meat or plants, or both, or dog shit. Our bodies are desinged to conform to our environment. We are adaptable. Some people actually need animal sources of certain nutrients to absorb them. Would you tell these people that meat isn't necessary for humans? People abound who have had to discontinue their vegan eating habits due to ill health. I would be equally absurd to say then that "meat is necessary for humans as a species because, hey, look at these poor people who fared so badly on a no-meat diet!".

So many of you say that early humans ate only small amounts of meat 30,000 years ago. And that's true of today's hunters as well? Are you referring to one environmentally isolated group of early humans where plants were more abundant than animal life?
morsan is offline  
#132 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 11:36 AM
 
CanOBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a lovely blue bubble
Posts: 1,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by TingTing
You seem to be advocating a return to hunting – conversely, I would think that having to hunt for one’s own meat might result in the largest conversion to plant-based diets in recorded history! lol
And what do you think would happen if we had to gather our own plants to eat? Either way, meat-eating or not, all humans rely to a degree on mass production of our foods. The mass production of plant food sources allows people to be vegetarians without too much work, just as farming animals allows people to be meat-eaters without much work.
CanOBeans is offline  
#133 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 12:39 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
morsan, I am not going to sink to your level by responding to your post.

Mona is offline  
#134 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:14 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona
morsan, I am not going to sink to your level by responding to your post.

Well, it's great that we all feel so passionately about this topic. I don't think morsan's post sank particularly low, IMO...whatever.

I wanted to address what some people brought up earlier about goat herds trimming the back lawn. I have been interested in this idea that for thousands of years, nomadic herders fertilized and cultivated the lands they travelled through, as they cared for and lived off the animals they herded. This lifestyle is no longer possible in most places because of our ideas of 'property' etc, but I think it was a very good solution that worked for a long time. When we talk about meat eating etc. it is important to remember the different historical contexts and scenarios. The scenario we are living is contorted and devestating to the animals and the land, and I completely understand the choice to become vegan/vegetarian.
But I have to agree with those that have made the point that their is no evidence to support the claim that 'humans don't need meat' as a general statement.

That said, I enjoyed perusing the raw food websites some one provided and I have been considering trying it for awhile, maybe in the spring. The recipes looked fabulous. Is sashimi allowed?
Snowy Owl is offline  
#135 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:17 PM
 
TingTing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Morsan, to clarify, I never said that meat wasn't necessary for anyone, but I do believe that given access to a range of plant foods, it is not necessary for most of our bodies. On a purely personal note, the only veg I knew who made herself unhealthy on the diet was a uni student - going through a rebellious phase, I suppose - who ate nothing but salads and bread, lol. Now, eating animal products again, she claims the vegan diet made her ill, even though she gave no thought to the nutritional feasibility of what she was eating and ignored the warnings we all gave her. Beyond that, I can see you're very passionate in your stance against vegetarianism and on the verge of getting rather personal, so I'm going to leave it at that. It is not my goal to convert you to anything (as you seem to be reacting on the defensive).

Quote:
Why would it? I think we can all agree that pesticides and genetically altered plant foods are a huge problem that wreaks great havoc on our environment. Without their use, would farms be able to produce as much plant food as would be required for the whole world to stop eating meat?
It's widely known that a far higher proportion of people can be fed when land is given over to farming as opposed meat production. It takes a lot of land to make a T-Bone steak. Actually I saw a David Suzuki special not long ago where he said that if everyone ate the amount of meat and animal products we (meaning Westerners) did, we'd need 4 planets to sustain us. I've heard that small veg/fruit/grain farms are actually more efficient on average than large industrial farms - one of the reasons, I suppose, NAFTA has outlawed many such farming operations. Actually, though this is getting a little off topic, I have family in the small island nation of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and even though the main island produces an abundance of the most amazing bananas you've ever had, by local farmers using natural methods, because they are able to sell them cheaper than the big industrial growers NAFTA has banned their export.
Quote:
And what do you think would happen if we had to gather our own plants to eat? Either way, meat-eating or not, all humans rely to a degree on mass production of our foods. The mass production of plant food sources allows people to be vegetarians without too much work, just as farming animals allows people to be meat-eaters without much work.
I wasn't the one who advocated a return to pioneer methods of acquiring food - that was Morsan.
TingTing is offline  
#136 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:20 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Owl

That said, I enjoyed perusing the raw food websites some one provided and I have been considering trying it for awhile, maybe in the spring. The recipes looked fabulous. Is sashimi allowed?
I'm glad you have enjoyed them.
Some raw foodists are fine w/ raw milk, raw meat, ect.
Some are raw vegan foodist, and so do not.
I think at least one of the sites addresses eating raw meat.
There is a name to the kind of raw foodists who eat meat-- palo something? can't remember...

Mona is offline  
#137 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 01:40 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona

There is a name to the kind of raw foodists who eat meat-- palo something? can't remember...

Thanks Mona.
Paleolithic?
Snowy Owl is offline  
#138 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 02:03 PM
 
candiland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Waiting for Calgon to take me away.
Posts: 4,057
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Yeah, I have read that farms - esp. cow farms - produce incredible amts. of animal waste, and it ends up as runoff and poisons and pollutes our water supply.
I, too, have heard from various sources that it takes something like sixteen (or was it 60? Either way, a large amount) pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. And that if people cut out red meat, we would have enough grain that previously went to feed livestock to feed the entire world. Two or three times over
So....... we all agree that factory farms are yuck, yuck, yucky, right? And certain types of people in the past DEFINITELY needed meat to sustain themselves and they obviously did okay with it, because they did not die out...... Inuits and south/southwestern Native Americans are a good example of this.

But.................. in our PRESENT day and age, we have options other than meat and we can still survive. How can we be ethically responsible to the animals, the environment, and our fellow man while eating the vast quantities of meat we consume right now? That is, indeed, the question
candiland is offline  
#139 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 02:27 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland


But.................. in our PRESENT day and age, we have options other than meat and we can still survive. How can we be ethically responsible to the animals, the environment, and our fellow man while eating the vast quantities of meat we consume right now? That is, indeed, the question
well stated....
Mona is offline  
#140 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Mona
This is also a bit T , but it's perfect for those who don't think animals are worth fighting for, or don't see the link bw human welfare and animal welfare.

"When non-vegetarians say that "human problems come first," I cannot help wondering what exactly it is that they are doing for human beings that compels them to continue to support the wasteful, ruthless exploitation of farm animals."
-Peter Singer
Princeton University Professor of Bioethics.


now on with the discussion at hand....


Wow....thats very VERY black and white, Mona.
I don't see anyone whos says that animals aren't worth fighting for.
I've said that I don't see people and animals as EQUALS and I really question someone who seems themselves as a personal equal to a chicken or a frog. I also think it's totally unreasonable to try to expect people to see themselves as EQUALS to animals. Humans DO come first, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING about what people support. To make the blanket statement that people who see themselves above animals are ruthless exploiters is extremist at best.

One can see the link between people and animals without saying that my house deserves to be turned into a shithole zoo because all the neighborhood cats want to live in it but don't like litter boxes.

Animals are a lesser being, and in that need our care probably a little more. We have an obligation to be good stewards of the earth and that includes animals, but it doesn't make them our equals.
anothermama is offline  
#141 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:11 PM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland


But.................. in our PRESENT day and age, we have options other than meat and we can still survive. How can we be ethically responsible to the animals, the environment, and our fellow man while eating the vast quantities of meat we consume right now? That is, indeed, the question

I don't think you can say that EVERYONE has options other than meat. I think that there are probably enough people in the US, and probably the world, who are close enough to their ancestors to still, biologically, have a need for some meat.

That said, I also don't think its the right approach to say "We can COMPLETELY go without it...so then what?". It's like saying we could go without cars. Sure....but it ain't gonna happen. So the question REALLY is how to we have a society of meat eaters that do it responsibly? How do we meet the demand in an environmentally responsible way?
anothermama is offline  
#142 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:15 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really don't think it's a good idea to go into this territory. No one is in a position to say that animals are lesser beings. No one is asking a human life to be sacrificed for an animal life. A lion does not eat a gazelle because the gazelle is 'lesser'. Viruses do not take human lives because they are greater. The power to kill does not make one 'greater'.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#143 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:34 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
see below
:LOL
Mona is offline  
#144 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:36 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by anothermama
Wow....thats very VERY black and white, Mona.
I don't see anyone whos says that animals aren't worth fighting for.
I've said that I don't see people and animals as EQUALS and I really question someone who seems themselves as a personal equal to a chicken or a frog. I also think it's totally unreasonable to try to expect people to see themselves as EQUALS to animals. Humans DO come first, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING about what people support. To make the blanket statement that people who see themselves above animals are ruthless exploiters is extremist at best.

One can see the link between people and animals without saying that my house deserves to be turned into a shithole zoo because all the neighborhood cats want to live in it but don't like litter boxes.

Animals are a lesser being, and in that need our care probably a little more. We have an obligation to be good stewards of the earth and that includes animals, but it doesn't make them our equals.


Anothermama- that quote was not to be taken personally by any one person here. I have heard some say that the welfare of animals is not that important to them- and it is for those folks that i submitted the quote.

I think most of us here can see the link bw the ethical treatment of animals, and how it positively affects human kind and the environment, as well as animals.



I agree Snowy Owl w/ your point.
Mona is offline  
#145 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 03:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Owl
I really don't think it's a good idea to go into this territory. No one is in a position to say that animals are lesser beings. No one is asking a human life to be sacrificed for an animal life. A lion does not eat a gazelle because the gazelle is 'lesser'. Viruses do not take human lives because they are greater. The power to kill does not make one 'greater'.


I don't see the territory. It's been brought up and it's legit....I *AM* in a position to say that animals are lesser beings. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. In thinking about this thread in real life, I just don't get saying "That chickens life is equal to my childs". It's not.

Animals are equal to each other. A lion eating another animal isn't a correct comparison to a human eating a cow. For many many reasons.

I don't think anyone said the power to kill makes one greater or not....thats a pretty big leap. That would mean a lion is a greater being than me cause a lion could kill my sorry behind in a second.
anothermama is offline  
#146 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 04:11 PM
 
Mona's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: indiana
Posts: 2,411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by anothermama
That would mean a lion is a greater being than me cause a lion could kill my sorry behind in a second.
well, you do present a good arguement there....
:LOL
Mona is offline  
#147 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 04:15 PM
 
CanOBeans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In a lovely blue bubble
Posts: 1,603
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by candiland
I, too, have heard from various sources that it takes something like sixteen (or was it 60? Either way, a large amount) pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. And that if people cut out red meat, we would have enough grain that previously went to feed livestock to feed the entire world. Two or three times over
But cows are not meant to eat grain. They are meant to eat grass. And much of the land on this Earth that can support grass for grazing animals cannot support plant crops. So if farm animals are raised on their natural diet, using land that is not useful for growing crops, then there is no conflict between raising animals, growing crops, and protecting the environment.
CanOBeans is offline  
#148 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 04:16 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by anothermama


I don't see the territory. It's been brought up and it's legit....I *AM* in a position to say that animals are lesser beings. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable. In thinking about this thread in real life, I just don't get saying "That chickens life is equal to my childs". It's not.
Umm, as I said, no one is claiming that a human should sacrifice their life for an animal. Who would be stupid enough to save a chicken over their own child? It's an irrelevant analogy. I am saying that human beings do not have any god-given superiority over life in general. I realize that some people believe this, some also believed the sun goes around the earth (because humans are on it). But it's simply not true...sorry if it makes you 'uncomfortable' to hear this. If this belief is rooted in some religious doctrine, then it will be safe over in Spirituality. I see this world-view as toxic to life on earth, as it is our supposed 'superiority' that allows us to destroy the environment and wipe out species after species. That's why I have such a strong reaction to these claims...to me, the rights of farm animals are much less of an issue than the right of nature to not be destroyed by human greed. Phew, sorry such a tyrade...
The thing is I am severely concerned with the lives of our children, which I see as interconnected with not so much chickens as the overall health of our planet....


Snowy Owl is offline  
#149 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 05:23 PM
 
Snowy Owl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: toronto beaches
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Like this thing happening in Asia...
They are slaughtering billions of chickens because of this bird-flu.
Who would advocate to save the lives of those birds over human lives....although it raises the question, should so many chickens be packed in together in proximity with so many humans? When we violate the laws of nature, we suffer the penalties. We are not 'above' them. In nature's eyes, we are all equal. That is what I mean in challenging the 'superiority' thing.
Snowy Owl is offline  
#150 of 169 Old 02-08-2004, 05:31 PM - Thread Starter
 
anothermama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: somewhere between here and there
Posts: 2,852
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowy Owl
Umm, as I said, no one is claiming that a human should sacrifice their life for an animal. Who would be stupid enough to save a chicken over their own child? It's an irrelevant analogy. I am saying that human beings do not have any god-given superiority over life in general. I realize that some people believe this, some also believed the sun goes around the earth (because humans are on it). But it's simply not true...sorry if it makes you 'uncomfortable' to hear this. If this belief is rooted in some religious doctrine, then it will be safe over in Spirituality. I see this world-view as toxic to life on earth, as it is our supposed 'superiority' that allows us to destroy the environment and wipe out species after species. That's why I have such a strong reaction to these claims...to me, the rights of farm animals are much less of an issue than the right of nature to not be destroyed by human greed. Phew, sorry such a tyrade...
The thing is I am severely concerned with the lives of our children, which I see as interconnected with not so much chickens as the overall health of our planet....


Hrm....

Well, this partially is rooted in religion for me. God gave us dominion over the earth and it's ihabitants.....AND he also gave us the task of being good stewards of the earth. It's two fold. And often times people ignore that...I know this.

Regardless of the Biblical issue, it makes good sense....the earth and it's inhabitants are in our care, because we have the capability (brainwise and otherwise) to be the care takers. Regardless of your view on who created the earth, it just seems clear that we are the ones "advanced" enough, if you will, to be the caretakers. Just because people are stupid and ignore the part about being a good steward of the earth doesn't mean that it doesn't have it's place.

The world view is only toxic when taken out of context and used by extremist. It's toxic in YOUR hands because your thoughts give people reasons to NOT take care of the earth.

Lions and chickens and sloths do not have the capability to save me and my family....to turn around the health care issues in the US...to solve famine in 3rd world coutries. *I* have that capability, and so it's with HUMANS that the care of the world is and should be entrusted. Unfortunately, we've seriously fucked up. It doesn't make animals or trees therefor equal to us...it doesn't make them capable of more. Just because humans, and in particular Americans, have an INCREDIBLY effed up way of looking and environmental and animal issues doesn't change the fact that we were MEANT to be the earths care takers.

And the chicken/child analogy is VERY relevent IF you are going to claim that animals are equal. By saying it's irrelivant, you are saying "Animals are equal...sometimes" and YOU are doing the picking and chosing when animals are important and when they are not. I mean, you either thing an animal has the same rights to life as a human or not....and if not, then you don't think they are equal.

Yes, we have a toxic world view in this country but I don't think the root of that view is our superiority...it's a callousness and ignorance. It's one thing to acknowlege that while animals may not be equal, they DO deserve respect and we DO need to care for them. It's entirely another issue to say animals are WORTHLESS and my needs surpass all others. And in case you never noticed, this toxic world view it's just about animals....it's also about humans who are less than you, or at least thats how people believe. The most extreme views of people who don't believe in ecology usually are held by people who judge other HUMANS worth, as well.
anothermama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off