Ethics regarding animals in general.......

Another thread on LT is addressing the ethics of zoo's and such places as Sea World. It is my contention that animals should be afforded dignity no matter what type of animal they may be.
I found this news segment more than disturbing. We THROW AWAY food every single day.....we do not need to do this. Animals have been responsible for the survival of the human species, they deserve to be treated humanly.

http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/watch/secret-investigation-into-food-youre-e...

I'm suspicious of blanket statements regarding animals because of how wide that term is.

I see little reason to treat dogs, chimpanzees, locusts, cattle, cod, rats, owls and tapeworms (and humans) the same way in every respect.

Speaking of animals, that's a lovely red herring you've got there, Kuiperdolin.

Mother Earth is an abattoir. It always has been. Animals are instinctual more than reasoning beings. That's to be exploited. We eat them--those that suit that purpose anyway. Of course we take them for granted. Then off to wars we go for whatever reason--religious tension, border tension, to steal land or natural resources, just to steal. Killing is part of the human DNA. There's all the blah, blah, blah about the sanctity or sacredness of life but we'd be useless without things dying all the time because we live off death. There is potential for murder (including suicide) in every single one of us. The average human being that lives into his or her 70's, 80's, 90's (at least in the United States) will consume over the period of their lifetimes the parts of thousands and thousands of animals and to me anyway the final death deal is almost ironic with family members encircling the dying person and lamenting how sad it all is and why it's so unfortunate to grow old and frail. There is a contradiction here. A failure to see ourselves for what we actually are. These days there are overcrowded factory ranches stuffing animals meant for McDonalds, Burger King and KFC with steroids and antibiotics to make them fatter and less likely harmful to the human organism though the steroids and antibiotics no doubt wend their way into our own individual health profiles. We need more and more pills anyway. Most people don't even want to consider that. The demand for mass consumption must be met. Basically we're cattle too--consumers on one end of the spectrum and war fodder on the other. That to me is somewhat the human condition and good luck making any real headway resisting it.

>3 .Monkey.:: Thank you, I try.

Of course when people speak of animal rights they mean coddling the charismatic megafauna, not refraining from lice shampoo.

Yet antoher good supervillain plan : make bacteries scream when you disinfect anything.

>4 lriley: "to me anyway the final death deal is almost ironic with family members encircling the dying person and lamenting how sad it all is and why it's so unfortunate to grow old and frail. There is a contradiction here. A failure to see ourselves for what we actually are."

I'm confused by this statement, as it seems to indicate that "what we actually are" excludes our emotional lives and the web of interpersonal relationships we develop over the course of a lifetime. Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you, but you seem to suggest that we should react without emotional pain at the loss of a deeply loved person. Are you sure that when we "lament how said it all is," that we are lamenting only the physical state of the flesh? Isn't it perhaps that we are also talking about that emotional life, too -- that what we lose as we "grow old and frail" is, for example, some of our intellectual faculties? And that when a person dies, their friends and loved ones do feel a deep emotional loss?

My concern goes as low as arthropods, e.g., tossing a live lobster in boiling water. Pain is pain. I can eat something else if need be. Wonder if better to bring the temperature up slowly in order to render the beast unconscious before heat hurts? Steaming live mussels doesn't bother me, though--so far. Maybe I'm still evolving?

Bedbugs/lice/mites are arthropods, do you object to poisoning them?

I'm not convinced lobster would suffer less if it was boiled slowly rather than fast, but anyway I don't eat lobster so I don't give it much thought...

I had a tasty lobster stew the other day. I did not think about whether the lobsters involved suffered or not.

I don't get emotionally involved with my food. I have enough trouble with people.

did any of you ever raise a cow ? Or a pig...or have a flock of chickens ? they are part of our survival and as such are a member of the food chain. I raised animals that I later served up at the supper table but we do not need to treat animals with cruelty. Hunters are taught to shoot to kill not meme or injure. I would argue that animals and insects are not in the same group of species. I would also argue that some species of insects have the ability to inflect harm on humans, while cows are seldom known to be dangerous.

> 8 Bedbugs/lice/mites are arthropods, do you object to poisoning them?

No, but I don't pull the wings off flies. Do you?

>11 margd:
No, but I don't pull the wings off flies. Do you?

No I do not......I leave things alone unless they bite or sting. At which point, I do not torture them....I dispatch them to insect heaven.....Quickly....they don't even see it coming.

We don't "raise" insects to torture or abuse. We do in so far as animals are concerned.

When our dogs or cats become ill we often euthanize them. It appears that when some cows get sick they herd them up, drag them around by the nose and bull doze them into living piles. Distinguishing between a dog and a cow is far more difficult for me than seeing the difference between a cow and a bed bug. We have the knowledge and the technology to be humane,.......guess that is all I am saying.
We are also wasteful and the mind set that creates a market structured around this type of animal abuse is wasteful to say the least.

>11 margd:: nope.

Many things I don't inflict on animals are more squeamishness/disinterest than morality, though, if I'm being honest.

"Dawn of the planet of the apes"?...

http://www.jrn.com/tmj4/news/special-assignments/Extreme-foodie-movement-Bugs-26...

I suppose I'll have to take a closer look at how I treat bugs ?

You'll at least want to be sure they are free range organic bugs.

What various groups leave out of the 'cycle of life' is that predators and omnivores feed quite consistently on other animals.

"In some sense, we all feed on death, Doctor; even vegetarians."

Humans are the only species that seems to be concerned about the matter. And in one of those many ironies, those who are closest to the animals we consume tend to be the least sentimental about them. Farmers don't casually torment their stock; that would be stupid, wasteful, and dangerous. But they also don't worry about them when they're packed off to slaughterhouses. Nor do they fret overmuch if they butcher their own meat.

Many people (farmers included) DO draw a distinction between animals raised strictly for consumption, and animals kept for other reasons. The same person who will select a pig for the dinner table, efficiently and without much emotion butcher said pig for consumption; can become very concerned and spend a great deal of time and money trying to save a beloved family dog. In their minds, there's no contradiction; the pig, the cow, the chicken are being kept for food; the dog is a companion, a friend, in some ways a family member. (But not a human being.)

'Dignity' is a fuzzy term. Along with 'respect'. Is it respectful to train animals to perform the amusement of humans? What if the animals enjoy performing; does that make a difference?

I would consider cruelty to be the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on an animal, when that pain/suffering serves no purpose except the emotional satisfaction of the torturer. (If someone can provide a more articulate re-phrasing of this statement, I'd be happy to accept it.)

>17 BruceCoulson: I would consider cruelty to be the deliberate infliction of pain and suffering on an animal, when that pain/suffering serves no purpose except the emotional satisfaction of the torturer.

I would quibble. Factory farms are not in the least concerned with the emotional satisfaction anyone might derive from the inhumane conditions. They do indeed have another purpose--to produce as much food as possible at the highest profit they can.

But I find the conditions animals kept in factory farm situations to be cruel. So I think you would have to add something in your definition along the lines of "does not attempt to avoid or minimize pain and suffering."

#18

I fear we must disagree. If factory farms could make as much (or more) profit by changing their methods, they would; as you note, they're not being cruel so much as callous and unfeeling. The suffering does serve a purpose other than sheer emotional satisfaction, and therefore is not cruel.

As a side note, piglets aren't exactly castrated using anesthesia, and there are probably similar practices for all animals raised as food, so it's not just 'factory farms'.

>19 BruceCoulson: they're not being cruel so much as callous and unfeeling

The wiki definition of cruelty is "is indifference to suffering, and even pleasure in inflicting it."

Google says: "callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering."

The Merriam-Webster definition is:

: a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel

: actions that cause suffering

: an act or occurrence that causes suffering

I don't think you can divorce the term from the experience of the sufferer.

And no, it's not just factory farms. But factory farms make a business of it.

Have you heard of Temple Grandin? She literally wrote the book on Humane Livestock Handling and has persuaded several corporations, like McDonalds, to adopt her criteria. It's a good start in the right direction.

The majority of farms are businesses, even if they're not 'factory farms' in the strict sense of the term.

And I think it would be more correct to state that it's a business practice; the farms don't make money from being ruthless, callous, etc.; they make money from selling animal products.

We're talking about a process that leads to the eventual, intentional death and harvesting of the animal. So, under some standards, the entire process is an exercise in cruelty. But the other issue (not addressed in your definition) is 'needless'. Are there any other methods of farming that would be less cruel and produce as much product for consumption? And should we extend that level of energy and concern towards animals that ultimately will be killed and eaten?

Part of being less callous is empathizing with the other. Is it really wise to 'get perconel with a chicken'? Don't get perconel with a chicken

It may be a lack in me, but I really can't empathize with the plight of animals intended for my table.

>22 BruceCoulson: For one thing, it doesn't taste as good.

>22 BruceCoulson: Are there any other methods of farming that would be less cruel and produce as much product for consumption? And should we extend that level of energy and concern towards animals that ultimately will be killed and eaten?

Well that is the question, isn't it? One that is usually addressed by people interested in sustainable agriculture and farming. Among other things, large numbers of animals in a small amount of space is not a self-sustaining system.

But indifference to suffering is certainly a quality of "cruelty."

I kill flies and cockroaches I admit but I try to "capture and release" any other insects I discover in my apartment and say let the birds kill them.

(If God is a giant Fly or Cockroach I KNOW I shall go to hell...)

>22 BruceCoulson: As you say, factory farms are businesses and are in it to make money. But with their indifference to the inhumane conditions of the animals they raise for food usually comes an indifference to effects on the environment, contamination of the meat, and spread of disease. Addressing the inhumane conditions also improves these other conditions, with which we should all be concerned as they do affect our health and well-being directly.

And it is true, as >23 2wonderY: says, the food does taste better. I may have only anecdotal evidence to support this, but I notice a marked difference in the quality of meat and eggs from sustainable local farmers when compared to typical grocery store fare.

#26

Not having much of a sense of taste, I cannot comment on the superiority of the taste of animals from other venues.

What you're referring to is anciallry costs, and yes, those are indeed matters that should be addressed for the general welfare of the neighbors. If in the process of preventing such health concerns, the animals also fare better until their inevitable rending into food, I see no objection. If the two can be combined, even better.

I am for treating animals above insect level as humanely as possible. This includes animals we raise for food - in their case right up until we humanely kill them, if that is possible.

Otherwise I am having steak for supper tonight.

Over and out.

I believe that there are less stressful ways to bring an animal to slaughter and to complete the kill. The other week I met my butcher for the first time. My farmer I've known for a couple years now and he's been on the hunt for a slaughter facility that meets his requirements of cleanliness, flexibility and low-stress animal treatment. He's used about every facility in New England and I trust him to make this decision. Now I've met Russ and learned how he runs his operation, I trust that the animals will be well handled up to and during their deaths. One of these days we'll get down there for a tour and see for ourselves. As for now, I've seen the farm, the animals and I know all the individual keepers so I'm satisfied about the sustainability and ethical treatment of land and animals.

>29 Bookmarque:
Good for you....If more consumers were "aware" and demanded more from those who provide their food, we wouldn't see videos like the one I posted.

It seems the eat local movement is gaining ground, but it is still a pricey option, I have no illusions about that. It isn't absolutely always the most expensive and urban growers are multiplying, too, but it isn't the cheapest either. Partly it's the subsidized and hugely cheap cost of food in the US that is the problem. We think food should be cheap and abundant. We don't care about quality or nutrition. We spend less per capita on food than just about any industrialized nation, but the most on healthcare. A book I read recently connects those dots rather well through the sustainable, biodiverse farm - Farmacology. You know the phrase "a chicken in every pot" as a way to describe living well...it seems strange now, but when it was coined chicken was expensive. Raising chickens in a way that produces the most nutritional bird isn't the cheapest way to raise them, but these days we're only interested in the cost of entry to a good, not the cost to own it for life.

We do spend less on food, as a percentage of income, that other first world countries. It allows us to underpay people without starving them, as long as we're fine with them being stuck eating an unhealthy, additive, fat and sugar-stuffed diet. It should come as no surprise that we treat our food animals with as much respect as we hold for those living on a low income.

#32

Probably there's more respect and concern for livestock than for low-income people.

> 33

Not exactly. I am against killing and eating low-income people.

The rich? I would consider it.

I think eating animals is a good idea. They are tasty and nutritious, and before there were farms and farm animals, animals were generally killed by something bigger. They didn't enjoy a healthy old age, because they didn't get old.

I like the fact that my cats kill mice and rats. They are destructive, dirty, disease-carrying vermin.

Strangely, I can't reconcile my approval of meat-eating with my disgust and horror at people who eat cats.

I don't enjoy cruelty, and I prefer to buy meat and poultry raised and slaughtered under humane conditions.

How about "bush meat"--our primate cousins?

Perhaps the occasional Irish baby.

Probably there's more respect and concern for livestock than for low-income people.

Trying to make it real?

Only a modest proposal.

> 39

Leave the plagiarism to Rand Paul.

>40 JGL53:
It's literary allusion, not plagiarism.

> 41

Oh - THAT'S what Rand was doing.

Well, Maddow owns him an apology.

7 contd. How to humanely dispatch a lobster--chill and pith him!
http://www.kitchendaily.ca/read/how-to-humanely-kill-a-lobster-in-5-easy-steps/

"Compassion for animals is intimately connected with goodness of character; and it may be confidently asserted that he who is cruel to animals cannot be a good man."

Shopenhauer

>22 BruceCoulson:
We're talking about a process that leads to the eventual, intentional death and harvesting of the animal. So, under some standards, the entire process is an exercise in cruelty.

Your allusion to "some standards" sounds like a straw man to me. SBL was writing specifically about cruelty as indifference to suffering.

That's a crucial nuance.

A person can kill and harvest an animal without being indifferent to its suffering. I have done so, perhaps not perfectly, but while being mindful of the gravity of the moment. Anyone who eats meat should be confronted with that reality, in my opinion.

(Though for years now I've bought my meat from go-betweens of various levels of scrupulousness, from good to terrible, in truth...)

Your allusion to "business practice" is interesting. Of course businesses are not, by design, cruel.

But recently there have been major incentives which make factory farming the dominant model and which lead directly to cruelty. This cruelty is of another magnitude than the routine cruelties that used to take place "behind the barn" on farms of another generation.

Have you spent much time on farms? Have you seen sow crates, or the difference between feeder lot and grazing?

And, to address one of your questions: would alternative methods produce as much meat for consumption? Probably not. But is that the only benchmark? Or could some other qualitative standards come into play? God knows, the American market is amenable to being squeamish about raw milk and other dubious versions of "yucky". Why not consider a less dubious, grown-up version?

/Edited for italics

Oh, yuck. Based on other horrors I've read about, I've been avoiding pork, though the odd bit of bacon and sausage still finds it way to my plate. Looks like I need to find a local/organic source or quit... More and more--for health, ecology, and kindness reasons--meat in our house is a little less frequent and the more expensive organic/local/wild, although latter can be cheaper if from our "backyard". Hmm, maybe I should sic my hunter on the wild pig(s) who dig up my vegetable garden! I've never seen even a bad shot leave an animal writhing in pain the way scalded, skinned, and disemboweled alive apparently does... Some say pigs are as intelligent as a young child, though when it comes to cruelty, smarts shouldn't matter, I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/undercover-slaughterhouse-video-pigs_5643995...

We order a whole pig from a local farmer once a year - pasture raised and grain supplemented. I still get conventional bacon though because here isn't enough on one animal. I don't feel good about it though. I've heard from various hunters that wild pigs aren't particularly tasty.

>47 Bookmarque: wild pigs aren't tasty

Hope that's not the case, though we see them so infrequently and they are so wary, it's extremely unlikely my hunter would get one unless it wandered by while he was hunting deer and wild turkey.

Venison around here is delicious and tender, but wild turkey is a whole different animal than domestic kind--barely any fat, incredibly strong tendons and bones, tasty but tough. Even soup is tough! Coq du vin recipe adapted from Julia Child for slow cooker is great, though. I suspect the French were inspired by the toughest rooster in the barnyard when they developed that recipe!

We tend to think of our forbearers barbecuing meat on a stick, but I read of Indians making soups and stews by dropping hot rocks in vessels. I suspect that was the preferred cooking technique for wild turkey, at least?

Our favorites from our cow and pig are the low and slow cuts. My husband is master of the sous vide, which I bet would be great for wild turkey.

"Where's the beef?" Vegans on the warpath?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/inside-bishari-indian-village-where...

>22 BruceCoulson: Ever see the rumor that Sidney Poitier got very to perconel with a chicken?

I haven't read the previous posts, but I would like to make some brief, extemporaneous, inchoate remarks, if possible, to begin to shape my thoughts and feelings about the subject.

I'm not interested in animal rights, law, protesting, persuasion, or anything like that. I'm a dog lover. Always have been. I don't love every dog I meet. But I love my dog and I consider him my best friend. I consider the dog species significantly different from others.

I also feel there's something inherently different in horses, elephants, and possibly pigs compared to other species. My sister, a former bird owner, increased my knowledge and appreciation of birds. I would of course add them to my list. Possibly they will inherit the earth. I've never been able to conjure up much positive feeling for cats, though I do like the purring sounds they make when I put them. Pet sounds are happy sounds -- Brian Wilson fans know that, of course.

The human race's blackhearted depravity must surely be the explanation for the unimaginable cruelty inflicted on dogs and other animals. Or perhaps it's lack of civilization. For those muliticulturalists who say I must accept the habits of other cultures, I say that I can not accept sub-animal treatment of animals.

My own preference is to forge a deal with nature -- leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Nature is yours, your home. I'll try to stay out of it. I was never an outdoorsmen. I feel no need to hunt or fish or photograph.

I feel there's no need for Americans or anyone else to own exotic pets, whether a blue hyacinth or a white tiger, to hunt elephants or uses the tusks. And on on. Someone buys a tiger as a pet, it gets out, then has to be killed. Someone climbs over a zoo fence for a picture with a bear and gets mauled. I read years ago how zoo owners wanted to give a bear, I think it was a bear, Prozac beause he was depressed. I thought, you want to cheer me up, leave him in his habitat.

The only lesson I ever learned from a zoo was to stay away from the monkey cages.

Edited: to fix typos.

Case asking courts to free elephant 'imprisoned' in Bronx zoo heads to New York's highest court
Joel Shannon | May 4, 2021

A case brought by animal activists that argues an elephant is being "imprisoned" by a New York zoo is advancing to New York's highest court.

The elephant, named Happy, is a "cognitively complex nonhuman animal" that should be freed from the Bronx Zoo and transferred to a sanctuary, according to The Nonhuman Rights Project.

More than two dozen New York judges have previously ruled against this and similar cases, the Bronx Zoo said in December after the case was dismissed by a lower court. But The Nonhuman Rights Project is now celebrating the New York Court of Appeals' decision to hear the case.

"This marks the first time in history that the highest court of any English-speaking jurisdiction will hear a habeas corpus case brought on behalf of someone other than a human being," the Nonhuman Rights Project said in a statement. The group called it a "landmark elephant rights case."...

...Happy has lived mostly alone at the Bronx Zoo for years after her companion, an elephant named Grumpy, was fatally injured in an incident with other elephants in 2002, The Nonhuman Rights Project says.

The group says Happy is the first elephant to pass a mirror self-recognition test, a sign of self-awareness...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/04/happy-elephant-imprisoned-...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law) tribelaw | 6:21 AM · May 5, 2021
Here’s my amicus brief (31 p) for the Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Happy the Elephant
https://www.nonhumanrights.org/content/uploads/2020-02581_Proposed-Brief-of-Laur...

>52 margd:

I wouldn't want to make a value judgement on zoos, as they have some value in terms of conserving and breeding endangered species. But I'm privileged to be able to see large African wildlife on a regular basis, and they look so much healthier and happier in their natural environment than I've ever seen them in a zoo.

Elephants in northern zoos seem particularly unhappy in winter, especially if alone. I remember one in the Toledo Zoo (Ohio), confined to the barn, endlessly shifting from foot to foot. Not sure how the giraffe felt about winter confinement alone, but the elephant looked deeply depressed...

China mystery animal box craze causes outrage (BBC)

A craze in which pets are sold in mystery parcels has caused outrage in China after a number of animals were found dead in a vehicle on Monday. The "blind box" craze sees people order a box containing an animal that is then sent to them through the post. On Monday, 160 distressed cats and dogs were located inside a courier company's truck in Chengdu. It has prompted calls for action on the phenomenon as well as on the purchase of animals online in general...

>55 John5918:

I just read an article in a back issue of the National Geographic - March 2020 - about the abuse by the Japanese of their famous Snow monkeys. It is fucking freaky what they do to them. I don't even like to think about it.