The Animals That You Eat Are Conscious Beings

[domathy]

Originally Posted by pepsi78

It's not like the wild is like the moon, with gray dust everywhere like a barren desert,there is plenty of shelter and food in the wild for animals. These animals have been dumbed down anyway. You have to remember a farm animal is not a normal animal, I consider a normal animal something that is not in prison. Any normal animal would prefere to live outside the box. Just let the chicken outside the box and it will start getting ideas.

Haha - maybe youre right, but ive only ever seen dumbed down chickens - not ones with better ideas. The thing is, animals can never be fully outside the box until we are - because we are all connected.

I mean, humans are just as dumbed down (if not more so) than farm animals - so we shouldnt feel too sorry for them (although i normally do). Free fange chickens are free to follow their instincts (scratch around for insects, mate, and roost somewhere simple) and whatever the context, they will always be simple creatures with simple needs so I dont think they are lacking too much. If i had the choice to live the human equivalent of a free range chicken, and then to sacrafice myself to some benevolent master at age 70, as opposed to the pitiful existence which most people have for their working lives - with a tiny bit of freedom in their 'golden yrs' when they are broke and incontinent, then i would choose the free range option (well, maybe) - at least the farm animals dont have to put up with the shit we do. Slaughter is positively dignified compared to life for most humans. Who knows, maybe we can only break the cycle by stopping killing animals, regardless of if its 'justified' - and i inclined to feel that is the answer, but its good for me to keep perspective. farms have always felt cold and morbid to me - but then I realsied there are some really nice small scale operations where the animals really are appreciated and have a nice (albeit captive) environment to live in. And compared to most inner cities which to me are like battery farms for humans, by comparison these captive, dumbed down chickens dont actually have it all that bad.

I think to really change things on earth, radical changes need to take place - and included in that is to quit sustaining ourselves on the flesh of animals, but at the same time, i think it is possible for people to have love for the animals they eat.

[domathy]

Originally Posted by mata

Hi vegan_on_the_land, I see where you are coming from - but perhaps your idea of keeping animals is far too severe? I don't know how you treat animals yourself, but 'pampered slave', 'raped homeless woman' or 'controlled concubine' are, in this context, overly charged comparisons in my opinion. Giving an animal a home and feeding it - is not in and of itself an abusive act. That line of reasoning is akin to saying that all men are wife-beating rapists who completely dominate the lives of women and we should therefore not be in relationship with them. In that sense it is not helpful to project our own personal insecurities into/onto animals, which is somehow a form of disrespect to them also. If the parallels you are drawing are with respect to industrial farming methodology, I outlined my position on that in a previous post - (wonder if you've read my previous posts? I've since edited the post you've quoted from above to make my position on industrialised slaughter even clearer, in case you'd missed that part and didn't want to go back to my posts of a few days ago). Anyway, for sure there are a whole range of interesting arguments that this thread has teased to the surface. It's an important subject and good that we are all talking about it, getting our heads around our own perspectives and those of others. I'm here with an open mind

If you want to you can have your B12 levels tested for via a general practitioner. A good friend of mine did so after four years of being very strictly vegan and his levels of B12 were for all intensive purposes non-existant. He was immediately given a booster shot as a precautionary measure, the GP was gravely concerned about the safety of his grey matter. After witnessing the bloodwork results and learning about the brain's significant requirement for B12 he actually ceased to be vegan - which in his case was a reluctant act of self-preservation - but a decision he has never regretted.

In agreeing that some animals would not be able to feed themselves properly in the wild - I'm not suggesting that Wild is not best. However, so many creatures have been removed from their natural environmental context - and they would not survive in their new one without human care, as bikerdruid has pointed out. The complexities of colonial introduction of cash live-stock and predators to previously native environments are present the world over and simply must be taken into account when considering whether or not some animals should be under the care of humans. Depending on the animal and the environment it was historically shifted to, it may be absolutely necessary for it to be under human care and protection. In agreeing with domothy's comment above, I've made an assumption that the type of 'farm' that he is referring to is a small-scale, hands-on, respectful one that only feeds one (or just a few) families and is very conscious of how it cares for it's animals - treating them with love and respect. It sounds like that is what he's describing - and if I were a free range chicken I know I'd prefer to have safe accommodation at night, whether i could say that verbally or not

Yes, as you say, I was referring to small scale operations where animals graze on lush, varied and healthy farm land with all the herbs in the grass for the cows to eat and cow dung for the chickens to eat fly larvae from etc - plus farmers who genuinely care and respect their livestock.

[vegan_on_the_land]

Originally Posted by mata

Hi vegan_on_the_land, I see where you are coming from - but perhaps your idea of keeping animals is far too severe? I don't know how you treat animals yourself, but 'pampered slave', 'raped homeless woman' or 'controlled concubine' are, in this context, overly charged comparisons in my opinion. Giving an animal a home and feeding it - is not in and of itself an abusive act.

If you want to you can have your B12 levels tested for via a general practitioner. A good friend of mine did so after four years of being very strictly vegan and his levels of B12 were for all intensive purposes non-existant. He was immediately given a booster shot as a precautionary measure, the GP was gravely concerned about the safety of his grey matter. After witnessing the bloodwork results and learning about the brain's significant requirement for B12 he actually ceased to be vegan - which in his case was a reluctant act of self-preservation - but a decision he has never regretted.

I don't want there to be any farm animals. They are kept for human use. In a perfect world, where every human became vegan in the next hour, all the farm animals would be cared for. They wouldn't be killed for their meat and they wouldn't be bred.

I've been vegan for over 30 years and am at least as healthy as I was before. A vegan is no more at risk of B12 deficiency than a meat eater.

And now I am off to do some weight training and then I'll have a nice vegan meal.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by domathy

Yes, as you say, I was referring to small scale operations where animals graze on lush, varied and healthy farm land with all the herbs in the grass for the cows to eat and cow dung for the chickens to eat fly larvae from etc - plus farmers who genuinely care and respect their livestock.

this is the reality on our farm.
we have had sick sheep being cared for and house temporarily in our kitchen.
we have bottle fed many orphaned lambs.
we have had sick orphaned lambs cuddled in the bed for warmth and have cried when they didn't make it.
we have retired old ewes to a life of leisure, in comfort.
and yes, we have eaten many lambs and have thanked the gods for our bounty.

[phildee3]

Not any more, they're not!

[domathy]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

this is the reality on our farm.
we have had sick sheep being cared for and house temporarily in our kitchen.
we have bottle fed many orphaned lambs.
we have had sick orphaned lambs cuddled in the bed for warmth and have cried when they didn't make it.
we have retired old ewes to a life of leisure, in comfort.
and yes, we have eaten many lambs and have thanked the gods for our bounty.

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by mata

In agreeing that some animals would not be able to feed themselves properly in the wild - I'm not suggesting that Wild is not best. However, so many creatures have been removed from their natural environmental context - and they would not survive in their new one without human care, as bikerdruid has pointed out. The complexities of colonial introduction of cash live-stock and predators to previously native environments are present the world over and simply must be taken into account when considering whether or not some animals should be under the care of humans. Depending on the animal and the environment it was historically shifted to, it may be absolutely necessary for it to be under human care and protection. In agreeing with domothy's comment above, I've made an assumption that the type of 'farm' that he is referring to is a small-scale, hands-on, respectful one that only feeds one (or just a few) families and is very conscious of how it cares for it's animals - treating them with love and respect. It sounds like that is what he's describing - and if I were a free range chicken I know I'd prefer to have safe accommodation at night, whether i could say that verbally or not

Saying that we should continue to breed farm animals and livestock because we've domesticated them to the point that they can't survive otherwise is not a good argument. That is not a problem that we should perpetuate. Returning species to the wild might be a tough transition, but certainly a beneficial one for its future generations.

Also, it's unlikely that an animal lives a better life on a farm than in the wild. It is subjected to the same scenery every single day and gets to exercise none if its natural instincts to migrate, breed, search for food, or explore. The only benefit is "safety", but any human would be appalled at the thought of being confined to a small area for the duration of his entire life, no matter how safe and comfortable he was. He would be tortured by boredom and repetitiveness, and there would be no purpose to his life.

Similarly, we take away the purpose for animals' existence when we simply breed them and confine them to farms for their entire life. You can cast it in an elegant light, and talk about how lovingly and humanely you treat them, but it's only meaningful in relation to other farm animal treatments. It's all inferior to letting the animals live on their own.

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

I don't want there to be any farm animals. They are kept for human use. In a perfect world, where every human became vegan in the next hour, all the farm animals would be cared for. They wouldn't be killed for their meat and they wouldn't be bred.

Exactly. All the problems being brought up here were caused by the breeding of farm animals for meat. If we had never started doing that, none of these problems would presently exist, and so they must vanish if we stop causing them.

I see many people arguing that we must continue to do so because we have been doing so and it would cause problems to stop. Breaking any habit results in turbulence because the flow must be disrupted in order for it to change. That does not imply that it should not be done.

[phildee3]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

this is the reality on our farm.
we have had sick sheep being cared for and house temporarily in our kitchen.
we have bottle fed many orphaned lambs.
we have had sick orphaned lambs cuddled in the bed for warmth and have cried when they didn't make it.
we have retired old ewes to a life of leisure, in comfort.
and yes, we have eaten many lambs and have thanked the gods for our bounty.

Nice.

I don't understand these "live foods" freaks.
I mean, an animal (once it's been given the chance to reproduce) can be compassionatly havested - a plant can't - it needs to fulfill its cycle.

The only truly ethical plant food is seed.

[rbl_4nik8r]

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

I don't want there to be any farm animals. They are kept for human use. In a perfect world, where every human became vegan in the next hour, all the farm animals would be cared for. They wouldn't be killed for their meat and they wouldn't be bred.

I've been vegan for over 30 years and am at least as healthy as I was before. A vegan is no more at risk of B12 deficiency than a meat eater.

And now I am off to do some weight training and then I'll have a nice vegan meal.

In my perfect world everyone would be having a grilled deer steak a baked potato and salad with some butter fried onions and mushrooms.

As it is I am making elk sausage lasagna with eggplant and goat cheese, and a few other cheeses with homemade garlic bread, should be done in about 30 mins.



4nE

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by phildee3

Nice.
I mean, an animal (once it's been given the chance to reproduce) can be compassionatly havested - a plant can't - it needs to fulfill its cycle.

The only truly ethical plant food is seed.

The most ethical food is fruit, because the tree requires that its fruit be eaten in order to disperse its seeds. It's the one food in nature that is specifically designed to be eaten.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

A vegan is no more at risk of B12 deficiency than a meat eater.

If you truly believe that, you are living proof of the effects of B12 deficiency.

[tenzingnorgay]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

The most ethical food is fruit, because the tree requires that its fruit be eaten in order to disperse its seeds. It's the one food in nature that is specifically designed to be eaten.

EVERYTHING that lives is designed to be eaten.

EVERYTHING that lives will be eaten.

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by tenzingnorgay

EVERYTHING that lives is designed to be eaten.

EVERYTHING that lives will be eaten.

Wow, great logic there. Except that I was referring to the fact that fruit has no purpose other than to be eaten. This does not apply to any other living thing.

Living things are designed to live. Some animals are designed to eat others, but no animal is designed to be eaten. Fruit, however, is.

[herewardd]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

Wow, great logic there. Except that I was referring to the fact that fruit has no purpose other than to be eaten. This does not apply to any other living thing.

Living things are designed to live. Some animals are designed to eat others, but no animal is designed to be eaten. Fruit, however, is.

Fruit spreads the seeds< and also give the bearer more value.

* Why not try some good old Soylent Green!

http://youtu.be/SVpN312hYgU

http://youtu.be/SVpN312hYgU

[mata]

Originally Posted by vegan_on_the_land

I don't want there to be any farm animals. They are kept for human use. In a perfect world, where every human became vegan in the next hour, all the farm animals would be cared for. They wouldn't be killed for their meat and they wouldn't be bred.

I've been vegan for over 30 years and am at least as healthy as I was before. A vegan is no more at risk of B12 deficiency than a meat eater.

And now I am off to do some weight training and then I'll have a nice vegan meal.

Well, maybe you should be the one to give freely of your time to care for the several million sheep that live in my country? Or perhaps just let them out of their current situation so that they can be mauled one by one by dogs, run over by cars and trucks etc. What I'm saying is: "farming" is not my preference, I've clearly pointed out that in most instances I deem it abbhorant, yet you wish to stay hung up on the fact that I use the word 'farm' at all. Fact is there are animals in that situation, and whether I like it or not, that's how it is - for now at least. It must be seen for what it is, no use saying that 'we shouldn't have started farming them in the first place' etc. Go ask the British Empire for an apology, maybe while you're at it they'll apologize for wiping out two thirds of my people within the space of 15 years. Maybe then you can tell me about your idea of a perfect world. Good on you for being a vegan for 30 years but - seriously - you're just riding rough-shod over anything I have to say, I don't see the point in engaging with you.

[mata]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

Saying that we should continue to breed farm animals and livestock because we've domesticated them to the point that they can't survive otherwise is not a good argument. That is not a problem that we should perpetuate. Returning species to the wild might be a tough transition, but certainly a beneficial one for its future generations.

Also, it's unlikely that an animal lives a better life on a farm than in the wild. It is subjected to the same scenery every single day and gets to exercise none if its natural instincts to migrate, breed, search for food, or explore. The only benefit is "safety", but any human would be appalled at the thought of being confined to a small area for the duration of his entire life, no matter how safe and comfortable he was. He would be tortured by boredom and repetitiveness, and there would be no purpose to his life.

Similarly, we take away the purpose for animals' existence when we simply breed them and confine them to farms for their entire life. You can cast it in an elegant light, and talk about how lovingly and humanely you treat them, but it's only meaningful in relation to other farm animal treatments. It's all inferior to letting the animals live on their own.

"Continuing to breed farm animals and livestock" is not the argument I'm presenting. If you cannot take the time to read my posts and see where I am coming from, well, then this is not much of a discussion....

[_z3n_]

Originally Posted by mata

"Continuing to breed farm animals and livestock" is not the argument I'm presenting. If you cannot take the time to read my posts and see where I am coming from, well, then this is not much of a discussion....

If you cannot take the time to state your argument concisely, then you probably don't have much to say that is meaningful.

Your post was long and drawn out, and really the only points you made were by implication. You seemed to say that animals are treated well on farms, and that in some cases they are too numerous and domesticated to be set free.

If you don't want people to perceive your implications in a way you didn't intend, you should state them explicitly.

[mata]

Originally Posted by domathy

Yes, as you say, I was referring to small scale operations where animals graze on lush, varied and healthy farm land with all the herbs in the grass for the cows to eat and cow dung for the chickens to eat fly larvae from etc - plus farmers who genuinely care and respect their livestock.

hi domothy, ok thought so.

[mata]

Originally Posted by _z3n_

If you cannot take the time to state your argument concisely, then you probably don't have much to say that is meaningful.

Your post was long and drawn out, and really the only points you made were by implication. You seemed to say that animals are treated well on farms, and that in some cases they are too numerous and domesticated to be set free.

If you don't want people to perceive your implications in a way you didn't intend, you should state them explicitly.

So, by 'long and drawn out' you mean you can't be bothered reading it? Writing it off as 'not meaningful' before you've even read it is a bit rich for me sorry _z3n_. My points are explicit, of course it requires reading through them first. I've had six or so posts in this thread, resorting to trashing my writing style is not really engaging with what I've said.