Animal cruelty in the food industry

[Leeward]

"how do I meet my requirements in the least harmful way possible?" The second asks questions like "How can I justify doing what I want to do?"

I think you're making too binary a distinction between need and want. You keep saying that using animals products in various situations is "not necessary", but that means absolutely nothing. It's not necessary for us to have jobs, wear clothes, breathe, or even be alive for that matter.

In the absence of any evidence of their suffering we can say they don't suffer. Conciousness is not arbitrary. Perhaps you would like to volunteer for surgery both while concious and while unconscious and see if it has any bearing on your capacity to suffer?

There is evidence. There isn't much, but there are hints of a pseudo-nervous system of electrical impulses in plants, and other signs of primitive sentience. Also I was using the word "consciousness" in the same sense you were: awareness of the self, not a state of being awake as opposed to asleep.

I think this has a lot to do with coming to terms with the existence of the food web, and that whether we like it or not, we are a part of it.

No! That has absolutely nothing to do with it. An appeal to nature is not a way to find out moral truths, the "can't derive ought from is." There are many natural things that are bad and which we oppose, such as diseases, death in childhood, rape and murder. And many unnatural things which are good and we love, such as the internet, books and the furry fandom.

Of course is has to do with it. I'm not saying the food web has a bearing on moral issues, I am merely pointing out the indisputable fact that we are part of it, and as such, since we cannot photosynthesise, have to sustain ourselves by consuming other lifeforms, be they plants or animals. As evidenced by our dentition and digestive system, we are descended from omnivorous ancestors, and it is therefore reasonable for us to have some amount of meat in our diet. Not strictly speaking necessary, but reasonable.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I think you're making too binary a distinction between need and want. You keep saying that using animals products in various situations is "not necessary", but that means absolutely nothing. It's not necessary for us to have jobs, wear clothes, breathe, or even be alive for that matter.

The distinction is very important. If something is not necessary then we need to be able to justify it. Usually that necessity is measured in terms of what is necessary to live a decent quality life. No, clothes and jobs are not strictly necessary but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by stating that.

There is evidence. There isn't much, but there are hints of a pseudo-nervous system of electrical impulses in plants, and other signs of primitive sentience. Also I was using the word "consciousness" in the same sense you were: awareness of the self, not a state of being awake as opposed to asleep.

None of that suggests any sort of conciousness. In fact since plants can't move, feeling pain or suffering would be incredibly unhelpful because they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. If there's no benefit then there's no reason for it to evolve and there's no sign of complex sensory system that could create conciousness as a side effect. Unconscious from drugs is not quite the same as asleep. You'd wake up if someone cut you and you were just sleeping. While you are unconscious you are not aware of yourself.

Not strictly speaking necessary, but reasonable.

Not reasonable either. We came from societies where racism, sexism and xenophobia were rampant too. That doesn't mean it's reasonable that we keep them. Don't let the past constrain you.

[Ocean knight]

None of that suggests any sort of conciousness. In fact since plants can't move, feeling pain or suffering would be incredibly unhelpful because they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. If there's no benefit then there's no reason for it to evolve and there's no sign of complex sensory system that could create conciousness as a side effect.

Plants can move. And they can communicate with one another : http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ This would make pain helpful to themselves and the surrounding shrubbery.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Plants can move. And they can communicate with one another : http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ This would make pain helpful to themselves and the surrounding shrubbery.

They can't move in the same way that animals can. It's kinda surprising I have to actually type something like that.

But how would pain be helpful to them?

[Sev]

Rakuen, Vegans (which I assume you are one of) are really quite special fruitcakes. You insist that killing of animals for any reason is "amoral". One thing that all of you do not realize is that if everyone became Vegans tomorrow, we would have a serious, serious problem. We would have to cull the now useless live stock; entire markets would collapse, and millions would loose their jobs.

Yeah, I'm glad that I'm not a Vegan.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

And if all the animals exploded tomorrow we'd be living in Fallout. Wait... weren't we supposed to be having a proper discussion?

[Ocean knight]

Plants can move. And they can communicate with one another : http://www.wired.com/2013/12/secret-language-of-plants/ This would make pain helpful to themselves and the surrounding shrubbery.

They can't move in the same way that animals can. It's kinda surprising I have to actually type something like that.

But how would pain be helpful to them?

It would have the same function as in animals. The pain tells the body what needs attention. In animals it servers to make sure the animal does not cause further damage but i don't see how this could help a plant. Although the plant could possibly grow in a way as to protect the damaged area. Plants heal fast enough that shouldn't be needed but it's a possibility.
Signals are sent to different plants to warn them of danger. Thus the plants can "defend" themselves.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

You could've stopped after the part where it wouldn't help. If an animal feels pain it can react by not walking on an injured leg or by moving away from something that hurts it. None of that is important to a plant. Plants do grow toward and away from things but that is too slow for pain to be useful. Pain is also not part of signalling to other plants. All that plants need to do to react can be done without any sensation of pain.

Also consider other differences between plants and animals. Plants are exposed to all sorts of environmental stresses from the weather and from animals. Plants get broken from the wind and from animals. Plants are eaten by all sorts of creatures. Plants catch on fire. Plants get hollowed out to serve as homes. Some of that is done to animals by parasites and predators but we do not get used the same way as plants and when animals are eaten they are usually killed first. If a plant could feel pain then they would live constantly in agony which would negate the use of pain as a signal that something is wrong.

[Sev]

And if all the animals exploded tomorrow we'd be living in Fallout. Wait... weren't we supposed to be having a proper discussion?

That is a strawman if ever there was.

Leeward has made some very valid points, and you keep refuting them with the same hippie nonsense.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Yes, I take Leeward's posts seriously because there's a proper argument there. Yours, not so much. Look at your previous post. Pretty much every single sentence is wrong.

[Adagio]

Come on Rakuen?

You're suggesting we should quit meat because there are alternatives?
The computer/mobile screen you're reading this on is killing the planet and a family of dolphins and polar bears as we speak... You didn't need to use it...

The oil you burned in the plane you used to get to Europe killed a penguin somewhere...
You could have used a sail boat and saved it...

Doing this is pointless...

We need to eat... That is a simple truth...

For centuries we've eaten meat... and that's not going to change, neither is that the topic raised by the OP... The issue, is NOT the fact that cows are being slaughtered to produce food. The issue is the method it's being done in...

[Leeward]

The distinction is very important. If something is not necessary then we need to be able to justify it. Usually that necessity is measured in terms of what is necessary to live a decent quality life. No, clothes and jobs are not strictly necessary but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by stating that.

I am using the same logic you used to refute my statement to refute yours, but somehow when I do it it's not valid? That's not very consistent. You say eating meat is not necessary, and yet when I say wearing clothes isn't necessary you say that's an absurd statement. What I hope to achieve by that statement is to demonstrate the arbitrary nature of the word "necessity" and the term "decent quality life". This isn't going to go anywhere if you keep using the same argument over and over.

neither is that the topic raised by the OP... The issue, is NOT the fact that cows are being slaughtered to produce food. The issue is the method it's being done in...

Thank you Adagio. Let's please get back to that.

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I am using the same logic you used to refute my statement to refute yours, but somehow when I do it it's not valid? That's not very consistent. You say eating meat is not necessary, and yet when I say wearing clothes isn't necessary you say that's an absurd statement.

o.0 But I agreed with you.

[Sev]

What, do think that we would bother keeping them alive if we suddenly had no use for them? They use up valuable space and resources. Not to mention that cattle are a contributing factor to global warming.

[Leeward]

o.0 But I agreed with you.

Huh? How so?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

I agreed that clothes and jobs are not necessary to live.

[Sev]

How 'bout we just all go back to living like neanderthals. Yes, that sounds like the perfect solution.

[Raven Song]

I wouldn't mind that. Having grown up mostly outside and achieved my junior game ranger award aged 12 I wouldn't mind living like they did back then. Only preferably in a warmer climated country...

Now back to the original thing...

Why is it called inhumane. Because it is something that we would not do to humans?

[Leeward]

Because the term is derived from the virtue of humanity.

[Randall]

As someone with some bodily issues, I can live without meat, BUT, I cannot live without fish in my diet.

As we know, fish are rich in omega 3 acids, and my brain consumes that like a petrol-hungry muscle car.

I do not eat a lot of meat at all, but I do consume large amounts of seafood. The supplements in the stores, get it from the fish anyway, so that is how it is. I cannot do much about it and its not in my power to change the planet. I need to live, I need to eat.

[Leeward]

Sorry just jumping back a bit.

One could argue that synthetic fur isn't as warm as real fur (I've experienced this, sadly, I am ashamed)

I have a black rabbit fur ushanka that used to belong to my dad's mother, born 1902. It's two sizes too small for my head though so I don't wear it, but I think it would be a waste to discard it just because it's fur. Plus she died when I was two and I have no memories of her so I like having a keepsake.

Back when she got it, I doubt there was such a thing as fur farms, and AFAIK they had the decency to kill critters before skinning them. Anyway I don't find it particularly warm, in fact my fursuit retains heat far better. Other downsides to real fur are that it can have a bit of a smell, tends to lose the hairs over time, is nowhere near as flexible as faux, and can be quite difficult to sew with depending on the thickness of the hide.

Fun fact! There is a Russian idiomatic term for low-quality or fake fur that literally translates to "fish fur". Such a fish could start a band with a flying pig and a toothed hen.

[Raven Song]

without trying to sound like I advocate it, proper correctly worked real fur jackets are insanely warm, and considering I experienced the difference in a walk in freezer (that's how a certain company here who wont be mentioned let us test it) I do stand by it. also yes, it can have a smell if cured incorrectly, and yeah, the balding annoys the rich people which is why they get more made...

that being said I will never ever wear real fur again. Ive never wanted to throw up so much...

[Leeward]

What about leather? That's the exact same thing but with the hairs taken off.

[Sev]

Yeah, but we don't kill snow leopards for meat - and there aren't 1.5 billion of them.

[Leeward]

There are only that many specifically because we breed them for meat, dairy and leather. Rabbits are pretty common too, yet wearing their fur is objected to as well.

[Sev]

How seamless would you be able to make a rabbit coat?

And even when fur was at its height, the animals were never captively bred for it. Those poor baby seals, being clubbed to death.

[Randall]

What about leather? That's the exact same thing but with the hairs taken off.

We are able to make synthetic leather in this day and age, and its the preferred kind of material I would love to work with as it is superior to the natural product. Also, some poor animal doesn't have to die for the privilege so bonus

[Sev]

Superior to the natural product. Hahaha.

Then why do top tier motorcycle racers still wear Kangaroo leather? Heck, why is all gear still natural leather?

[Adagio]

Cows will be slaughtered... The leather might as well be put to good use?

[Rakuen Growlithe]

Cows will be slaughtered...

Don't have to be. Just because something is done in the present doesn't mean it has to be done that way.