From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Wed Jan 28 1998 - 08:24:22 MST
dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Jim McCoy wrote:
>
> > Don't think of it as a cow, think of it as a "mobile cereal
> > compression/archive device." (one that happens to be mighty tasty if
> > you marinate it just right and then toss it onto the bbq :)
>
> Smiley or not, try this thought-experiement on for size: No, go ahead,
> think of it as a *cow*, a "device" which experiences a great deal of
> absolutely unecessary suffering so as to satisfy your unhealthy hankering
> after the sensation of its "tang" on your tongue and its corpse rotting
> away in your tummy. Concerns on the list about how sentient machines will
> be treated in the future are well justified by awareness of the ways in
> which sentient machines like nonhuman animals (not to mention most human
> ones) are treated in the present. Uh, the vegetarian meme marches on.
Thus spake under the greatest rhetorical error/intentional fraud the liberal
nuts can muster: that animals are sentient. If something cannot come up to me
and discuss the weather, its not sentient. My dog may have some degree of
minimal intelligence, and in my opinion may exist in a grey area that I am
willing to grant, which is why I don't eat dog (but then again, there are some
humans I've met who are dumber than a side of beef). Since your typical vegan
is also an atheist, or at best, a rational non-dietical buddhist, they cannot
claim the protections of the Natural Law doctrine, so they must then agree
that rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only applies to
individuals who are willing to use force, or employ others to use force, to
attain and protect those rights for themselves, i.e. the Force Doctrine. Given
this, and that humans have demonstrated themselves to be the premier predator
on the planet, any herbivore which cannot or does not defend its own rights to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, therefore has no rights,
intelligent or no. Again an animal like a dog, which when domesticated
considers itself a member of a human pack, is fully capable of defending
itself when it sees a threat. That it doens't often win against a human is
another issue entirely.
Cows have been bred for slaughter for thousands of years. If they were
sentient in any way, shape or form, they would either a) be making some sort
of group effort to communicate their wishes to not be et, or b) have developed
a culture/religion that has resigned them to accepting their place in the
cosmos, or c) attempt to defend their rights in some way shape or form, at
least on a frequent enough basis to be noticable by the general populace.
> > The whole "diet for a small planet" mantra reminds me of Karl Marx
> > spending time in England and coming to the conclusion that production
> > was everything because the transportation and distribution system was
> > so well-developed (comparatively) that he didn't even notice it.
>
> The whole carnivorist mantra reminds me of nothing so much as the
> transparent rationalizations for self-destructive and morally
> indifferent behavior one finds tripping from the mouths of any substance
> abuser you happen to meet. And the same judgments apply, as far as I'm
> concerned: Should be legal, morally shunned, and laughed at as stupid.
The whole vegan mantra reminds me of nothing so much as the transparent
rationalizations of self-involved, self-deluded and morally self-righteous
behavior one finds tripping from the mouths of any religious or political
fanatic, i.e. don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up. And the
same judgements apply, as far as I'm concerned. Should be illegal, morally
shunned, and laughed at as stupid.
If the human race becomes all herbivores, what species will then claim the job
of top carnivore???
>
>
> > p.s. skip the veggie flames please. I eat very little meat and have
> > almost completely given it up for health reasons, but spent most of
> > my childhood on a farm I know that the only reason cattle, sheep, and
> > most livestock exist in the world today are because we keep them
> > alive. If it were not to become burgers and steaks then cows would
> > have long since become another evolutionary dead-end (you cannot
> > quite appreciate just how dumb these animals have been bred until you
> > watch sheep trying to get out of the rain by hiding under the other
> > sheep.)
>
> PS: Sorry for the veggie flame-broiling. I daresay a meat-cow would just
> as soon become a literal evolutionary dead-end then experience the
> privilege of prolonged abuse and subsequent consumption.
>
I dunno. Given the possibilities for the singularity, I would daresay that a
large percentage of the human race will soom become a literal evolutionary
dead end. WOuld they prefer a quick end, or to live on as the pawns and
playthings of greater beings? I know what I think, but what about billy ray
and sally mae welfare check? Seems to me that the greater mass of humanity is
really only concerned with living by any means possible rather than standing
and possibly dying, on principle.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:32 MST