# Animal rights vs. meat eaters...



## anothermama

Lets try to be constructive here, shall we???









Is is possible for someone to be an "animal activist" and still be a meat eater?

If so, how come?

If not, why not?

Do YOU consider yourself an animal rights/welfare activist? Do you eat meat?

(p.s....I hope it's ok I started a NEW thread on this, since it seems to stray pretty far from just boycotting one restaurant)


----------



## anothermama

My answers: (which I'd like to preface by saying that I'm posting this under the assumption that it will not get me flamed or called names, ok? ok!)

I think it's possible to be an animal welfare activist and still eat meat.

First of all, I'll say that I believe that most people *need* the protein in meat. I'm not bashing vegetarians AT ALL and I am fully aware that it's possible to be one and be VERY healthy. But, my *personal* belief is that humans are meant to be omnivores to be healthy. This is based on college education and, yes, a little on religion.

I think that if animals are raised in a humane and safe way, that is an ok way to raise them if their purpose is to be food eventually. I was raised next door to a chicken farm, so maybe thats why I feel this way.

I don't think it's ok to raise animals (or ANY living thing) in inhumane conditions at all. I also don't think it's ok to drug up the animals you eat.

I think animal activism is far more encompassing than just animals that are raised for food. When you talk about animal rights and animal welfare, thinks like wildlife extinction and domestic pet over population need to be taken into consideration as well. There are more animals in the world than just pigs, cows, and chickens.

I think the bottom line is respect...if you can be respectful of other living in things thats the most important thing to me I suppose. If I couldn't buy free range or organic meat, I'd probably go veg anyways. The mass production way of raising farm animals is not respectful.

edited to chage some terminology on the "advice" of Ravens post.


----------



## flutemandolin

In a word, YES. I am very much opposed to factory farming, but I am not opposed to eating meat, hunting for the purpose of putting food on the table, fishing for the same purpose, keeping animals as pets under humane conditions, or keeping animals under humane conditions for the purpose of killing them for meat.

I consider myself an animal WELFARE activist, but not an animal RIGHTS activist. That's a whole other can of worms. And I feel this distinction distances me from PETA and other animal advocate groups.

Interesting question!


----------



## Arduinna

of course it's possible.

IMO animal rights is not only about vegetarianism, it's about ethical treatment. Of course I already posted my detail views on this in another thread titled What is the Ethical Treatment of Animals.


----------



## Raven67

First, there is a difference, philosophical and practical, between "animal welfare" and "animal rights." One cannot be an animal rights activist and eat meat. The two things are mutually exclusive. Animal rights are about giving equal consideration to the interests of animals (their desire to avoid pain, live in natural conditions, and avoid slaughter). Animal rights people oppose the abuse of animals and the exploitation of animals. So, the notion of raising animals for "humane" slaughter is not one that an animal rights proponent would support. On the other hand, many people support "animal welfare" which is about making the conditions of animals who are being exploited and abused a bit more comfortable, and "humane." So, one may be a supporter of animal welfare and continue to eat meat. Lots of "animal people" who rescue dogs, cats, and wildlife fall into this catogory. Sometimes, they finally "get it" and realize that their beliefs and behavior are inconsistent, but not always. Of course anyone is free to call themselves whatever they please, but technically, you are not an animal rights activist/supporter if you eat meat. BTW, there is plenty of evidence to refute the notion that people "need" to eat meat. In fact, the more meat and dairy a population consumes, the more disease it has. This is incontrovertable. Anyone could do one hour of research and find this to be true. But, it is not the main point of this thread, so I will leave it rest.


----------



## JessicaS




----------



## RidentMama

I think that the previous posters have hit the nail on the head--you can be a supporter of animal welfare and still enjoy a thick juicy steaks (to even it out, I could not go without my steamed green beans either).

DH and I have recently started on the path to raising all of our own meats. We raised/butchered 72 chickens two summers ago and will do so this upcoming summer, 26 turkeys then too, currently two steers and a bunch of goats & sheep for food as well. I AM NOT STATING THIS TO TORQUE ANYONE OFF! We are raising our own meats because:

1. Most all of the meat that is commercially raised has been through feedlots, where they are not fed the diet nature intended for them, and have to slop around in their own filth much of the time.

2. Much of the meat has come from animals who were given growth hormones, which is just silly 'cause if nature wanted them to be another 70 lbs larger, NATURE WOULD'VE MADE THEM THAT WAY! (Although you don't have to give Cornish Cross chickens growth hormones, 'cause they just pack on the weight anyway...they end up being the size of small turkeys if you let them go almost to the end of their life span).

3. Except for organic meat, critters are given antibiotics and dusted with pesticides to keep the insects off of them.

All of our critters are given room to run and are fed according to what they need at the time, so we are treating our animals as best as we can. But we are raising them with the purpose of eventually finding them in our freezer. That's just the way it is here.

I respect vegetarians for the choices that they make (one of my best friends went veggie because of the way that meat is raised commercially--and I support her in her decision), and hope that vegetarians (and vegans too!) can respect DH and I for the decisions we make.


----------



## pamamidwife

I actually think this is a very valid question!

I am supportive of treating animals humanely, however, I also eat meat. Granted, our family buys organic, mostly locally grown meats and my dh bow hunts (which he considers to be very sacred).

I think it's along the same lines of "are you a feminist if you stay home with your kids?" - tight definitions don't serve any cause well. Raising awareness all the way around does.

Even if the animal-rights people would love to convert all omnivores to herbivores, that probably won't ever happen. However, small steps (like buying humanely raised animals) will.

I don't think we, as humans, NEED meat. Meat has, up until the 50s, been a scarce treat among humans. It took alot of time and energy to kill an animal and if you didn't raise it yourself, chances are you split it with others that helped you kill it.


----------



## pumpkinhead

I believe that one can be an animal rights activist and still eat meat. Honestly, I'm pretty tired of being judged because I eat meat.

WE only eat hunted or free-range, humanely killed, organic meat, which is neither inexpensive or easy to find. We have visited the facilities where the animals are housed and where they are killed.

I look at it this way: in nature, an omnivore or a carnivore kills (and not terribly humanely) and eats what it needs to survive. If we humans are no different from animals, why must we eat differently? Why should we be judged and made to feel guilty for this practice? *I agree that this is about respect.*

Just my opinion. No malice intended.

With respect,

Emily


----------



## candiland

Just a side note: humans are not, biologically, meant to eat meat. A bit of research on our teeth and on our digestive systems will show you this. In fact, if you look at societies around the world, the higher the consumption level of dairy and meat, the shorter the people's lifespans are and the more diseases they have as a general population.
Okay, anyway, now that I've spouted my little piece of truth, I do eat poultry and organic dairy. (I visited "our" dairy farm with our kids over the summer... it's awesome, and the animals are very well cared for







). But I do know that this isn't the healthiest choice for me. I just happen to be a food weakling... okay, I loooove to eat, and my stomach often wins over my brain!








Oh, and about protein requirements.... during the Irish potato famine, the population was tested for various nutritional deficencies. While they were severely deficient in many areas, they were *not* protein deficient. Until recently, the majority of our protein has, in fact, come from plant-based sources.
"Getting enough protein" is a huge myth western culture has bought into. In fact, some people believe this so strongly that they think they *feel* protein deficient even when they're not. It's kind of like a placebo effect.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Just a side note: humans are not, biologically, meant to eat meat. A bit of research on our teeth and on our digestive systems will show you this. In fact, if you look at societies around the world, the higher the consumption level of dairy and meat, the shorter the people's lifespans are and the more diseases they have as a general population.
Okay, anyway, now that I've spouted my little piece of truth, I do eat poultry and organic dairy. (I visited "our" dairy farm with our kids over the summer... it's awesome, and the animals are very well cared for







). But I do know that this isn't the healthiest choice for me. I just happen to be a food weakling... okay, I loooove to eat, and my stomach often wins over my brain!








Oh, and about protein requirements.... during the Irish potato famine, the population was tested for various nutritional deficencies. While they were severely deficient in many areas, they were *not* protein deficient. Until recently, the majority of our protein has, in fact, come from plant-based sources.
"Getting enough protein" is a huge myth western culture has bought into. In fact, some people believe this so strongly that they think they *feel* protein deficient even when they're not. It's kind of like a placebo effect.*
Hrm...I actually did A LOT of research into this issue in college (a VERY weird sociology study!) and it's pretty well known that humans ARE omnivores...i.e. meant to eat both meat and plants.
Especially based on our teeth....we have flesh ripping teeth as well as grinding teeth....something generally found only in omnivores and carnivores.










I think that particular aspect may be an "agree to disagree" issue...I have loads of my super crunchy friends who think the same thing...the humans aren't always meant to eat meat. I've seen their research and while I can't refute it, I also don't think it's a complete picture. What I'm trying to say is that from what I've seen there is enough evidence to support both arguments to a degree.

ANWAYS!

re Ravens comments: I really disagree with the notion that someone who eats meat is leading a contridictory life if they think they are doing other help to other kinds of animals. Basically, thats saying that we can't do ANYTHING with animals they don't want done.....like fence them in, domesticate them, etc etc. So, I guess if thats what she means, then I would agree with that...but I don't agree thats best, especially in this day and age.

I am one of those "animal rescue" people (just got back from a shelter trip, as a matter of fact...). I see it the same. My advocating for better and more humane conditions for feed animals is in the same vein as my advocating for better and more humane conditions for domesticated pets (two issues that take up a lot of our time...*sigh*). Sure, maybe chickens don't want to be taken out and eaten....and I'm sure my lab would tell you he'd rather I not leash him and he'd like to roam the neighborhood freely. Living in america today, some things just aren't reasonable....

And another thing....I always think it's better to help a person do better than chastize them for what they AREN'T doing. Every little bit helps, as they say. If someone IS going to be a meat eater, isn't it better they support good farming practices and humane treatment of the animals than they just say "EFF IT!!!!!" and eat Mc D's chicken every day?

From what I've seen, and in my personal experience, people who are educated about the issue not only tend to eat more responsibly, but they usually eat LESS meat, too.

Just a few more thoughts....


----------



## candiland

Interesting. I'd love to get to the bottom of this and research it some more. Since I *am* an omnivore at this point in my life


----------



## Arduinna

I just wanted to add that I support Peta's efforts even if I currently am an omnivore (lapsed veggie). The two are not mutually exclusive for me anyway.


----------



## kama'aina mama

I think the OP raises an interesting question. Must one go "the whole hog" to be useful to the cause? I tend to think no... one does not. I think in fact that a moderate person whose attitudes towards animals is perhaps closer to the mainstream than PETA's has a very good chance of slowly changing peoples minds about some of the worst abuses of animals than someone who is likely to be viewed as an extremist. It is also troubling to be told that if you don't support an issue exactly the same way that someone else does you 'don't support it' or your support is empty and meaningless. I reject that position utterly. And, while the topic at hand in this case is animal welfare I think the same is true of a great many issues.


----------



## sadie_sabot

well, I agree that the thread title is a wee bit immflamatory, but I also think this is a valid and interesting question. Brings to my mind questions of how we live our lives, about are we or are we not dogmatic, etc. I've known a lot of vegans who were so self righteous about it that it wasn't worth spending time with them...never knew when I would forget who I was dealing with and put honey in my tea or forget I was wearing a thrift store sweater made of wool. Stopped being vegan in part due to this kind of stuff. No one changes their habits or lifstyle because someone tried to shame them or make them feel like crap.

However, I do not eat meat, personally I'm pretty grossed out by it. But I do think it is possible to eat meat and still consider life sacred. I don't know about this animal rights vs animal welfare, I kind of think its semantics and hair splitting.

I really try to approach the world with the idea that all life is sacred and must be treated as such. I think, based on experience, that it is possible to raise and kill and animal for food in a respectful manner.

I think if people are going to eat meat, they should be involved in the animals life and death. I think if people can't hack the reality of killing a live creature in order to eat their steak, maybe they sholdn't eat meat. You can't honor a life if you don't acknowledge it.

I also think our society is sick, sick sick in the ways we raise and slaughter meat as though the animal were not alive, not aware. I agree with the sentiment expressed in Oatmeal's signature, that the ways we treat animals directly contributes to the inhumane ways we treat other people.

Hmmm. that was more than neccessary to answer the question, Huh!


----------



## mamabeard

isn't it a matter of degree? insofar as you do not contribute to animal suffering you are an 'animal rights activist'..? i don't necessarily consider myself an extremist, but i think if you're doing all you can to give an animal a happy life, and then come at it with a cleaver in the end.. well, that's pretty ironic, isn't it? to say the least..

hmm.. i still think no being has a right to make such choices for another being. what if aliens took over the planet and stole all of our children, cared for them, yet planned to fatten them up to eat. would that be okay, so long as they were tended to in a (relatively) respectful manner throughout their lives..?


----------



## kama'aina mama

I don't know if it's exactly ironic. I think it is an improvement. As long as many people are unwilling to budge on the eatting of meat there should be some focus on the well being of the animals while they are alive. I mean... everyone's going to die. Does you knowing that you will die one day make you feel like you deserve a poor quality of life until then? Don't we try to be humane to humans who are in prison, even those on death row? I think bringing people around on that point is a reasonable starting place. I guess I see any kind of change that activists work for to be more likely to occur slowly and by degrees. You are far more likely to get a dedicated omnivore to care about decent quality of life, cleanliness issues, etc than you are to convince her that she should go vegan tommorow. One step at a time, is all I am saying.


----------



## mamabeard

of course you are right.. and your perspective is probably more valid considering the amount of people ignorant to what happens in factory farms.. i still do think the end goal should be kept in mind, however, which to me is that no animals be harmed at all, for any reason.


----------



## merpk

Quote:

_*... by sadie_sabot*
... the ways we treat animals directly contributes to the inhumane ways we treat other people ..._

Hitler had a dog. A German shepherd. He loved his dog very much, and was by all accounts very gentle with him.

I was going to label this "off topic," but I'm not sure that it is.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by sadie_sabot_
*

I think if people are going to eat meat, they should be involved in the animals life and death. I think if people can't hack the reality of killing a live creature in order to eat their steak, maybe they sholdn't eat meat. You can't honor a life if you don't acknowledge it.

*
I agree....and for me *personally* I feel thats probably why I am so comfortable eating meat....as a kid, the MAJORITY of the meat we ate was either something we or a neighbor raised. I was raised in a very rural environment with lots of 4-h friends and farms around.....so I was raised KNOWING who it was I was eating. I would help my neighbor slaughter chickens when it was time. She was pretty cool in retrospect....it always took forever because she'd take em out one at a time because she didn't want them to see what happened to their "friends" first.

Anyways....I think a lot of people in this country are kind of trained not to think of the food as an animal, just something that came from the grocery store, like their soda or cookies. And I think that contributes to our overall food issues....not just with meat, but with the way produce and such are processed as well. And so I'm gonna go with what someone else said....I personally feel it's better to try to take those small steps. I'm not going to convince anyone to go veg today, but I *have* conviced one or two people in my day to at least try out buying their meat at the co-op here rather than Safeway, and thats a small step I think.

(Sadie....I didn't mean the title to be inflamatory....it's one of those things where I start typing how I talk and online the tone just isn't the same....I think I need online tone typing lessons or something....hope you weren't offended.)


----------



## joyfulheart

Interesting question...

To me, there is not a black and white answer -- there usually isn't for most questions! I see this issue being on a continum -- your actions can slide from being what I'll call the most inhumane to the other end, where your actions can be the most loving (my opinion, again). I don't think we'd all agree as to what to "label" each end of the continum. For me, I strive to be the most loving toward all creatures -- which means I don't eat animals or consume products made by them. I leave the spiders alone in my home and even move slugs and spiders out of the way if they're on the sidewalk. That brings great peace and harmony to my life. Do I judge others for eating meat-- hopefully, my heart follows my mind's choice that we all have our own lives to lead and our own choices to make. And I'll end by saying, that even when our intentions are good, we all inadvertently (sp?) bring suffering to animals on some level -- the sites where our homes are built, the roads we drive on, farm-land from where our food comes (even if vegan!) were homes to animals and a multitude of life. Peace and goodwill to all of you.

joyful


----------



## CanOBeans

Quote:

_Originally posted by Raven67_
*BTW, there is plenty of evidence to refute the notion that people "need" to eat meat. In fact, the more meat and dairy a population consumes, the more disease it has. This is incontrovertable. Anyone could do one hour of research and find this to be true. But, it is not the main point of this thread, so I will leave it rest.*
It isn't the main point, but since it is on this idea that many people base their stances on animal rights and/or welfare, I think it's a valid point of discussion.

Apparently, there is considerable evidence to support the belief that people need to eat animal products, and that we are meant to. There is also evidence that disease is not necessarily related to higher meat consumption; in fact, some argue that a diet too high in plant products is the more harmful.

Here is an interesting paper that addresses this (and the whole site is quite intriguing). I have not read the studies cited, so I take it with a grain of salt for now. I suggest reading the entire article, as it touches on many of the points made in this thread (including the idea that our teeth and digestive tracts indicate that we should be herbivores). Be forewarned that if you are a vegetarian, you may not like what this article says.

http://www.westonaprice.org/myths_tr...tarianism.html


----------



## shantimama

A couple of things have come to mind for me while reading this.

First, there is evidence that we are meant to be herbivores and evidence that we are meant to be omnivores. This is a big planet, with huge variation in climate and living conditions. Of course their are and always have been cultures that have been vegetarian and are healthy. There are also cultures that have based their diet on meat and dairy products. They are healthy too. One size does not fit all! The Inuit people can't grow lentils and leafy greens in their habitat! Equatorial people do not need seal meat or whale blubber to thrive - where would they find or store it? Let's not forget that a lot of food related disease got out of control with the sugar/white flour epidemic that industry gave us, not by people eating and simply preparing the food that was available around them. Those are our planets two extreme habitats - the rest of us fall someplace in between, and I think our genetics probably play a significant part in what is the optimum diet for each of us.

My other point is supposed to be a little humorous, so please don't flame me. If we are going to say that we have no right to raise or hunt animals for the purpose of eating them because we have no business violating the animal's rights, then how about telling the mosquitoes to leave me alone next summer because I do not consent to them using my blood for their purposes! Nature is beautiful but not always pretty, if you know what I mean.

Are any of you familiar with the group The Arrogant Worms" - they have a great song called "Carrot Juice is Murder" singing about the oppression of caged tomatoes and the cruelty of salad (if you are a vegetable of course







)


----------



## mamabeard

somewhat ot, i guess, and many would probably consider it silly, but: after finally having enough of effing mosquitoes (and i'm from sk, mosquito capital of canada!) i decided that it was time for them to leave me alone. that was about 6 years ago. since then i have been bitten no more than 3 times. and haven't killed one (while others around me were bitten/bothered multiple times). i don't use bug lotion/spray, and don't kill them (any bugs).

i think we have powers we don't realize we have unless we believe we do..


----------



## sadie_sabot

Quote:

_Originally posted by merpk_
*Hitler had a dog. A German shepherd. He loved his dog very much, and was by all accounts very gentle with him.

*
O- kaaaay....

I don't think that invalidates the point that how we treat animals contributes to and/or indicates how we treat people. There are exceptions to every rule, every generalization, etc, etc.

No offense to you, merpk, but honestly, if I had a tofu pup for every time someone told me that Hitler was a vegetarian, as thought that then conferred fasisitc tendencies upon every vegetarian, well, I'd have a whole lot of tofu pups.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by sadie_sabot_
*O- kaaaay....

I don't think that invalidates the point that how we treat animals contributes to and/or indicates how we treat people. There are exceptions to every rule, every generalization, etc, etc.

No offense to you, merpk, but honestly, if I had a tofu pup for every time someone told me that Hitler was a vegetarian, as thought that then conferred fasisitc tendencies upon every vegetarian, well, I'd have a whole lot of tofu pups.*
I completely disagree...

I work a great deal with pet rescue groups as well as with a few local organizations for farm animals. In my experience, people who are UBER hard core animal people usually treat real humans not quite as nice. I don't know why.


----------



## Meiri

Quote:

Animal rights are about giving equal consideration to the interests of animals (their desire to avoid pain, live in natural conditions, and avoid slaughter). Animal rights people oppose the abuse of animals and the exploitation of animals.
I guess I'll worry about it at this level when I see the wolves and lions eating grass rather than Other Animals. Except....wouldn't that be exploiting the plants?

Quote:

So, the notion of raising animals for "humane" slaughter is not one that an animal rights proponent would support. On the other hand, many people support "animal welfare" which is about making the conditions of animals who are being exploited and abused a bit more comfortable, and "humane." So, one may be a supporter of animal welfare and continue to eat meat. Lots of "animal people" who rescue dogs, cats, and wildlife fall into this catogory.
I think conditions for domestic food animals should be humane. They should have room to roam, be fed healthy natural foods--the kinds they'd've eaten in the wild, spared the worst of the pain, etc. There's a scientist who's worked on ways to get the cattle in with to the slaughterhouse with no fear, making them feel safe and unafraid before they know-no-more. She studied how they react and to what... I'll see if I can find the link, as it's apparently not been bookmarked where I thought I had it.









Quote:

Sometimes, they finally "get it" and realize that their beliefs and behavior are inconsistent, but not always. Of course anyone is free to call themselves whatever they please, but technically, you are not an animal rights activist/supporter if you eat meat.
And my feelings on animal rights is that Mother Nature Herself doesn't guarantee freedom from fear or being someone else's meal to anybody, not even us. We are ALL of us beings food for someone. To insist otherwise is to go against all of Nature.


----------



## oatmeal

_please contact moderator or administrator for discussion of policy._


----------



## Snowy Owl

I think it can be safely said that cruelty/ mistreatment of any living thing is objectively immoral. No one can say if eating animals is or isn't objectively immoral, you can only act according to yor own feelings. Look around the world. Animals eat other animals. It's not 'bad'. Human beings often have more choice, and either choice can not be condemned as wrong.

Comparing eating meat to the Holocaust is insulting to the people that endured it and their families, and heck, me. Get real.

By the way, I have developed a serious aversion to meat with this pregnancy. I was not a big meat eater before that. So I was wondering, If I became an official vegetarian, would I still be allowed to eat the placenta??? I heard it's very nutritious, and tasty too.


----------



## candiland

Snowy Owl - placenta would be considered vegan, I'd assume, because it's your own species'. I used to joke with my friends that my babies were going to only drink soy formula because breastmilk wasn't vegan


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Snowy Owl - placenta would be considered vegan, I'd assume, because it's your own species'. I used to joke with my friends that my babies were going to only drink soy formula because breastmilk wasn't vegan







*
Thanks candiland.
My own species? So cannibalism is vegan?
Cool.

(sick joke...maybe not funny but oh well...)


----------



## pumpkinhead

It *IS* possible to BOTH eat meat and consider ones self an advocate for the rights of animals. There are PLENTY of people who eat meat and yet acknowledge the sacrifice the animal has made. PLENTY of people who are consientious enough to investigate the place and practices where they obtain their meat. It's very narrow minded to think that one's perspective in the only one that exists. I may not be a Buddhist and I may not agree with their beliefs, but I have respect for the beliefs of those who practice Buddhism. I may not be a vegan, but I have respect for those who practice this lifestyle. I expect no less for my own lifestyle,practices and beliefs.

i may eat meat, but I don't believe that animals raised for meat should be treated inhumanely. I believe they have the right to proper housing, food and exercise. This is more courtesy than is afforded to lots of people, many of them innocent children, in this life.

The comparison of eating meat to the Holocaust is offensive to me as well.

*This is about respect*


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

I used to joke with my friends that my babies were going to only drink soy formula because breastmilk wasn't vegan
OT & So not funny... I remember reading that Tori Spelling (of 90210 fame) really did do this. Fed her baby soy formula from birth because she did not want to abuse any animals--- including herself, to feed her child uke


----------



## Meiri

I'm willing to accept that I'm not an animal rights person then Oatmeal. There's no need to shout.

As I enjoy a good salad and the occasional apple or pear or pineapple too, I'll concede that I'm not a plant rights person either. They are just as alive in their own way as any of the four-legged, and I don't think they should be abused either.

There's a difference though between respectful use and torturous abuse. I agree that factory farming is mostly outside the respectful use concept, though some of the activities mentioned in regards to the chicken processing place make no sense. If fools are blowing up chickens for the sick ???? of it, those are chickens they then can't sell. It makes no sense to waste and abuse like that from a purely economic standpoint. Why would someone take money from their own pocket in such a manner? And if they really are doing that, they need help beyond the scope of even PETA. Someone that sadistic to animals may well turn it on humans someday, or not, but I digress.

To quote a chapter heading in a very good book of essays on motherhood: "The One Life Feeds On Itself" We are as much a part of the cycle of eating as any other animal, though on the surface it appears we have mostly removed ourselves from being prey. We just get cycled back in at a different point is all.

And what I wonder does PETA propose to do with all the newly freed cattle? Where will they live? Are they hardy enough to find their own food? Can they survive winters with no help? or will they simply starve and while trying not to do so strip the land of grasses and other plants needed by the NATIVE species? In PA we have a problem with the deer herd doing just this, though they are a native species too. The balance of the plants that should be in a healthy forest is being upset because there are not enough predators to keep the deer numbers in check. Eventually the deer will suffer tremendously too. So, should the cattle be freed or what???







:


----------



## candiland

Quote:

And what I wonder does PETA propose to do with all the newly freed cattle? Where will they live? Are they hardy enough to find their own food? Can they survive winters with no help? or will they simply starve and while trying not to do so strip the land of grasses and other plants needed by the NATIVE species?
I think the majority of people at PETA are intelligent enough to realize that becoming vegetarian is a gradual process, and that as, gradually, less cows are consumed, less and less will be bred and slaughtered.

Oh, and about Tori Spelling - are you totally SERIOUS??? I never even knew she HAD a kid!


----------



## polka123

I will throw in another ball to this topic.
There is a huge bunch of folks that feed their dogs a BARF diet (bones and raw fed). This diet consists of hard raw bones & raw meat & veggies. These same folks are HEAVILY into rescue & animal rights - I mean big advocates - thru all aspects of it all.
Some of these folks are vegetarians themselves.
They feel getting their dogs back to their natural diets makes them healthier - which it does !!
Many purebred dogs have succumb to serious genetic health problem due to processed kibble & breeding.
I have German Sheps & they are very prone to Pancreatic problems. I had one die from this ailment. When folks started giving their G. Sheps raw meat at times, the pancreatic probles started going away.

I am very involved in Animal Rescue (I am approved foster home for a German Shep rescue, I do transports, temp testing & have been involved in breeding, training & showing).
I have been assaulted over saving a pitbull being beated. I do not use Proctor & Gamble or other Co's that do animal testing. I do not give to March of Dimes because of the heinous medical tests.
Do I eat meat ? rarely but I do. I have been a non-meat eater at times. I am seeking out farm friendly meats/chickens for carnivore DH (who has risked his life a few times tring to save animals).
I think you can separate the 2.

I know many folks who give up ALL their spare time for animal rights & rescue. They will drive 100 or so miles tranporting an animal to its forever home (this same animal was likely pulled from a kill shelter hrs before its death).
I am always writing letters to Gov't officials to ban the use the gas in the euth'ing of pound animals....
the gassing pounds are the one I get dogs pulled from & foster, rehab & get ready for adoption to approved homes.
yes, it IS legal in most states. Rural pounds don't even bother with this, most dog wardens pick up a dog & take it to the woods & shoot it - yep leagl in many states also.
this is just one link - WARNING - photos are graffic !!!!!!!!

http://ohiohumaneeducation.org/hb104.htm









gassing is a terrible way to die - yup the same thing the Nazis did.

there are so many horrible things going on your local pounds.
most folks do this on their own time & out of there own pocket.
Do they eat meat, you bet some do... would they do most anything to help an animal - you bet they would. Me too.


----------



## kama'aina mama

Thank you polka, for a great post. Welcome.


----------



## CanOBeans

More on the ethics of eating meat:

http://www.westonaprice.org/healthis...thicsmeat.html


----------



## Meiri

The scientist who revolutionized (according to an online friend in ranching) the way cattle and such are handled before slaughter is Temple Grandin.

Her website is http://www.grandin.com/

It's very interesting reading IMO and she is a remarkable woman in her own right.


----------



## Bladestar5

Okay, I can't read all the other posts as well as have time for any other posts.

I am a Christian, and it is ok by Jesus to eat meat.

I don't think it is right, however, to treat animals poorly. Up to the time they are to be killed for consumption, they should be treated with love and care. Animals should be killed as painlessly as possible.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Bladestar5_
*
I am a Christian, and it is ok by Jesus to eat meat.

*
Many things are justified because 'It's okay by Jesus'. But is it okay?
Whether someone says it's okay by Jesus, Muhammed, or the President, you still have to think for yourself!

And many seem to agree that animals 'should' be treated a certain way before slaughter, but do they actually go out of their way to avoid 90% of the meat readily available at grocery stores and restaurants?
Of course they 'should'. No one would ever say otherwise, it's just that most don't really think it's worth bothering about.
And take note, I am not on the 'pro vegetarian' side of this debate, per se.
'holey logic' makes me wanna pipe up.


----------



## Bladestar5

Well, I like to eat some meat, or I wouldn't.








I guess it did sound kinda silly the way I said it before....I guess I am on the defensive today


----------



## Snowy Owl

I like to eat some meat too. Or I wouldn't!


----------



## Bladestar5

:LOL I hate hamburg, though....sometimes I find little pieces of yucky stuff in it.








I like fish and chicken too







I always considered those meat.


----------



## TiredX2

I started a "What is the ethical treatment of animals" thread a little while ago and did go and research it some more. What I learned sickened me (primarily from "Animal Liberation"). In the past two weeks I have been vegetarian (eggs & Milk) and have switched my family completely to free farmed, organic dairy & meat products. Now, though, I am just taking these couple of weeks to decide what I am going to do. I doubt I will ever eat meat at a "cheap" restaurant again (I am having DH research what kind of meat places like Mortons, Ruth's Chris, etc... use). I have always thought that there is nothing wrong with people eating animals, we *are* omnivores after all. But, there IS something (IMO) wrong with debeaking chickens, non-traditional veal production, etc... So, I will no longer support those practices with MY family's money.

Will I eat meat again? I bet so. But, I have never been a big meat eater and I doubt I will eat "commercial" meat again. My taste buds are not more important than an entire life of misery for a quadraped.

IMO, Animal Rights does NOT need to imply equal rights for all animals (humans and non-humans). For example, when I say "Children's Rights" I do NOT think they should be treated identically to adults (voting, employment, etc...). So, I can support what I consider animal rights to be (natural environment, correct food choices, etc...) while still eating them. Now, if we defined animal rights to be equal to human rights, this would be impossible. But, at that point it is all semantics!

Kay


----------



## hazeldust

**this issue has occupied my mind for several years now, as i have been an on again off again vegetarian. i am now trying to be vegan again and it is difficult not because i cannot get along without animal products, but because to be vegan is to be so aware and sensitive of the mistreatment of animals. i find that being vegan causes me to be thinking about why i am every day, which is a good thing, just incredibly painful. of course i realize that my pain is nothing compared to the pain these tortured animals go through. i guess it is just difficult to be so different.

**one question that i have is what does the free range lable mean? does it really mean that chickens live freely up until the point of slaughter? i do not know alot about this but know that i have read that just like the lable organic, it may or may not mean what you think it means.

**i think the comparison between the treatment of animals and the holocaust is not so much about the act of eating meat, as it is about the treatment of creatures that we deem as lesser species, and i have to say that i agree with this.

**i do not understant the term "killed compassionately" , and also, just because you like to do something, doesnt make it right. i really like the taste of meat and dairy products. but being vegan is more about doing my part to make sure that i do not support, in as many ways possible, the mistreatment of animals.

**sorry if this is spacy(no pun intended) i am holding a squirmy baby and well i am spacy!!


----------



## pumpkinhead

hazeldust,

You make some good points. With respect, the problem I have with comparing the eating of meat or slaughter of animals in order to eat them to the Holocaust is this: The Holocaust was not about anything other than HATE. Hilter persecuted and killed hundreds of thousands of Jewish people, people of colour and those whose appearance didn't suit him because of his distain for these people, their culture and their race.

He ordered the death of innocent people, many of them pregnant women and children and trained armies of people to hate these people as well. He alienated a nation and taught them to hate. This man had his soldiers cut open the wombs of live, conscious women and pour cold water into their open wombs just to see what would happen. He called this a 'science experiment'.

I could go on, but I won't.

To compare these disgusting acts to 'eating meat' (and I should qualify, that in my case, this means free range, grain fed, humanely killed animals) dishonors the suffering and torture these people went thru.

To kill something with compasion is to perform the deed the quickest and the most pain-free way possible. I learned how to do this with fatally injured birds. Quick and painfree. In some cases, death is more compassionate than a short, painful life.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

To compare these disgusting acts to 'eating meat' (and I should qualify, that in my case, this means free range, grain fed, humanely killed animals) dishonors the suffering and torture these people went thru.
But....... is there really a "gage" with which we can chart suffering? Suffering is suffering, IMO. I mean, is the suffering of the Jews, for example, ten times worse than the suffering of the Native Americans? Is the suffering of the NAs ten times worse than the suffering of factory farmed animals? Isn't compassion compassion, and suffering suffering, no matter who or what is suffering? I would think that those people that suffered so horribly would be *more* conscious to another sentient being's suffering, and wouldn't really take offense and say "well, my suffering is/was much worse than x, y, and z's suffering."
If you followed that at all,









:LOL


----------



## candiland

Oh, and I also wanted to add.......
only a couple of generations ago, doctors believed infants were not capable of feeling pain. They would perform circumcisions, open heart sugeries, you name it - on fully conscious unasthesized babies. After all, they couldn't talk....
Does anyone see where I'm going with that?


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Oh, and I also wanted to add.......
only a couple of generations ago, doctors believed infants were not capable of feeling pain. They would perform circumcisions, open heart sugeries, you name it - on fully conscious unasthesized babies. After all, they couldn't talk....
Does anyone see where I'm going with that?*
I follow what your saying...

BUT! I'm going out on a limb on this discussion here...I personally DO feel that animals are "lesser" beings.

Let me explain....

While I do what some call ridiculous ammounts of work with animal rescues, and I go above and beyond for my pets in my home....they NEVER come BEFORE my daughter. They aren't EQUAL to my daughter. They are a VERY VERY VERY close second but they are not equal.

I think that we as humans are given a role of stewarship over the land and animals we live with. We are to respect, care for, love, and honor them without a doubt....however, they are under our care, for us to make choices over and for.

Another human (i.e. the Holocaust example) is my equal. The chicken that I will raise to eat later is not. My child will grow to BECOME my equal. The pig I raise to eat will never be my equal. I'm not meaning to negate things like pain and suffering...those are universal, and those are why we as humans were given empathy and compassion.


----------



## TiredX2

I do see where you are going with that. I had thought about these issues before, but the information I have learned in the past month or so has really changed how I feel a lot. Because it is so recent, though, my feelings/beliefs are still changing on a daily basis.

Quote:

But....... is there really a "gage" with which we can chart suffering? Suffering is suffering, IMO. I mean, is the suffering of the Jews, for example, ten times worse than the suffering of the Native Americans? Is the suffering of the NAs ten times worse than the suffering of factory farmed animals? Isn't compassion compassion, and suffering suffering, no matter who or what is suffering?
No. BUT... lets say (hypothetically) that animals for human consumption were treated nicely, given the food that is best for them, good care, lots of tender treatment, freedom to walk where they wanted (within "reason"), etc... and then were somehow suddenly painlessly killed. Would that be suffering? I just don't know. Do they have the ability to see whats coming, per se? Or would they just have had a fairly coddled life. No famine, no rampant disease, etc... in exchange for being eaten at the end of their lives.

In some ways, I don't really care what happens to my body when I am dead. BUT, I also don't want someone to just jump me in the prime of my life, murder me and then eat me. KWIM?


----------



## mamabeard

Quote:

I also don't want someone to just jump me in the prime of my life, murder me and then eat me. KWIM?
i'm sure, given the choice, no animal would want that either. isn't that enough? i just don't see how a meal is more important than a life.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

i'm sure, given the choice, no animal would want that either. isn't that enough? i just don't see how a meal is more important than a life.
*That* is exactly what I am struggling with right now. Do animals have the level of intelligence necessary to not want that. I mean, if there was no pain, no fear does that count as suffering? Is it enough of a pay off for cutting their life short that they lived "better" than they would have in the wild (help with injuries/illness, ample food & water, shelter etc... this is all hypothetical of course)? Do animals have an actual interest in living as long as possible? I know some form social groups--- I assume they miss and grieve for their loved ones? Is this true? If one cow is slaughtered do the others grieve? Have *their* well being been lessened because of the death?

Mostly thinking out loud here!

Kay


----------



## kama'aina mama

Free Range defeinition, in terms of chickens: In does not mean they are roaming around in a pen waitig for the farmwife to come out with an apron full of corn. They have a 12 inch square pen to live in. The biggest difference... the really crucial one, is that they are all on the ground. In factory production (of both eggs and chickens) the birds are in high-rise cages... generally at least a dozen cages high often more. So one birds toilet is the downstairs birds food tray... and so on to the 10th degree or more.


----------



## TiredX2

Kama'aina mama--- LOVE your sig!









That is really depressing about the free range definition. The picture on the box looks really idylic







: I guess I'll need to do some more research. The thing is, there is just no way my family is going vegan, so I'm trying to do the best I can with what I have to work with (DH & DS would prefer a completely carniverous lifestyle).


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by kama'aina mama_
*Free Range defeinition, in terms of chickens: In does not mean they are roaming around in a pen waitig for the farmwife to come out with an apron full of corn. They have a 12 inch square pen to live in. The biggest difference... the really crucial one, is that they are all on the ground. In factory production (of both eggs and chickens) the birds are in high-rise cages... generally at least a dozen cages high often more. So one birds toilet is the downstairs birds food tray... and so on to the 10th degree or more.*
Just a note:
IF you buy your meat locally, often times you can go check out what farms provide meat to your store or co-op or farmers market. Most good reputable organic free range farms I've seen are more than happy to offer tours. We've been to three in our area and I was impressed with what I saw. If you wonder, go get the info yourself!


----------



## TiredX2

Okay, here are pictures of "our" chickens, LOL:

http://www.wilcoxfarms.com/prod12.html

I'm doing more research. I'd love to take the kids to see where their milk, eggs & meat come from. We just have to find good places!


----------



## kama'aina mama

The other question to ask is where / how the birds are processed. If they are raised free range and then killed and processed in the Tyson plant you have just trotted your nice, moderately hygenic bird thru a disease factory... ya know?


----------



## TiredX2

Ick! Good point. Right now, though, I am not eating any meat (and DD doesn't either). I'm just buying our meat at Whole Foods for now until we can find a local place to just go and pick it up from. Since we live in WA in won't be impossible

Kay


----------



## pumpkinhead

candiland,

YEs, you make a valid point. Suffering is suffering. The point I was trying to make was that eating meat is not about hate! Farming animals for food is pretty much about money, not hate and discrimination and racism.

I have visited the local farms where my family obtains our meat. It is MO that these animals are not suffering prior to their quick and relatively painfree death.

mamabeard

Quote:

i'm sure, given the choice, no animal would want that either. isn't that enough? i just don't see how a meal is more important than a life.
You also make a valid point. However, in nature, most animals aren't given a choice. Prey animals become meals to predators whether they like it or not and their deaths are very seldom quick and pain free. This is as nature intended. Lesser animals, in terms of the food chain, are consumed by higher predators. It's the circle of life. Humans are just as much a part of this circle as any other animal.

Every life should be respected, I agree, but I don't believe that this rules out the consumption of animals. Left without any natural predators, animal populations explode causing widespread damage and the wiping out of other, weaker species competeing for resources. Humans have shown us this time and time again by our messing with this delicate balance thru overhunting, overfishing and the destructive chemicals we produce on a daily basis and the introduction of foriegn species.

The bottom line is that prey animals are meant to be prey for a predator. Wolf, human, lion, tiger, all predators.


----------



## TiredX2

And I can't help but compare the life of a cow in a *hypothetical farm* that has all its needs taken care of to one in India that is respected, yes, but walks around starving with tuberculosis. Is *that* really more humane. I have to stop and think--- would I rather have a shorter life where I am healthy, fed, sheltered, etc... or a *possibly* longer life where I may starve, die of injury, etc...? What would an animal prefer? I really don't know.


----------



## Snowy Owl

I have found this dialogue interesting, this speculation on the morality of taking the life of an animal for your own food. There is also the matter of medical/scientific research, which I believe causes far more suffering to these creatures but is on a smaller scale. With the food issue, the consumer has a certain amount of choice in supporting or not supporting certain industries. But even if we could, would we want to stop experimenting on animals when it supposedly benefits us?
I don't know if it is actually beneficial or not, or if it matters. Just another issue to throw into the mix.


----------



## Meiri

I think when it comes to medical research, if the research is actually relevent and able to be applied to humans, then it is okay.

The product research where "when we applied product y at 100x the normal concentration to the rabbit's eyes, they were damaged." type stuff is crap. Well duh! poisons and acids and alkalies and whatever chemicals cause harm and at higher concentrations they cause more harm. We need research to tell us this??? I don't think so. That's just sadism masquerading as science.

When I think of relevent medical research I think in terms of how diabetic mice respond to different forms of treatment, that kind of thing. The mice aren't suffering as such, are cared for, etc.
I see a difference.

As for the food issue. Something dies Everytime Any creature eats. Vegetarian, herbivore, or not. The only alternative is to starve oneself, and that's not an alternative IMO.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:

There is also the matter of medical/scientific research, which I believe causes far more suffering to these creatures but is on a smaller scale. With the food issue, the consumer has a certain amount of choice in supporting or not supporting certain industries. But even if we could, would we want to stop experimenting on animals when it supposedly benefits us?
Right now I am concentrating on improving the "humanity" of my food sources. Next, I will jump on the shampoo/soap bandwagon and start using things that are NOT tested on animals. I don't use cosmetics.

Medical research I see as different, but there is still a lot of "crap" research out there than produces nothing but suffering. IMO, there needs to be stricter standards. But, that is also something I am not "into" right now







:


----------



## Snowy Owl

They raise animals for organs for human transplants. Pigs I think, and apes.
Most agree that this is acceptable, but most also agree that it is not acceptable to grow humans or human parts for this kind of use. A bit of a tangent, maybe, but I wonder why one seems so wrong and not the other.

What a weird age we live in.
We need a prophet to come down and lay out some commandments for the ethical treatment of our fellow creatures.

Or maybe the Golden Rule DOES still apply?








:


----------



## pumpkinhead

Xenotransplantation and medical research are completely different subjects. I have conducted medical research and I can tell you that any lab that does valid research and is worth it's salt complies with the current regulations concerning the ethical treatment of its subject animal. That said, there is a WHOLE whack of super invasive testing done on animals, esp in the field of cancer, MS, and spinal cord research (to name a few). But again a whole 'nother discussion, albeit an interesting one.

As for Xenotransplantation, do we not use the organs from our own speies for transplantation? These people must a have a beating heart in order to qualify as a donor. Is this ethical? Again, COMPLETELY different discussion.

Back OT

Quote:

As for the food issue. Something dies Everytime Any creature eats. Vegetarian, herbivore, or not. The only alternative is to starve oneself, and that's not an alternative IMO.
Well put! WE each have to draw our own lines, draw our own conclusions and live with the choices we make.

ETA: In the case of Xenotransplantation, they current do not raise animals to any great degree for this process. It is still in the experimental phase. I'm pretty sure they've yet to have had a completely successful transplant. The whole major histocompatability complex (MHC) is still giving them grief, I think.


----------



## candiland

A friend of mine did a ton of research about animal experimentation at one time..........
She found that the vast majority of animal experimentation was done to get the laboratory more $$$. Does anyone know anything about this???
Oh, and OT, but....
I watched this show where they impregnated a cow with some almost-extinct mammal. When they were "done" with the cow, they put it in this metal pen where it couldn't move and simply cut the animal out of its stomach. The cow was flailing around, making horrible, sickly mooing sounds, trying to escape the pain. I guess the scientists didn't want medications interfering with the birth of their project







: uke


----------



## Snowy Owl

You saw this on television, candiland?
Holy cow!
OOOPS...wrong choice of words.
That is sickening.
How could anyone be so detached from the suffering they are inflicting on another creature? And what purpose does such research serve?
Yuck.


----------



## Bladestar5

Yuck! That is cruel.


----------



## spatulagirl

I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

Do I think it is realistic for the entire world to go veggie and let all the eaten animals go free? No. But I do wish that more people raised and killed what they needed. I wish more people participated in the actual killing of the animals they eat because they might eat less, go veg or try to think of more humane ways of doing it. I applaud those who raise and slaughter their own animals, not because I agree with it or do it myself as a vegetarian, but because it is at least taking a very active interest in ensuring animal WELFARE. A slaughter house is not a fun place. A chicken factory is not a fun place. And to say you eat meat and kill animals BUT are an animal rights activist because you help safe abandoned pets doesn't sit well with me.

Now if you were to say you believed in animal conservation and the humane treatment of animals AND ate meat that would sit a little better. I understand what Oatmeal was trying to say, she just is very passionate about what she believes in and maybe it came out more heated than she wanted it too.

I myself can't distinguish the difference between a cow and a kitten. I can't look at a kitten and say "oh cuteness come home with me" and then look at a calf/cow and say "damn you are going to be a great burger!" Hence my vegetarianism. It doesn't work that way for everyone. My father loves meat. he thinks I am going to die young because I don't eat it.







: But I also consider him an animal conservationist who respects animals and the fact that they give their lives so that he can have steak. I would rather see the cow living on the farm I hope to have some day doing nothing but hanging out chewing cud... maybe giving me some nice organic raw humane milk.

Can you care about animals and still eat meat. Sure. But it is selective (unless you treat every animal you come across with love and still eat it in the end!) respect and some animals have more rights than others. To me that is a bit like saying certain groups of people should have more rights than others. i know some people who would agree and some who would disagree. Truthfully I think its great I can get eggs from chickens and companionship from a dog and cuddles from a cat and milk from a cow. But I can't justify choosing between them and killing some and not killing others. I do wish meat eaters put more thought into where they get their meat and how the animals/birds are raised. It is very very nice to read here that many families do just that. It may not be the solution I (or many others) really want but it sure is better than the alternative!

[bold]OT[/bold]

Quote:

OT & So not funny... I remember reading that Tori Spelling (of 90210 fame) really did do this. Fed her baby soy formula from birth because she did not want to abuse any animals--- including herself, to feed her child
as a huge 90210 fan just need to clear this up







Tori Spelling has no kids so it wasn't her. Jenni Garth has two kids with her husband. She is a vegetarian and has a farm (or used to anyway back in the day) she kept rescued animals. However I think this is a weird rumour because she breastfed both her kids. There were stories about her breasts leaking while filming 90210!


----------



## flutemandolin

I do not agree that the selection of certain animals for food necessarily means that some animals have more "rights" than others. In the natural world that would mean that animals poorly equipped to escape predators have fewer "rights" than ones with more effective defense mechanisms.

I believe that the concept of rights is a human invention that humans project onto other beings. I don't deny that animals think, communicate, or feel pain, and that humans should treat them with consideration and respect, but do animals have any ability to comprehend the idea of rights? And if they don't, is it our duty as humans to extend our human belief in rights to animals? I think that is the philosophical stumbling block that causes such division between people who support animal rights and those who don't. I do not claim to support the "rights" of animals; I only support what we as humans can do to ensure the welfare of the ecosystem as well as the individual animals we interact with.

I do agree, spatulagirl, that people tend to be selective about the rights that they bestow on animals, if they acknowledge that such rights exist. It would be next to impossible to be completely unselective.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by spatulagirl_
*I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

!*
I think you're way off.

In this thread, I don't think anyone has said that at all. And, personally, in my life I know FAR more people who are MILITANT vegetarians or vegans and don't do a darn thing about pet over population or animal extinction issues. I find my hippy friends to be more "selective animal rights" people because they just have no interest in animals other than saving the farm ones from being eaten.


----------



## candiland

About the predator/food chain thing....
I got to thinking about this. I think one of the things that distinguishes humans from other predators is our ability to have compassion for other living things. We also have the ability to think things through and rationalize logical consequences of our actions. For example, some male animals will fight to the death over the control of a herd. But (most!) male humans have the ability to rationalize things and do not stoop to this "predator"/instinctual way of thinking. So what is the difference between predators fighting and killing one another and hunting for meat? If a predator's instinct is to fight to the death in certain instances, does that mean we should allow our predator instincts to do this, as well? Where do you draw the line with this argument? It's okay to use the predator argument to eat meat, but not okay to use the predator argument to do "unhumanly" and "uncompassionate" things....
I'm not arguing..... I'm just thinking out loud, and would love everyone's input on this.....
Sorry if I'm not making much sense


----------



## pumpkinhead

Quote:

*But (most!) male humans have the ability to rationalize things and do not stoop to this "predator"/instinctual way of thinking. So what is the difference between predators fighting and killing one another and hunting for meat?*
candiland,

While you do make an interesting point, I think you're missing the fact that this 'fight to the death' mentality isn't exclusive to predators. Prey animals do this as well (i.e. sea turtles competeing for the right to mate, Elks and Moose in rut). This behaviour isn't in any way related to food. It's mostly, if not purely, a territorial thing.








T slightly: And incidentally, I think we humans still retain a bit of this instinct. If a Black bear or some other animal threatened the life of my child, I can guarentee you that, if it came down to it, I'd fight to the death as well!


----------



## curlygrrl

This is a tough one for me. I care a lot about animals, I don't go to the circus because the way they treat elephants is deplorable, i don't think tigers (for example) should be kept as pets, I think everyone should spay and neuter their pets. I think everyone should adopt their pets instead of buying from breeders. (just a couple examples)

But I do eat meat. Does that mean I have no business to care about animals or advocate for responsible treatment of pets and wild animals in captivity? I hope not.

This is a very thought prokoking thread! Thanks for your interesting replies!

Tamara


----------



## Wildcrafter

I am against all animal testing. I also am a meat eater who buys organic meat and my dh hunts deer and fishes. I personally feel that meat is necessary in my diet. But I don't think it is necessary for everybody. I believe the animal fat is important especially in cold climates.

I truly support those that want to be vegetarians and I understand their reasoning. But in a way I find it odd that a species that needs an animal product to survive when young(breastmilk) can then go without animal products the rest of their life.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by spatulagirl_
*I am coming to this discussion a little late...

But I find it interesting that people who talk about being huge animal rights activists AND eat meat only fight for certain animal rights, such as those whom we tend to keep as pets. Puppies are cute and deserve not to be eaten. Cows smell bad and make great burgers. We should be honest and call it "selective animal rights" because it really isn't for all animals.

Do I think it is realistic for the entire world to go veggie and let all the eaten animals go free? No. But I do wish that more people raised and killed what they needed. I wish more people participated in the actual killing of the animals they eat because they might eat less, go veg or try to think of more humane ways of doing it. I applaud those who raise and slaughter their own animals, not because I agree with it or do it myself as a vegetarian, but because it is at least taking a very active interest in ensuring animal WELFARE. A slaughter house is not a fun place. A chicken factory is not a fun place. And to say you eat meat and kill animals BUT are an animal rights activist because you help safe abandoned pets doesn't sit well with me.

Now if you were to say you believed in animal conservation and the humane treatment of animals AND ate meat that would sit a little better. I understand what Oatmeal was trying to say, she just is very passionate about what she believes in and maybe it came out more heated than she wanted it too.

I myself can't distinguish the difference between a cow and a kitten. I can't look at a kitten and say "oh cuteness come home with me" and then look at a calf/cow and say "damn you are going to be a great burger!" Hence my vegetarianism. It doesn't work that way for everyone. My father loves meat. he thinks I am going to die young because I don't eat it.







: But I also consider him an animal conservationist who respects animals and the fact that they give their lives so that he can have steak. I would rather see the cow living on the farm I hope to have some day doing nothing but hanging out chewing cud... maybe giving me some nice organic raw humane milk.

Can you care about animals and still eat meat. Sure. But it is selective (unless you treat every animal you come across with love and still eat it in the end!) respect and some animals have more rights than others. To me that is a bit like saying certain groups of people should have more rights than others. i know some people who would agree and some who would disagree. Truthfully I think its great I can get eggs from chickens and companionship from a dog and cuddles from a cat and milk from a cow. But I can't justify choosing between them and killing some and not killing others. I do wish meat eaters put more thought into where they get their meat and how the animals/birds are raised. It is very very nice to read here that many families do just that. It may not be the solution I (or many others) really want but it sure is better than the alternative!

*
























you hit this one right on the head....


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Wildcrafter_
*But in a way I find it odd that a species that needs an animal product to survive when young(breastmilk) can then go without animal products the rest of their life.*
All herbivore mammals are fine with nursing as infants and going without any animal products for the rest of their lives. An obvious point, but someone had to make it.


----------



## spatulagirl

anothermama

Quote:

I think you're way off.

In this thread, I don't think anyone has said that at all. And, personally, in my life I know FAR more people who are MILITANT vegetarians or vegans and don't do a darn thing about pet over population or animal extinction issues. I find my hippy friends to be more "selective animal rights" people because they just have no interest in animals other than saving the farm ones from being eaten.
I don't think that I am way off. Maybe it wasn't said out and out but it was implied when people say that they consider themselves to be animal rights activists because they volunteer at pet shelters or drive hundreds of miles to bring a cat or dog or bunny to its new forever home, just hours away from it being killed. So they save one animal from being killed and then go home and tuck into a juicy burger.

Maybe we all can say we believe in selective animal rights. Maybe some of us care about more animals than others, and they are hardcore vegans who fight for every animal right they come across. Maybe only those people are TRUE animal rights activists. Those very same people might say I am not because I eat dairy and eggs from a local farmer. Who can say?

I don't think that just because your hippy friends don't do their best to fight animal extinction and pet over population means they aren't animal rights activists. Maybe they are and just trying to fight for issues close to home. Maybe they care very passionately about that one issue.

If you are telling me you think you are more of an animal rights activist because you fight against animal extinction and pet overpopulation then I would disagree. I would call you an animal conservationist. Like Bob Barker or my father. Nothing wrong with this! Just like I said in my previous post, meat eaters should be concerned about animals and I am glad that there are some that do! Like yourself, Bob Barker and my father


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by spatulagirl_
*anothermama

I don't think that I am way off. Maybe it wasn't said out and out but it was implied when people say that they consider themselves to be animal rights activists because they volunteer at pet shelters or drive hundreds of miles to bring a cat or dog or bunny to its new forever home, just hours away from it being killed. So they save one animal from being killed and then go home and tuck into a juicy burger.

Maybe we all can say we believe in selective animal rights. Maybe some of us care about more animals than others, and they are hardcore vegans who fight for every animal right they come across. Maybe only those people are TRUE animal rights activists. Those very same people might say I am not because I eat dairy and eggs from a local farmer. Who can say?

*
Ok...let me rephrase...
You ARE way off.










I am one of those people you speak of. And I changed the semantics of what I said to say that I am an animal welfare activist, and, yes I eat meat. And I don't think that negates anything.

I've mentioned in another post that I don't belive that animals are *equal* to humans, but I think all deserve humane treatment as best as we humans can provide.

I actively advocate for better conditions for farm animals that I will eat.

I actively advocate for environmental issues to protect wildlife.

I actively advocate for issues dealing with pet overpopulation.

Eating meat doesn't mean I'm NOT an animal welfare activist.

A previous poster mentioned the sematics and said that "rights" really have to do with having rights and, to a degree, equality. And I don't agree that animals have the SAME rights as humans and need EQUALITY with humans. So if thats what you mean, then you'd be right. But because someone works for pet rescue and then comes home to a chicken dinner doesn't mean they are hypocritical or not fully informed or not on the WHOLE bandwagon. You can advocate for animals and still be a meat eater and it doesn't negate a thing.


----------



## pumpkinhead

Quote:

You can advocate for animals and still be a meat eater and it doesn't negate a thing.
What she said.


----------



## mamabeard

it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT







, but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.

i am with the poster who said she cannot distinctualize between a cow and a kitten. i spent a day in a field with cows when i was 16 (shortly before becoming veg) and they are beautiful, calm, compassionate beings. that day completely changed me.

to me this is a question of rights, but maybe more about humans' (humen's? heh, no..) rights than animals'.. i mean, WHY do we feel we have the right to make life or death decisions for anyone else?

given that 1) we don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive and 2) they may or may not (we don't know!) be sentient and conscious enough that if they could, they would tell us to f*** off, i want to raise my family and be left alone.. i think we can argue that we shouldn't have that right. because rights should be based solely on needs, and should only exist if they cause no harm to others.


----------



## shantimama

"We don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive."

Would you care to explain this to the Inuit people? How about demonstrating to them where they should be growing their lentils and leafy greens in the Arctic. How will they survive without animal skins to keep warm and the meat of animals and fish to feed themselves? I guess it is possible now, if they ship in artificial, non-local fibres for their clothing and transport all of their food at enormous expense. Is that what you would suggest? Earlier on in this discussion I raised the point that we live on a large planet with incredible diversity in climate and living conditions. One diet does not fit all!! Many societies have historically been vegetarian and thrived and others have been omnivores and thrived. A vegetarian diet for people living in the polar regions makes about as much sense as a diet of seal meat and whale blubber in the Equatorial region.

If I don't have the right to ever kill and eat an animal then I expect my right, as a sentinent being, to the same will be mutually respected wherever I go. Mosquitoes do not have my permission to use my blood, no animal in the wilderness has any right to attack or consume me if it is hungry and I am there.

Let's not forget the bigger picture of the world we live in.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT







, but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.
*
It's not really confusing...as I am not confused by vegetarians who do not advocate for the rights of dogs and cats at the pound or baby seals or who wear leather shoes.

Also, this really isn't about cows not being as 'cute' as cats or dogs. That's not why they are eaten. I love cows too, think they are beautiful, and also make the choice to eat small amounts of beef on occasion. You can argue that meat consumption has become a terrible problem in our culure, it really has and it's deplorable, but once again, what is right for some is not right for everyone.
It is annoying when meat eaters try to convince vegetarians that they need meat to be healthy, and it is annoying when vegetarians try to convince meat eaters that meat is unhealthy or morally wrong.


----------



## CanOBeans

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*given that 1) we don't need dead animals in our bodies to survive*
True, we may not need them to survive, but we almost certainly need them to thrive and be optimally healthy.


----------



## candiland

CanOBeans,
I highly, highly recommend the book "Diet for a New America". Only those peoples who live in very cold weather year round truly benefit from the consumption of meats and dairy products. And even then, they die much, much younger than those peoples who live on a primarily veggie or vegan diet.
Protein is a myth. During the Irish potato famine, many studies were done regarding the health of the population. While they were very deficient in many areas, they were NOT protein deficient. Potatoes, beans, rice.... it all contains lots of good, healthy protein. And iron.... any dark green leafies provide plenty of iron. Actually, spinach provides more iron per serving than red meat!
sorry, I spent a long time researching all this stuff and I had to clear that up


----------



## pumpkinhead

candiland,








T I'd be interested in seeing these studies you're talking about w/ regard to the 'Irish Potato Famine'.

Incidentally, the way you're referring to it, it sounds as if you think that 'potato famine' means that all they had to eat were potatoes. On the contray! It means the blight hit all of their potato crops and there WEREN'T any potatoes to eat. They actually didn't really have much of anything to eat and certianly not rice, which would have had to have been imported. I'm not sure on the beans....

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~eas5e/Irish/Famine.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just a little confused (which isn't that unusual for me







)


----------



## layla

My children and I are all vegetarians and my husband is the lone meat eater. We are vegetarians (well, they are because I am and my husband thinks it's the right thing to do) for philosophical reasons, but there are nutritional aspects to it too. I cook meat for my husband and for holidays and stuff, but their birthday parties are always meat/dairy free. We feel they should be able to indulge in anything offered at their own celebration. People make a much bigger deal of us not eating meat than me of them eating it. I could care less what anyone else eats, but people seem to always take issue with my eating choices. Oh, and btw, my hubby would be the first one to rescue an abused or abandoned animal, or to speak up loud and clear to someone not treating an animal well in his presence. But, he chooses to eat meat. None of it seems very consistant, but that's how we live.


----------



## pumpkinhead

P.S. Cows are A LOT of things i.e. beautiful, cute, calm (sometimes) but compassionate isn't one of those things. Well, let me add this caveat: Cows are like hummans in that not ALL of them are compassionate.

Also, I wantd to add that the reason most Inuit do not live (or did not live) to ripe old ages is not due to their diet, but rather due to their harsh lifestyle, subjected to the elements, hard labour etc. Studies have shown that their cholesterol levels are some of the healthiest world wide. Propb due to the fact that most eat virtually no processed foods.


----------



## CanOBeans

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*CanOBeans,
I highly, highly recommend the book "Diet for a New America". Only those peoples who live in very cold weather year round truly benefit from the consumption of meats and dairy products. And even then, they die much, much younger than those peoples who live on a primarily veggie or vegan diet.
Protein is a myth. During the Irish potato famine, many studies were done regarding the health of the population. While they were very deficient in many areas, they were NOT protein deficient. Potatoes, beans, rice.... it all contains lots of good, healthy protein. And iron.... any dark green leafies provide plenty of iron. Actually, spinach provides more iron per serving than red meat!
sorry, I spent a long time researching all this stuff and I had to clear that up







*
And I highly recommend that you keep researching! Spinach does not provide more iron than red meat -- the supposed high iron content of spinach was due to a misplaced decimal point. A 100g portion of spinach contains 2.1 mg of iron. A 90g portion of beef provides 2.4 mg of iron. Also, the iron in beef (and other animal products) is heme iron, more easily absorbed than the non-heme iron found in plant foods.

I have read Diet for a Small Planet, have the cookbook as well. Came very close to going vegetarian myself. Here are some links to get you started in unlearning what you've learned about nutrition:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html "Historical evidence shows that Man can live healthily on diets which vary enormously in their content. However, it also tells us that, generally, the further one gets from a diet which includes animal products, the greater is the risk of ill health."

Also from that article: "Comparisons of the health and longevity of cultures with different dietary habits confirms that meat eaters, such as Eskimos, Nagas and Maasai, can expect to live twice as long as primitive vegetarians. It may be said that such a comparison is flawed because the situations in which these peoples live is very different but there are cases throughout the world where meaningful comparisons can be made.

In Kenya two tribes, the Maasai and the Kikuyu, live in the same country, the same climate, the same political system and the same environment. The Maasai, when wholly carnivorous, drinking only the blood and milk of their cattle, were tall, healthy, long-lived and slim. The Kikuyu, when wholly vegetarian, were stunted, diseased, short-lived and pot-bellied. Over the last few decades, the Kikuyu have started to eat meat - and their health has improved. Since 1960 the Maasai diet has also changed, but in the opposite direction. They are now eating less blood, milk and meat, replacing it with maize and beans. Their health has deteriorated (34) ."

http://www.mercola.com/article/Diet/index.htm -- a site often cited here at MDC. Several interesting articles.

http://www.beyondveg.com/cat/frank-talk/index.shtml "Setting the Scientific Record Straight on Humanity's Evolutionary Prehistoric Diet and Ape Diets.
With the ever-accumulating scientific data of recent years about human dietary evolution, the vegetarian picture of a prehistoric Garden of Eden has become hopelessly outdated. So has the "comparative anatomy" argument for vegetarianism, which is no longer supportable given the advent of modern field studies on apes. And the ape studies are themselves increasingly moot where human diet is concerned, given the availability of the direct evolutionary data now available on early human diet. In looking at these two areas of the scientific evidence, this thoroughly documented discussion also explores the differences between Natural Hygiene's essentially "subjective" model for dietary "naturalism" vs. the "functional" model of science based on evolutionary evidence." Here is the main link to the Beyond Vegetarianism site. www.beyondveg.com -- well worth a look.

The above links plus many, many more can be found at http://www.panix.com/~paleodiet/#indsites

Food for thought.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT







, but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.

i am with the poster who said she cannot distinctualize between a cow and a kitten. i spent a day in a field with cows when i was 16 (shortly before becoming veg) and they are beautiful, calm, compassionate beings. that day completely changed me.

to me this is a question of rights, but maybe more about humans' (humen's? heh, no..) rights than animals'.. i mean, WHY do we feel we have the right to make life or death decisions for anyone else?
.*

If your talking about rights, and what the animal would ideally like (not to be eaten) then keeping pets AT ALL doesn't make sense either....my dog would rather I never leash him and let him wander the streets all night.

I don't believe animals are our equals. We take care of them the best we can for the purpose we use them for. I take care of my pets, I take care of the environment, I take care in the selection of my meat. All the same premise.

Side note: for me personally, an animal is an animal is an animal. I"d keep a pet chicken if I could today (I did as a kid and LOVED her to death....) and it wouldn't change the fact that I'd eat a chicken as well. In my dream world, I'd have a huge farm to house a rescue for dogs and cats, keep a couple sheep and chickens and horses as pets....and probably raise my own chickens to eat.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by pumpkinhead_
*candiland,








T I'd be interested in seeing these studies you're talking about w/ regard to the 'Irish Potato Famine'.

Incidentally, the way you're referring to it, it sounds as if you think that 'potato famine' means that all they had to eat were potatoes. On the contray! It means the blight hit all of their potato crops and there WEREN'T any potatoes to eat. They actually didn't really have much of anything to eat and certianly not rice, which would have had to have been imported. I'm not sure on the beans....

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~eas5e/Irish/Famine.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just a little confused (which isn't that unusual for me







)*
Agreed........having spent a great deal of time in Ireland and studying The Famine...I don't get it.


----------



## MamaSoleil

:

Stepping in.
I read the whole thread.
Many good points.
I agree with Shantimama:

Quote:

Would you care to explain this to the Inuit people? How about demonstrating to them where they should be growing their lentils and leafy greens in the Arctic. How will they survive without animal skins to keep warm and the meat of animals and fish to feed themselves? I guess it is possible now, if they ship in artificial, non-local fibres for their clothing and transport all of their food at enormous expense. Is that what you would suggest? Earlier on in this discussion I raised the point that we live on a large planet with incredible diversity in climate and living conditions. One diet does not fit all!! Many societies have historically been vegetarian and thrived and others have been omnivores and thrived. A vegetarian diet for people living in the polar regions makes about as much sense as a diet of seal meat and whale blubber in the Equatorial region.


----------



## mamabeard

well, to each their own, i guess.. i certainly didn't intend to 'annoy' anyone with my pov.

as for inuit needing meat to survive. i suppose that's the way it is. i also suppose being a cannibal _could_ be acceptable to an inuit (or anyone for that matter) lost in the arctic with no prey in sight. that doesn't mean that i should dig into my fellow human here in north america, if i feel so inclined. or does it









i didn't intend to pass judgement. i am just giving my reasons, i guess. you can bet if i was, say, sitting in a field with a guy about to kill a chicken, and he had a big plate of hummous and tortillas sitting beside him, i'd do everything i could to save the chicken. to me it's more about the chicken than about passing judgement. kind of a lame analogy but i'm distracted here..

i think there were other points dircted at me, but my baby needs me.


----------



## candiland

The research I'm referring to I read in "Diet for a New America". I read it about six years ago, so I could be off..... but I don't think so. John Robbins quoted a lot of research done by unbiased groups, such as Harvard Med. Please go take a look. It's really an eye-opener.
Anyway, don't know why I'm pushing the veggie thing so much, as I am currently an omnivore







But, I guess I just can't justify my actions. I will readily admit to hypocrisy :LOL


----------



## MamaSoleil

(((Mamabeard))))

I wasn't directing anything at you!!!


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*well, to each their own, i guess.. i certainly didn't intend to 'annoy' anyone with my pov.

i didn't intend to pass judgement. i am just giving my reasons, i guess. you can bet if i was, say, sitting in a field with a guy about to kill a chicken, and he had a big plate of hummous and tortillas sitting beside him, i'd do everything i could to save the chicken. to me it's more about the chicken than about passing judgement. kind of a lame analogy but i'm distracted here..

i think there were other points dircted at me, but my baby needs me.*










NO sweat...you've brought up some really interesting and valid points.....and thats what all this fun is about!!!!!!!

*sigh* My baby is off with her dad today so....no one needs me tonight....







(well, the one in my tummy does but thats different)

And right now if I was sitting in a field with come hummous and tortillas I don't think a herd of buffalo could distract me before I ate it all first anyways..........

HHhhmmm....hummous.................


----------



## mamabeard

hey mamasoleil, i knew that!









and thanks, anothermama









it's my birthday and i'm soo tired and run down. had a crappy night last night, my babe is really fussy (i think he's teething), and my 4 yr old is clingy. ah well.

it is an interesting debate. and as these threads seem to go, no one seems to be able to change anyone's mind..

p.s. accidentally wrote 'carnivore' on my last post. but i meant 'cannibal'.. wouldn't make much sense otherwise :LOL


----------



## MamaSoleil

*HAPPY BIRTHDAY MAMABEARD!!!!!*


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by mamabeard_
*hey mamasoleil, i knew that!









and thanks, anothermama









it's my birthday and i'm soo tired and run down. had a crappy night last night, my babe is really fussy (i think he's teething), and my 4 yr old is clingy. ah well.

it is an interesting debate. and as these threads seem to go, no one seems to be able to change anyone's mind..

p.s. accidentally wrote 'carnivore' on my last post. but i meant 'cannibal'.. wouldn't make much sense otherwise :LOL*
I understand the clingy 4 year old bit...........

Theres *somethin'* for ya on TAO when you get a chance to peek. I hope everything gets better.......ugh...I AM NOT looking forward to teething again....


----------



## MamaSoleil

Yeah, anothermama and I had the same thought over on TAO....you've got two parties there!!!







:


----------



## spatulagirl

Quote:

But because someone works for pet rescue and then comes home to a chicken dinner doesn't mean they are hypocritical or not fully informed or not on the WHOLE bandwagon.
Never said they were! If you read through all my posts I said I think its great that you do what you do, or my dad or any meat eater who takes active interest in improving the life or welfare of animals. Whatever we can do, lets do it! I appreciate what you do, agree with you that you are a welfare activist. Read through all my posts. I am not attacking or saying anyone is bettwe than anyone else. Just explaining my thoughts and how I feel

But, I don't agree with treating some animals better than others or allowing some animals to live nice happy lives while other live short lives bred for slaughter. I just don't see the difference between these animals.

Quote:

Originally posted by mamabeard
it may not *negate* what you've done for other animals, but (to me!) it doesn't make sense.. helping and rescuing certain animals is GREAT , but turning around and willingly being a part of the suffering of other -select- animals confuses me.
This is what I am trying to say. I agree with mamabeard. It just confuses me!

BUT
I get confused by vegetarians who say they don't eat meat because of they way aniamls are treated and then wear leather shoes and treat animals like crap. These people confuse me as much as meats eaters who say they believe in animals rights.

anothermama, you think animals aren't equal to himans which explains why you think and feel the way you do. I just disagree, which should explain why I think and feel the way I do.

And I still say I am not WAY off. I just don't think you are getting what I am saying


----------



## morsan

Thanks to CanOBeans and Shantimama for proving their points so beautifully. We do need to think about the world in its entirity.

The Inuit would suffer (and have evidently) immensly from a diet high in carbs (such as a vegetarian diet). Their bodies are adpated to process protein into glucose (this I got from a book called "Human Adaptability" by Emilio Moran, an ecological anthropology study--anyone read it?). So, this goes to show that we are indeed very different and it doesn't matter whether we were originally herbivorous or not. It takes 50-60 generations for a group of people to adapt to a certain food--this is far more important to take into consideration.

Not only people living in extreme cold climates benefit from animal food. The prairies of the US for example are not at all fitted for growing crops (dust bowls), as well as alot of coastal regions. There's barren land south of the polar region.

So, because Americans and other industrialized people (who not only subsist on dairy but also LOTS of JUNK food) show a decreased life-span as well as increased rates of certain diseases, does that automatically go to show that dairy is responsible for this misery??!!? I'm just baffled at the reasonability of this sort of argument. Especially when considering the quality of the dairy consumed. I'm surprised that this argument is still used on MDC. Again, this proves so well how some people cannot think in terms of "the whole picture".

Another example of long-lived people subsisting on lots of (fatty) meat and whole dairy is the Soviet Georgians--very healthy people.

To tie this back to the OP, it's perfectly normal to eat meat and still care for animals. Why is this a concern for many veggie folk? Is it just bothersome?

Say we stopped raising and butchering animals. Would some start hunting more, to be able to get their meat (that they instinctively feel they need) or would they just go vegetarian? I know for a fact that I would start competing with other humans for the small supply (in comparison) of wild game. Isn't it difficult to fight against something that is human nature (eating meat)? Futility? Why not just accept it?


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by morsan_
*
Say we stopped raising and butchering animals. Would some start hunting more, to be able to get their meat (that they instinctively feel they need) or would they just go vegetarian? I know for a fact that I would start competing with other humans for the small supply (in comparison) of wild game. Isn't it difficult to fight against something that is human nature (eating meat)? Futility? Why not just accept it?*
I don't think eating meat is "human nature" at all. I think it is a socially accepted act, and one that is encouraged and propagandized politically, on every level. So it seems "natura" but that is only bc so many people accept it.

Lots of things *seem* to be "human nature" (ie, violence) but that does not mean that i will "just accept it."

yuch.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mona_
*I don't think eating meat is "human nature" at all. I think it is a socially accepted act, and one that is encouraged and propagandized politically, on every level. So it seems "natura" but that is only bc so many people accept it.

Lots of things *seem* to be "human nature" (ie, violence) but that does not mean that i will "just accept it."

yuch.








*
























violence = human nature!!!?? you REALLY think that???

I think it's human nature to eat meat because...when I stop eating meat, I crave it. For a long time. Until I get it again.

When was the last time any mental stable person had the CRAVING to beat the crap out of someone and it never went away?

Humans are built to eat meat. And it may be accurate that due to background and heritage, some people have evolved into less meat eaters or non meat eaters as a matter of nessecity for where they live. This makes sense to me. I grew up with a total white bread mom who fed us crap....and I'm half hispanic and the foods I crave the most are mexican foods. Maybe it's just in my genes.


----------



## Mona

No, I actually don't believe it is human nature to be violent, any more then i believe it is human nature to eat meat. The aburdity of the remark was my point.









According to what I've read, Human's are NOT meant to eat meat. But, I think what we are finding, is that there is research to back up both points of view. So this is an endless circle, but I will stand behind what i've read- that we are not meant to eat meat. I think that the research saying that we do need to eat meat is part of the propagana machine.

I would also say that the craving for meat that you had was a craving for a fat, vitamin or mineral that was missing from your diet, and couldn've been fulfilled in ways other then eating flesh.


----------



## arthead

Do certain people's body types need meat & some don't need meat?

i'm veg, my bf is a complete NON-veg & both of us stay very healthy


----------



## Mona

arthead, there is a theory that supports that, yes. Others say no.


----------



## arthead

eek, sorry, didn't notice how many pages had passed, just responded to the original post...
going back to read the whole thing now.. carry on then!


----------



## CanOBeans

Quote:

_Originally posted by Mona_
*According to what I've read, Human's are NOT meant to eat meat. But, I think what we are finding, is that there is research to back up both points of view. So this is an endless circle, but I will stand behind what i've read- that we are not meant to eat meat. I think that the research saying that we do need to eat meat is part of the propagana machine.*
I haven't found any reliable evidence to suggest that humans are not meant to eat meat. I would be happy to look at any references that make this claim.

Do you really think that 30,000 years ago, humans were eating meat for political reasons?


----------



## TingTing

Quote:

I haven't found any reliable evidence to suggest that humans are not meant to eat meat. I would be happy to look at any references that make this claim. Do you really think that 30,000 years ago, humans were eating meat for political reasons?
Actually, early humans subsisted on a diet that was overwhelmingly plant based. The notion of early man as primarily a hunter has been thoroughly debunked as patriarchal mythology. Though clearly humans, like any other species, will and have done whatever is necessary to survive, I don't think there's much of an argument for the nutritional necessity of meat in most of our diets presently. Case in point, in my country the inuits today have the worst rate of diet-related health problems (obesity, heart disease, etc.) in the population because they continue to eat a high-protein, meat centered diet even though their lives are not remotely as physically strenuous as they once were.


----------



## morsan

What else do these inuits eat? How do they get their meat?
So your point was that since we don't move around as much meat is not necessary?

Mona- do you ever trust that your body is telling you exactly what it needs? Do you trust that others have this instinct? It's beyond absurd to think that ALL humans eat meat because it's a socially accepted act...oh yeah, and because "it tastes good".
Back to my question, would people stop eating meat if a law was passed that no animals were to be kept in confinement for human consumption? Or do you think alot of folks would start hunting? Is there even a remote possibility that humans are going to convert into true vegans? As you know I argue that it's human nature to eat meat. The point is that many, many more people would agree with me. These people, if forced to back up their reasoning/taste buds with scientific data would choose the data supporting humans as natural meat-eaters/omnivores. I guess I'm trying to figure how vegans and "true" animal rights folks rationally hope for a meat-free future. And yes I know that many vegs out there do not hope to...

About violence not being human nature, well... I would disagree. Human nature does not in my opinion translate into a pattern that is consistent at all times. Violence is part of our nature when we are forced to take such action. We all live fairly cosy lives most of the time, not having to worry about possible predators and other dangers (such as incroachment on territory by other humans which would endanger food supply in harsher environments), so we're not in the position to draw any conclusions on human nature and violence solely based on our own specific cultural experiences. We need to stretch ourselves further into our human, biological core.

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?


----------



## Snowy Owl

I don't think anyone was saying humans used to be vegetarians, just that meat was not the basis of our diet, just a supplement, that hunting was far less important than gathering, as it were.

Anyway....


----------



## Meiri

Quote:

I don't think anyone was saying humans used to be vegetarians, just that meat was not the basis of our diet, just a supplement, *that hunting was far less important than gathering, as it were*.
_bold mine_

Actually what happens is that hunting and the acquiring of meat become more important in those cultures. The plant foods in season are common, eaten daily, and anyone can gather them, though it's usually the women who do so. Meat being more rare becomes more valuable, and thus a good hunter gains more status than an excellent gatherer, even though she may be providing more calories for more people than he is and on a regular basis.

We are a perverse species sometimes, aren't we?


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by Meiri_
*bold mine
Meat being more rare becomes more valuable, and thus a good hunter gains more status than an excellent gatherer, even though she may be providing more calories for more people than he is and on a regular basis.

We are a perverse species sometimes, aren't we?







*
Well, just taking many First Nations cultures for an example, although the hunting of meat in the men's culture was prized and important, the women's work was not considred unimportant, in fact the raising of children was given the highest priority. I don't really think anyone is saying otherwise, I just think that a peaceful harmonious society that hunts, eats meat, subsists largely on plants seems right and natural and that is the model I intuitively base my own eating habits on in our perverse society. Meat is an occasional treat that I send my husband out hunting for. He has a weakness for the local fresh italian fennel sausages, but I hate pork. Prefer wild salmon....mmmm...salmon..... some vegetarians eat fish, right? Well sometimes I like a nice juicy steak....

*disclaimer:
Above rambling post written by woman finally out of first trimester currently obsessed with food, thanks for your patience


----------



## cumulus

Hi:

If I remember correctly there's a wonderful NOVA special that showed long ago about the Pygmies of Africa. In a scene just after the men hunt and kill an animal they pause and quiety stare down it. The Pygmies believe that if you eat meat you lose your immortality. My feeling is something similar in that my soul dwindles to eat meat for mere taste. As a quiet activist I cannot eat meat, even if I thought it OK, as I am espousing an ideal and should fit that ideal. I cannot have people shoving my ideas aside because I had eaten meat. Also as there are some millions of animals used in experiments etc I thing there are over 7 billion animals slaugthered each year. To help animals out in general I feel it's necessary to help out the 7 billion that die to serve taste buds.


----------



## CanOBeans

Quote:

_Originally posted by TingTing_
*Actually, early humans subsisted on a diet that was overwhelmingly plant based. The notion of early man as primarily a hunter has been thoroughly debunked as patriarchal mythology. Though clearly humans, like any other species, will and have done whatever is necessary to survive, I don't think there's much of an argument for the nutritional necessity of meat in most of our diets presently.
*
Ummm, I asked for references. If you can provide some, great, I'd like to see them. To just say "it's been debunked" tells me nothing. I've seen NOTHING in any field that supports the idea that the human diet was overwhelmingly plant based. In fact, the idea is absurd, IMO.

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. My bias is still toward vegetarianism -- but more and more the evidence tells me otherwise. 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.


----------



## morsan

when you're all claiming that plant foods made up the great majority of our food supply in the beginning of humanity, what area of the world are we speaking of then? Was the world made up of the same elements where ever you went? I'm very confused...


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by CanOBeans_
*I haven't found any reliable evidence to suggest that humans are not meant to eat meat. I would be happy to look at any references that make this claim.

Do you really think that 30,000 years ago, humans were eating meat for political reasons?







*
When i decided to stop eating meat, i did a lot of research. From what I read, as a feminist and an environmentalist, I could not in good conscious, support the slaughter and pain of mass produced animal farms. For feminist links, read "The sexual polictics of meat" by carol adams. The environmental links are a no -brainer, and can be found on any vegan/environmental web site. While I was doing this research, and many times since, I came accross many arguements the claimed humans are not currently meant to be eating meat. I don't have these references at my finger tips now, but will be on the lookout for them and will pass them on if i do find them.

No, I think 30,000 years ago SOME people were eating meat to survive. Almost nobody does that today. Most do bc they can.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by morsan_
*What else do these inuits eat? How do they get their meat?
So your point was that since we don't move around as much meat is not necessary?*
Actually, no. Meat is not necessary. That's not too hard to find proof for.

QUOTE]_Originally posted by morsan_
*Mona- do you ever trust that your body is telling you exactly what it needs?* [/QUOTE]

http://www.rawfoodfocus.com/
This might help you understand what cravings are all about.

QUOTE]_Originally posted by morsan_
*Back to my question, would people stop eating meat if a law was passed that no animals were to be kept in confinement for human consumption?* [/QUOTE]

Damn straight. People are way too lazy and, well, incapable of causing pain to living creatures, to be honest. Most people would easily revert to a meat free diet. Easily.

QUOTE]_Originally posted by morsan_
*I guess I'm trying to figure how vegans and "true" animal rights folks rationally hope for a meat-free future. And yes I know that many vegs out there do not hope to...* [/QUOTE]

Is this so hard to envision? A world where factory farmed animals are not pushed down people's throats? If you are talking organic, free range and all that....I'm sure those would continue to be consumed.

QUOTE]_Originally posted by morsan_
*About violence not being human nature, well... I would disagree. Human nature does not in my opinion translate into a pattern that is consistent at all times. Violence is part of our nature when we are forced to take such action.* [/QUOTE]

if you are talking fight or flight, yes, biology does back that up.







This arguement can be bw you and morsan.

QUOTE]_Originally posted by morsan_
*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?* [/QUOTE]

Do the research, and you will find that meat products are the cause for many MANY diseases and illness. Doesn't sound healthy to me. I mean, you can't be serious, can you? :LOL


----------



## Mona

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

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?


----------



## TingTing

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.


----------



## 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.


----------



## anothermama

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.


----------



## candiland

Yes, but wouldn't/doesn't all that animal farming wreak havoc on the environment?
I'm just brainstorming here. Keep it comin'!


----------



## anothermama

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.


----------



## CanOBeans

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!


----------



## Mona

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

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....


----------



## morsan

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?


----------



## CanOBeans

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.


----------



## Mona

morsan, I am not going to sink to your level by responding to your post.


----------



## Snowy Owl

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?


----------



## TingTing

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.


----------



## Mona

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...


----------



## Snowy Owl

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?


----------



## candiland

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


----------



## Mona

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....


----------



## anothermama

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

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?


----------



## 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'.


----------



## Mona

see below
:LOL


----------



## Mona

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.


----------



## anothermama

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.


----------



## Mona

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


----------



## CanOBeans

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.


----------



## Snowy Owl

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

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.


----------



## anothermama

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.


----------



## morsan

I would suppose so Mona.
I guess you could say I wrote a "low" post in response to another "low" post. Perhaps by now you had some time to think that it isn't worth going into the "territory" that you did when replying so badly to my post.
"I mean you can't be serious, can you?" (laughing, jumping up and down).
I suppose you actually had nice intentions although I took it differently.
You overstepped the bounderies of a polite discussion. I don't see why you would intentionally try and ridicule someone else for the opinions that person holds...

TingTing--I'm not "against" vegetarians or vegans. It isn't personal. It's the way people argue for it, making it sound like it's the right thing for everyone, disregarding facts, anthropological studies, personal accounts etc. I was merely arguing some of the things you claimed. I think I might have misunderstood you somewhat. I got the notion you were saying that no human actually needs meat based on your freinds' reviews. Sorry.
I also do not argue that we turn we back to a hunting life-style. I don't know how you gathered that from what I asked about what would happen if it suddenly became illegal to keep farm animals. It was a matter of how far some people would go to get the meat they need.
I'm fairly realistic and don't see that we would go back to that life-style anytime soon, and definitely not by choice. However there are many advantages to this life-style, no doubt.

CanOBeans-- I like what you said about cows not naturally competing with plant cropping or the environment.
It's tiresome to see how people keep arguing against animal farming using only stats from factory farming which is clearly destructive in every way.

Lots of vegan activists eat non-organic food that obviously has contributed to killing off animal life, and destroying soil fertility. It's amazing how life is so circular and no matter how fast you're trying to run there are things you just can't escape.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by CanOBeans_
*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.*
I think the issue is that cutting down rainforest so that cows have food to eat is not good for the enviornment, and for the whole planet in general. The conflict, is that an overabundance of land is used to "raise" cows. True, some land is not suitable for crops. But that land might not be suitable for grasses for cows to eat upon either, i don't know.

Do we agree that if the land is suitable for crops, cows should not be utilizing it? Or am i reading too far into your arguement?


----------



## candiland

Okay, Anothermama first:
You stated exactly what I am trying to say. Some people will eat meat.... it is beyond the beyond to think that everyone will be veggie or vegan. I am simply stating the fact that we cannot support the massive amts. of meat and dairy consumed in the US without doing serious damage to the environment. Cow farms, hog farms and the like are *already* totally destroying our ecosystem. Any website on ecology would tell you so. We chop down thousands of acres of valuable rainforest every year to raise cattle, as is.
My point was: how do we manage to balance it all? Be a good steward of the earth by not poisoning our planet and causing undue suffering to animals while, at the same time, providing meat and dairy for the masses. The only logical conclusion to this would be: those of us that can cut down on - or cut out totally - meat and dairy consumption while advocating for cruelty-free farming methods, should. It would be a huge step forward in making our planet a better, cleaner, happier place to live.


----------



## anothermama

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Okay, Anothermama first:
You stated exactly what I am trying to say. Some people will eat meat.... it is beyond the beyond to think that everyone will be veggie or vegan. I am simply stating the fact that we cannot support the massive amts. of meat and dairy consumed in the US without doing serious damage to the environment. Cow farms, hog farms and the like are *already* totally destroying our ecosystem. Any website on ecology would tell you so. We chop down thousands of acres of valuable rainforest every year to raise cattle, as is.
My point was: how do we manage to balance it all? Be a good steward of the earth by not poisoning our planet and causing undue suffering to animals while, at the same time, providing meat and dairy for the masses. The only logical conclusion to this would be: those of us that can cut down on - or cut out totally - meat and dairy consumption while advocating for cruelty-free farming methods, should. It would be a huge step forward in making our planet a better, cleaner, happier place to live.*
Well your kinda right...









Yes, the best way is for those who CAN to DO.

The next step is to educate.....because education on responsible eating would likely lead to MORE people who would choose to cut down or eliminate meat from their diet.

BUT.....the thing that kills the environment is mass farming, the kind McDonalds gets THEIR beef from. I fully believe that it's possible to support the ammount of animals we'd need in a envorninmentally responsible way...it just doesn't make nearly the profit and thats why it isn't done. But I personally bet we have enough land in the US to let enough cows and pigs and sheep graze and not be a detriment to the earth. A few examples have already been pointed out in this thread of how that could be and has been done. The environmental issue would be a non issue if everyone was responsible about their meat eating, ate less if they could, and those who did eat a lot demanded better sources.

p.s.
I LOVE your new sig line....


----------



## candiland

I wonder if we could find that info. online re. the environmental impact of freerange animals. Yeah, we could. But I'm feeling too lazy right now!








Thanks for the compliment. First the full moon, then aunt flo....... I need a break from this emotional malestrom! Ack!
Hey...... I wonder if we can kill this thread? It's slowed down quite a bit.:LOL


----------



## Snowy Owl

Kill this thread? Then what would I do with all my extra popcorn?
Maybe it's time for a whole new thread for anyone who has an opinion about the rights of plants. I'm not being cheeky...has anyone read 'The Secret Life Of Plants' or anything else about the research done on plant sentience?
It's really interesting.... they hook houseplants up to these sensors and then measure the response they have to being mistreated. The plants react very strongly not only to people hurting them, but to people's INTENTIONS to hurt them. They seem to have a kind of intelligence that isn't localized in a central nervous system but that exisits holographically throughout the whole organism...

Umm, I would start a thread about it except that I'm sure it would be too wingy for most people to respond to so I'll just throw it in here. We are so focused on animal life because animals are like us and we understand them more, but I really think plants are equally worthy of such discussion. Not all plant-consumption involves killing them, as they specifically grow fruits, nuts and grains for us with no harm to them. What would this style of eating be called, I wonder.... totally death-free...


----------



## shantimama

Go for it, Snowy Owl - I for one would like to learn more and it would make for some interesting discussion!

Are you familiar with The Arrogant Worms' song "Carrot Juice Is Murder"?


----------



## flutemandolin

I swore off this thread a few days ago, thought it had run its course, but I had to come back for a peek....









On the subject of the environmental impacts of eating meat, I found this article on Grist magazine today: Low carb diets have a high impact on the planet
Snowy Owl, I just read about plant sentience in Derrick Jensen's book, _A Language Older Than Words_. Apparently the scientist who did the experiments is all but a pariah in the scientific world; it's just too way out for most people to accept, and the very nature of the scientific method makes his work impossible to replicate, thus accept scientifically. But Jensen's account of it is fascinating and believable. He also talks about interspecies communication among animals. I wish I had a copy of the book in front of me so I could quote passages; I recommend it highly.


----------



## Snowy Owl

Thanks for the recommendation. I don't think these things can really be proved because our methods are just too crude. Empathy is not very scientific.
The only thing I think it is fair to ask, really, is that we have empathy and humility for the creatures who give their lives for our food. We all come from the same place, and go to the same place, do we not?


----------



## candiland

Quote:

We all come from the same place, and go to the same place, do we not?
Uh-oh........... now you're gonna get us moved to Spirituality!:LOL

About the plant thing...... It's a well-documented fact that trees communicate with one another. I saw it on Discovery channel. I can't remember for the life of me what they communicate..... I want to say that if, for example, one tree gets some sort of tree disease it will communicate it to the others and then.........
oh, hell. It was fascinating, but now I can't remember:LOL My brains are being sucked through my boobies!


----------



## Snowy Owl

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Uh-oh........... now you're gonna get us moved to Spirituality!:LOL
*










oooo....sorry, I get so corny sometimes......


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by Snowy Owl_
*
The only thing I think it is fair to ask, really, is that we have empathy and humility for the creatures who give their lives for our food. We all come from the same place, and go to the same place, do we not?*
I aggree 100% percent!!!


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*My brains are being sucked through my boobies!*
i'm right there with you sister!!!


----------



## polka123

Quote:

Don't mess with an Aries redhead [/B]
I'm an Aries blonde & right there with ya sister !


----------



## candiland

Snowy Owl - I was joking! I don't think it's corny at all.
Ah, and a fellow Aries right here on this board..... can you feel the heat????:LOL
And I'm reassured to hear that I'm not the only one with a brain malfunction due to bf'ing. I'm pretty sure I have a couple of braincells left, 'cuz I can still type fine.......







:


----------



## polka123

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*And I'm reassured to hear that I'm not the only one with a brain malfunction due to bf'ing. I'm pretty sure I have a couple of braincells left, 'cuz I can still type fine.......







:*
count me in on the b/f'ing brain malfunction too


----------



## Fiona2

[The only thing I think it is fair to ask, really, is that we have empathy and humility for the creatures who give their lives for our food. ]

I find animals 'giving' their lives for food a bizarre concept. How can it be seen as a willing act? I don't think you can have respect for an animal, if ultimately you're going to kill it, or have it killed on your behalf.


----------



## Mona

Quote:

_Originally posted by Fiona2_
*[The only thing I think it is fair to ask, really, is that we have empathy and humility for the creatures who give their lives for our food. ]

I find animals 'giving' their lives for food a bizarre concept. How can it be seen as a willing act? I don't think you can have respect for an animal, if ultimately you're going to kill it, or have it killed on your behalf.*
finona2-- i agree w/ your point. no animal would willingly live a life of torture, IMO.
I thought that the original point by Snowy Owl was meant for eating plant based foods. I do consider plants to be creatures. Maybe i read too far into that?


----------



## Snowy Owl

To clear up any confusion, the debate about animal rights had kind of fizzled out, almost every point had been made, and I kind of went on a tangent about how thre is reason to believe that plant life has sentience (varying levels as there is varying levels of animal sentience). And I implied that people are only concerned with if it is 'right' to take the life of animals for food, but don't question the morality of taking the life of sentient plant life for food.
I came to the conclusion that IF your eating is going to take a life, whether plant or animal, have respect and humility.

I could also delve into the territory of profit-driven crop farming techniques that eradicate diversity, overuse pesticides, pillage the earth of it's nutrients and tamper with genetics. That is just as much a crime in a different way as factory farming. The suffering of animals, who are like us, is just easier to recognize and more immediately cruel.

Our main problem is that we generally lack a certain kind of vital intelligence called 'empathy', which is the source of many of the problems in the world. People are suffering terribly at the hands of others, as are animals and plants, as is the Earth which I believe to be sentient. Having respect for a life we take to feed our own is a start. Having a bit of humility would help us with our 'masters of the earth' ego-trip. I don't know, where DOES it start?
Yep, totally OT, we'll be moved to Spirituality any minute now.....

I apologize in advance to anyone I flaked out.


----------

