Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Being the rank speciesist that I am the owning of animals vs the owning of humans arguments are simply nonsense.
The issue I take with your argument is while it focuses on the failings of livestock handling or how wild animals are harvested in the end those methods are irrelevant to the argument if the issue is that killing animals is wrong. If that is the issue the method does not matter anymore then how I chose to commit a homicide would matter it would remain immoral and illegal no matter how swift the death I delivered was.
Because all arable land would be needed to replace animal sourced food. We're not just talking about America but the whole of humanity.
Eskimos and others who depend almost entirely on animal food sources, especially fats, for survival would disappear into the greater society.
Even now the rainforests are being cut down for fuel, (to graze cattle), and to produce soybeans for Monsanto. American farmers are still removing tree-lined fenceline 'shelterbelts' to make room for more plantings, of corn especially.
The additional acreage needed to replace protein from commercial fishing would be enormous.
As the nutrient starved soil becomes depleted the protein content of crops will decline, requiring yet more acreage to be cultivated.
Society would change from growth and progress to a scramble for subsistence.
The plain fact is that mankind needs animal sourced foods for survival.
Because all arable land would be needed to replace animal sourced food. We're not just talking about America but the whole of humanity.
Eskimos and others who depend almost entirely on animal food sources, especially fats, for survival would disappear into the greater society.
Even now the rainforests are being cut down for fuel, (to graze cattle), and to produce soybeans for Monsanto. American farmers are still removing tree-lined fenceline 'shelterbelts' to make room for more plantings, of corn especially.
The additional acreage needed to replace protein from commercial fishing would be enormous.
As the nutrient starved soil becomes depleted the protein content of crops will decline, requiring yet more acreage to be cultivated.
Society would change from growth and progress to a scramble for subsistence.
The plain fact is that mankind needs animal sourced foods for survival.
As with most moral arguments, there is no solid logical argument for why something is moral or immoral. It simply depends on the set of axioms upon which your argument rests.
Axiom #1: Humans have different moral status to animals.
If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is not wrong.
Axiom #2: Humans and animals have the same moral status.
If you are conversing with someone who holds this axiom, then eating meat is equivalent or analogous to murder.
Herein lies the contradiction with Axiom #2. If you hold some version of Axiom #2 then it should be clear that a lion killing a zebra should be some form of murder and the lion should be tried and locked up. However, this is not the case. Why? Because humans have a higher moral responsibility than animals, which implies Axiom #1. This implies that humans and animals are somehow different which then lends to the idea that killing animals is not necessarily wrong.
Circular reasoning.
The majority of land used to raise crops is not intended for human consumption, but rather animal consumption. Referring to bigger industry, the majority of plant agriculture is used to feed the animals that are supposed to feed us. This idea that we will face a major crisis of land use is just plain wrong, considering the vast majority of available land would eventually transfer over from the meat industry.
I assume that you are referring to the vast areas of marginal western grazing lands, that often require up to fifty acres to sustain one cow. '
These lands are not cultivatable.
I've said many times in this thread that not everyone can go vegan and have mentioned Inuits specifically.
But you believe that everyone should don't you? Have you watched "Life Below Zero"? Pretty bloody stuff.
You will need to provide documentation for your ecological claims. And they are, I would add, irrelevant to this discussion of morality. It is like saying socio-economic concerns of southern slave owners were relevant to the morality of slavery.
I'm drawing an economic and social conclusion that would result from your idea. You cannot blithely ignore the economic and social effects of widespread veganism.
If veganism was ever mandated in America pot would be legalized as well. Think of all the acreage that would then be devoted to growing it. Veganism would create a huge domino effect throughout society and the economy, not all good.
Not grazing, food consumption for animal use. Not all animals can graze/ are allowed to graze. They need another food source, so we transfer crop production to feed them.
Just to clarify, what I was getting at with the taste question is, most of the killing that goes on in slaughterhouses has little to do with necessity and a lot do do with satisfying the taste buds of humans.
For example, when you buy bacon, are you buying it because you feel it is necessary for your survival or because you enjoy eating bacon?
Its probably necessary for optimal human health to eat small amounts of animal products 2 or 3 times per month and I would not argue with that. But it is definitely not necessary to eat animal products with every meal or to have hot dog eating contests etc. So Im saying all of this extra animal killing is immoral, for the same reason seal slaughter is. The immorality arises from the attitude that human pleasure alone is worth the suffering and death of animals.
But you believe that everyone should don't you? Have you watched "Life Below Zero"? Pretty bloody stuff.
I'm drawing an economic and social conclusion that would result from your idea. You cannot blithely ignore the economic and social effects of widespread veganism.
If veganism was ever mandated in America pot would be legalized as well. Think of all the acreage that would then be devoted to growing it. Veganism would create a huge domino effect throughout society and the economy, not all good.
With no documentation or evidence to support your very specific predictions, your conclusion is (apparently) based on nothing except your own thoughts. My 'idea' is that killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. Is your response to this that it is ecologically necessary and therefore moral? Because if so, that is no different than a slaveholder in 1860 claiming that slavery is moral because it is necessary for the health of the southern plantation economy.
Just to revisit your earlier post, which connects what you consider the immoral killing of animals for apparel with killing animals for 'eating pleasure'. Hey, you gotta eat something, why not enjoy it? I don't have meat for dessert, it's the main nutritional part of my meal.
I'm not seeing your point. How about you pretend that a cannibal is about to kill you and prepare you for his dinner: Explain to him why he should care about more than his own enjoyment.
With no documentation or evidence to support your very specific predictions, your conclusion is (apparently) based on nothing except your own thoughts. My 'idea' is that killing animals unnecessarily is wrong. Is your response to this that it is ecologically necessary and therefore moral? Because if so, that is no different than a slaveholder in 1860 claiming that slavery is moral because it is necessary for the health of the southern plantation economy.
Killing animals is a necessary part of incorporating them into our diets and agricultural system. As pointed out earlier by Sir Albert Howard the inclusion of animals brings health and wealth. That's a good thing.
Your point? If it's usable land it's usable land.
You are using unrealistic comparisons. Your position has to stand or fall on it's own merits.
It makes little difference to the animal being killed if the person doing so subsists on its flesh, or eats it for pleasure. So it seems that you are more concerned about the morality of people than the suffering of animals. If this is so there are more important areas of human immorality to decry.
Please explain this to me. The number of animals killed by humans out of necessity is infinitesimal compared to the number killed for pleasure, taste, tradition, convenience etc. If these billions of animals were never brought into existence, they wouldnt suffer. This is the reason we spay and neuter dogs and cats, to reduce their numbers and thereby reduce their suffering. So how is this not about animal suffering?
The conclusion you draw from the first axiom does not follow. Things having different moral statuses does not equate to an all or nothing mentality. If animals have a different moral status from humans, it does not automatically follow that it is okay to kill them for palate preferrence. One still needs to exhibit a justifiable reason to kill animals for an unnecessary food source.
Your argument surrounding the second axiom is so bad it's not even worth discussing. If you aren't going to even try, then why should I?
"We are the apex predator" is no different than "we eat animals because we can" which is no different than a rapist declaring he can rape a woman whom he finds alone and defenseless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?