From: arctic.fox@ukgateway.net
Date: Wed Jun 13 2001 - 06:13:28 MDT
At 21:08 12/06/01, you wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
>[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Russell Blackford
>
>
><snip>
>I'd go so far as to say that on this particular land (and much of the land
>inhabited by humans), it would be impossible for humans to live off the
>land without having meat in the diet.
I agree with you. Sometimes I think one of the steps towards posthumanism
is to be able to dispense of our animalistic side and give up our
dependency of eating other intelligent (although not sentient) creatures.
Then again you could say we are transhuman by adapting to eating meat which
allows us to exist in otherwise uninhabitable areas. [This all depends on
whether or not we evolved to eat meat.]
>On the morality of eating animals, it seems as though the division of
>species into edible and non-edible, sacred or whatever, is always going to
>be arbitrary (with the exception of cases where certain species are clearly
>inedible because they're toxic). Vegetarians may not be aware that the
>production of dairy products depends on killing most of the male calves or
>kids or lambs or whatever. Dairy herds consist of females which must produce
>babies at least once a year in order to make milk. Since about half the
>offspring are males, only a very few of which will be kept for breeding
>purposes, you end up with a surplus of males which must be dealt with. The
>usual way of dealing with them is to eat them.
Thanks for pointing out the "hidden cost" ; eating one animal in some cases
equals the death of two animals. I saw one veg*an site where they were
worried about the healthy eating trend away from beef and towards chicken
as this would lead to more animal deaths. Sometimes I try and rationalise
going vegan by working out how much dairy produce one animal can produce
and how many meals that lasts for etc. At the end of the day it's more of
an emotional choice - a sort of "zero tolerance" policy in that eating just
one animal is one animal too many.
>Even vegans are responsible for the deaths of animals. Where grain is
>stored, there's always plenty of poison around to kill mice. Often squirrels
>and grain eating birds also get hold of poisoned grain. Poison is usually
>sprayed on crops such as broccoli and lettuce to kill animals such as
>butterfly and moth larvae (or the GM stuff has built-in killers).
>
>And so forth.
>
>Barbara
Just to pick up on a point that no one has raised yet, technically a vegan
doesn't use leather, silk or wool, usually doesn't eat honey, and tries not
to use products tested on animals. The term "strict vegetarian" is better
to describe someone who just avoids meat and dairy. I'm being pedantic
because veganism is more about a whole lifestyle rather than just what to
eat for dinner. I've even heard an atheist vegan describe it as the closest
thing he has found to having a religion.
You are correct Barbara in stating that there are many ways in which humans
can cause animal deaths. This is partly because we live in such a meat
dominated world - tyres for my bicycle contain animal products, non-digital
photo's use gelatin in the film etc. On Planet Vegan humane pest control
would be used and there would be less displacement of animals.
(From another post)
>For
>this reason alone it seems dishonest to me for a person to claim they're
>vegan because they don't believe in killing animals.
Why am I being dishonest? I do everything possible to _reduce_ the number
of animal deaths, but I would be the first to admit that any human has a
massive impact on the natural ecosystem. (That's why some extreme vegans go
to such extreme lengths as only wearing T-shirts that are made from non-GM
cotton etc.)
Whatever, it's nice to have a rational debate on the subject for once. I've
learnt a lot of good things from the "pro-meat" side for once.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:06 MST