Jump to content

A more ethical society


Eldad Eshel
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

Why? What ethical argument is there for that division?

 

What about humane destruction to end or avoid suffering? Or is it ethical to force a being to live through to the bitter end, regardless.

In the case of insects it is mainly a need to kill them. Just killing them for the heck of it should also be not allowed. Mainly insects are parasites or trespassers, and kind of NEED to be killed.

 

To avoid suffering humane suicide or ending of life should be allowed I think. There is a case of an israeli who had cancer and was in pain who flew to switzerland to end his life peacefully. I think that is legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of insects it is mainly a need to kill them. Just killing them for the heck of it should also be not allowed. Mainly insects are parasites or trespassers, and kind of NEED to be killed.

 

 

Very few insects are parasites that affect humans.

 

But the reasoning is that they pose a danger to humans (is that an ethical argument?) What about larger animals that pose a danger? A rabid dog, for example. Or a carnivore in our midst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of insects it is mainly a need to kill them. Just killing them for the heck of it should also be not allowed. Mainly insects are parasites or trespassers, and kind of NEED to be killed.

 

To avoid suffering humane suicide or ending of life should be allowed I think. There is a case of an israeli who had cancer and was in pain who flew to switzerland to end his life peacefully. I think that is legitimate.

Why single out insects as pests? Animals can be pests too. We have many introduced species in Australia which are pests such as cane toads and European rabbits. Insects play a crucial ecological role too. In fact it is our human disruption to their natural ecosystem that causes 'pests'. Therefore I don't think that's a very good argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this is obviously a problem, but I don't think it is that critical a problem that my wishes could not take place. They will gradually be set back to nature, or kept for other resources than their meat.

So male cattle that don't give milk are supposed to gradually be sent back to nature? Millions of cows sent out to fend for themselves, after we domesticated them? I predict a fairly quick rise in the predator populations, wolves, mountain lions. Bears would probably find that much meat irresistible too. And guess what? Nothing humans do in the slaughterhouses can hold a candle to the way a pack of wolves tear into a pig. So basically, you're arguing for really cruel deaths to animals we try to treat humanely until it's their time. Is that really what you want?

 

It's clear you haven't thought this through, and are relying on a big magic wand to make it all happen nicely for you.

 

Yes there are ALOT of animals cause humans love to eat ALOT. If forced reproduction of the animals will stop they will also dwindle down in their numbers. So again this is a thing that takes time.

I'll ask one more time then. If sending them into the wild is even crueler, and it will take time for them to die naturally, what are we doing with the animals in the mean time? How willing are you to pitch in and pay your share of their upkeep? You won't get anything out of it, btw, not even a sandwich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes this is obviously a problem, but I don't think it is that critical a problem that my wishes could not take place. They will gradually be set back to nature, or kept for other resources than their meat. Yes there are ALOT of animals cause humans love to eat ALOT. If forced reproduction of the animals will stop they will also dwindle down in their numbers. So again this is a thing that takes time.

Live stock have been been domesticated for thousands of years; they can't survive in the wild. Do you realise evolution takes time? You can't just send the cattle and pigs off on their merry way and hope they'll be able to fend for themselves. I fail to see the logic here, how can this be seen as less cruel? I've asked you this before, but I'll just ask again: why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts? Furthermore, you don't seem to be at all interested in rethinking your opinions when logical evidence is put forth. Realising you're wrong can be cathartic too.

Edited by Sirona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy meat. A lot. I am, however, sympathetic to the idea that we're doing poorly in this space and we're too often making mistakes in the way we raise and distribute animals for that purpose.

 

To that end, perhaps this thread can be turned more positive than our OP seems capable of achieving.

 

Perhaps we can assume for the sake of argument that we should stop eating meat and instead ask the intelligent folks here: what's the best way to do so and what's the best way to avoid the potential downstream impacts of such a decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we can assume for the sake of argument that we should stop eating meat and instead ask the intelligent folks here: what's the best way to do so and what's the best way to avoid the potential downstream impacts of such a decision?

 

A healthcare process that didn't put profits over health might be able to educate consumers, and do more to prevent overeating of meat (and food in general). Prohibition doesn't work.

 

I love meat as well, but I only have bacon a couple times a month, and beef is only present in about 1 meal in 5. Chicken, pork, and fish make up part of the rest, with a meatless meal usually once a week. I buy the meat from a small local butcher that's proud of the way his sources treat livestock.

 

And of course, we're all waiting for in vitro meat to be made appetizing. I'm hoping eventually lab-grown meat will be our answer. I know it's wishful thinking, but I can't help but think that if we grow it ourselves, we can remove the bad and enhance the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, lab burgers would be great. I've read about insects as an option too, though can't imagine eating them myself.

 

Anything for the animals would need to be gradual. Stop breeding them and let population drop before releasing them.

 

Domesticated animals have gone feral before. Cattle in California and Hawaii, for example. Just mind the couple thousand pound bull with the horns...

 

Some turkeys need a helping hand in the bedroom. Guessing nobody is going to continue on a charity basis.

 

Should keep in mind that only some are native species. Whole other can of worms though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A healthcare process that didn't put profits over health might be able to educate consumers, and do more to prevent overeating of meat (and food in general). Prohibition doesn't work.

 

I love meat as well, but I only have bacon a couple times a month, and beef is only present in about 1 meal in 5. Chicken, pork, and fish make up part of the rest, with a meatless meal usually once a week. I buy the meat from a small local butcher that's proud of the way his sources treat livestock.

 

And of course, we're all waiting for in vitro meat to be made appetizing. I'm hoping eventually lab-grown meat will be our answer. I know it's wishful thinking, but I can't help but think that if we grow it ourselves, we can remove the bad and enhance the good.

 

Good for you :)

 

I'm not sure about in the U.S., Phi but in Australia it's a lot more expensive to buy organic/sustainable produce and it's not regulated in here either, so unless you've done your research, you might just be paying more for nothing. Organic farming is also a lot less efficient even though it's more environmentally friendly, so there is still a trade off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about in the U.S., Phi but in Australia it's a lot more expensive to buy organic/sustainable produce and it's not regulated in here either, so unless you've done your research, you might just be paying more for nothing. Organic farming is also a lot less efficient even though it's more environmentally friendly, so there is still a trade off.

 

Interestingly, I've found I buy a bit less because it is more expensive, and that's part of reducing intake in general. It works out to be about the same overall cost, and we're not overeating. And not all organic foods are more expensive. Meats and fruits usually are, although organic hamburger is about the same. Coffee and cereals can be the same or cheaper.

 

In the US, organic is a claim you need to prove to a federal program that's part of our USDA. "Natural" is a different story. I think they make sure you aren't using obvious artificial coloring or flavoring, but otherwise "natural" is a common claim on foods that are still heavily processed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I've found I buy a bit less because it is more expensive, and that's part of reducing intake in general. It works out to be about the same overall cost, and we're not overeating. And not all organic foods are more expensive. Meats and fruits usually are, although organic hamburger is about the same. Coffee and cereals can be the same or cheaper.

 

In the US, organic is a claim you need to prove to a federal program that's part of our USDA. "Natural" is a different story. I think they make sure you aren't using obvious artificial coloring or flavoring, but otherwise "natural" is a common claim on foods that are still heavily processed.

 

It's interesting you say that because it's the same with me. I live on the city fringe so due to that, groceries are very expensive and mostly organic where I am. I also compensate by buying a lot less food and not wasting anything. I also keep my cooking simple rather than making meals that require a lot of ingredients. It's very rare to see overweight people in my district not only because of the high cost of food but also because it's too inconvenient and expensive to run a car (no parking and space comes at a premium). I live cheaper than my family who lives very far from the city because I don't eat much and walk/cycle everywhere.

 

They also encourage people to buy in 'bulk' at discount supermarkets and mega malls. You end up buying a lot more food than you need and end up over eating and/or wasting food. Most mega malls and discount supermarkets in Sydney are in low socio-economic areas and obesity is a problem in these areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Live stock have been been domesticated for thousands of years; they can't survive in the wild. Do you realise evolution takes time? You can't just send the cattle and pigs off on their merry way and hope they'll be able to fend for themselves. I fail to see the logic here, how can this be seen as less cruel? I've asked you this before, but I'll just ask again: why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts? Furthermore, you don't seem to be at all interested in rethinking your opinions when logical evidence is put forth. Realising you're wrong can be cathartic too.

You are looking at the moment, instead of the long run. As I have said yes there will be problems initially, but they can be worked out. The meat industry has become very cruel, acting as an industry of animal slaughter, in the cruelest ways. (Like pulling out the chicks' beaks.) There are even people who are sadists who take up these jobs so they can torment the animals. Maybe this cruelty cannot stop without alltogether stopping the killing of animals. An industry of systematic slaughter of sentient creatures, does that not sound wrong ?

 

"why are you on a science forum when you have very little understanding of basic scientific concepts?"

Yes I am no scientist and even consider myself a spiritualist, but I still enjoy this forum. It is lively and I have learned much during my time here. I tried a spiritual forum but it was quite dead. Still perhaps this forum is more interesting. I like the convergence of science and spirituality. I love science, I just see it as not fully complete yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also encourage people to buy in 'bulk' at discount supermarkets and mega malls. You end up buying a lot more food than you need and end up over eating and/or wasting food. Most mega malls and discount supermarkets in Sydney are in low socio-economic areas and obesity is a problem in these areas.

 

Costco is the store I frequent like this. I've found certain foods I can buy in bulk and save a lot of money on, as long as it won't go bad before we finish it. I've made the mistake of buying a huge 3 pound bag of broccoli florets (maybe three times what I need for half the price of buying in the regular supermarkets). It's like $3-4, sooooo tempting, but my family of three can't eat that much before it goes bad. The solution, of course, is to team up with a neighbor or friend who also likes broccoli, and will take half.

 

I don't buy meat there at all. I used to get their chicken breasts, which were HUGE, until I found out they're filled with salt water (a real breast of chicken thaws within a half hour in water; Costco chicken breasts take hours to defrost, since it's mostly ice). One group, the Truthful Labeling Coalition, estimates Americans spend an extra US$2B (yes, B) on saltwater at chicken prices. "Plumping" like this isn't regulated like the rest of it, and introduces extra sodium that doesn't make it onto the label.

 

I wonder if there aren't little private, informal coops that buy from bulk dealers and redistribute to their members. It would be smart for a church group, or other social organization, to poll it's members and make a bulk purchase, then meet to divide it up into your own containers.

 

I like the convergence of science and spirituality. I love science, I just see it as not fully complete yet.

 

Perhaps you see it that way because you focus too much on "spirituality". Any convergence is you forcing your beliefs into a scientific discussion. It's not a convergence when you come crashing into a science discussion with your spirituality, it's more of a sideswipe designed to force everyone off the road.

 

And it seems so BIZARRE that you can freely admit you don't know much science, and then make a statement like science is "not fully complete yet". How about touching a bit of reality, and admitting that maybe it seems incomplete because of your lack of knowledge of it? Isn't that more likely than the bits you don't get being wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are looking at the moment, instead of the long run. As I have said yes there will be problems initially, but they can be worked out. The meat industry has become very cruel, acting as an industry of animal slaughter, in the cruelest ways. (Like pulling out the chicks' beaks.) There are even people who are sadists who take up these jobs so they can torment the animals. Maybe this cruelty cannot stop without alltogether stopping the killing of animals. An industry of systematic slaughter of sentient creatures, does that not sound wrong ?

 

 

I live in a rural area with a number of farms, most of which are less than 500 acres I personally know many of the farmers and have worked on a few; being a farmer on this scale is a vocation and, believe me, they love their animals and take VERY good care of them.

 

When it comes to dispatching the animals, in the UK, there are very stringent regulations to ensure they’re killed as humanly, and with as little stress, as possible.

 

So these animals are protected from disease, wildlife and winter, which, is more than can be said for many people here; that sounds pretty ethical to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I live in a rural area with a number of farms, most of which are less than 500 acres I personally know many of the farmers and have worked on a few; being a farmer on this scale is a vocation and, believe me, they love their animals and take VERY good care of them.

 

When it comes to dispatching the animals, in the UK, there are very stringent regulations to ensure theyre killed as humanly, and with as little stress, as possible.

 

So these animals are protected from disease, wildlife and winter, which, is more than can be said for many people here; that sounds pretty ethical to me.

YAY ! What a wonderful world ! *bursts into dance*

 

You make it sound so pleasant to be a farm animal. Do you really think all farms are like the ones you mentioned, are you even aware of the cruelty going on in most farms ? Europe is generally a greener and more caring place than others, it is not an example. I am talking about industrial farms, with systematic killing, with as close to zero humanness. Tearing of chicks' beaks, throwing unneeded chickens in shredders. Seperation of the sibling from it's parents right at birth, the animals are stuck together in high densities in small fenced areas, not even being able to move, animals being over fed. There are probably many more examples of this, that an expert on the subject can give. There is a general awareness of all this in the global community, but the truth is that the cruelty is still going on, and may go on forever, if harsher steps are not taken.

Edited by Eldad Eshel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question isn’t about eating meat but the ethical treatment of the animals we do eat?

 

I doubt anyone here would argue that some animals are treated badly and that regulations should be put in place to protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the question isn’t about eating meat but the ethical treatment of the animals we do eat?

 

I doubt anyone here would argue that some animals are treated badly and that regulations should be put in place to protect them.

 

So the industry needs to revisit its protocols on humane treatment of livestock. That's infinitely more doable than prohibition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS Make your mind up!!!


I’ve shown that it’s possible to treat farm animals ethically, which you seem to agree with. I understand you’re a veggie but you’re happy to exterminate animals that threaten you.

 

Edit/ So what if the threat is starvation?

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is that there may be no other option than prohibition to stop the industrialism and cruelty of animal handling.

 

Wow, it's like you didn't read anything anyone wrote, and now you're back to square one.

 

I really dislike discussing anything with you, Eldad. You waste everyone's time with your thoughtless posts. This is just unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FFS Make your mind up!!!

I’ve shown that it’s possible to treat farm animals ethically, which you seem to agree with. I understand you’re a veggie but you’re happy to exterminate animals that threaten you.

I am not "happy" with it. I hate to kill even a cockroach in my apartment, not to mention mice, that I have an affection for.

 

And on the last subject, murder is still murder, even if they are raised decently. Would you like to have your head cut off, after "decent" handling ? Wouldn't you prefer to be free ? No matter the consequence, of say being killed by a wild animal. Decently being handled, to get served on a plate. You would want that for yourself ?

 

A cow still wants to be with it's siblings, and not get seperated from them, which I bet happens even in the most decent farms.

 

These animals have been taken their freedom and their ability to survive in nature. And then you say I am cruel for wanting to place them back in nature cause they won't handle it.

 

Wow, it's like you didn't read anything anyone wrote, and now you're back to square one.

 

I really dislike discussing anything with you, Eldad. You waste everyone's time with your thoughtless posts. This is just unacceptable.

I may be stubborn, but it is no more than the rest of you. We are stubborn each to our own ways of thinking. The difference is that I am one, and the rest of you are a group. So you basically accuse me cause I am not part of this group.

Edited by Eldad Eshel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not "happy" with it. I hate to kill even a cockroach in my apartment, not to mention mice, that I have an affection for.

 

 

How much would you hate to exterminate fire ants in your apartment?

 

 

A cow still wants to be with it's siblings, and not get seperated from them, which I bet happens even in the most decent farms.

 

 

 

I’ll take that bet...

I got sucked into answering this BS, to my shame, without getting an answer to " what if the threat is starvation?" or how that differs from any other threat that he's willing to kill for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may be stubborn, but it is no more than the rest of you. We are stubborn each to our own ways of thinking. The difference is that I am one, and the rest of you are a group. So you basically accuse me cause I am not part of this group.

 

It's not about stubborn. You were given multiple ways to address this problem short of prohibition, you've been shown how historically prohibition doesn't work, you even seemed to agree that a more measured response by the global community consisting of steps to improve the situation was called for.

 

But now you're throwing that all out in favor of prohibition. You're taking all these steps backward as if nobody said anything relevant.

 

I'm not going to bother anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.