Aside from the title of a book I just read, the omnivore's dilemma is sort of where I find myself right now. As some of you might know, I sort of turned vegetarian/vegan about a year ago. That has since changed. I've come to the conclusion that while I disagree with how animals are raised in mass market/industrial conditions, I as a human, need and like meat. The philosophical implications in all of this have sort of taken me for a loop, however.
I understand that our morality is based solely on our humanness. Now, does that morality only cover humans, or does (or should) morality also cover and protect animals? In other words, do humans have a moral obligation to take care of their planet and those we cohabit it with? Francis Bacon once said that animals are little more than machines and that they do not feel pain or have any thoughts of their own. I'm sure the majority of us do not agree with such an idea these days, but we can't deny that we're still treating certain animals this way by how we raise them in a factory-type setting (cutting the beaks off of chickens so that they can't peak each other to death in their close quarters). But can we take it a step further and say that animals should be protected by our morals?
Specifically, many of the farm animals we use for meat basically could not exist unless they were raised on a farm. Cows and chickens, as two examples, wouldn't make it very long in the wild. They've evolved (with a helping hand by us) to form a co-dependent relationship with humans. They live for a bit, are able to reproduce, in return for supplying us meat. Setting all the animals free, as some vegans want, would be little more than a very nasty death sentence for these animals.
That being said, pigs would survive in the wild. They quite quickly become feral once set free. Does this information set a precedence? Should we keep eating the cows and chickens and stop eating pigs? Do we as humans have a right to stop allowing animals to live their Animal-ness? Do we have a right to disallow chickens from seeing the light of day, or cows to not consume the flowers and weeds they instinctively want to eat and force them instead to eat corn (which makes them grow faster but also causes their kidneys to fail)?
Should our morals cover the life of animals that are in our protection? It's easy to answer it for the animals we take in as pets, but what about those we use for food? Is there an inherent difference, or do we need to reexamine how we treat those we eat?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Great topic. And one of the ones which puts me at odds with many a Libertarian.
I believe in individual rights to an extreme. I believe in the individual rights of animals. At least to be treated humanely.
While I have no problem with our predatory nature, and the subsequent efficient process of raising animals for food, my support of efficiency for profit and quickness only goes so far.
The fact that animals give our life to sustain us is enough, and they should be treated with a respect that any living thing should.
This doesnt mean that cattle should recieve shoulder massages and wide open pastures akin to a fully fledged wild life reservation. But companies should be legally obligated to treat livestock with some sort of dignity, within the realms of human treatment and death.
Pigs should not be bathed in acids that blind them for "efficiency". Cattle should not be pushed with bulldozers when they are riddled with sickness from mistreatment. Chickens should not be placed into pens so tight that their skin starts to grow into the wire cages.
I couldnt give a fuck less if a meat producer loses a million in its profits per year by being forced to treat living creatures with a modicum of respect and decency.
Such treatment should be consider a natural and necessary cost of business. If you cant handle that, then move on to other business ventures where basic civility isnt a natural cost of the venture.
I have to admit that my first thought was, “but pork tastes good. Bacon tastes good. Sausage tastes good.” My second thought was, it’s been a little while since we had a good steak. After that, I thought that a chicken quesadilla might make a great lunch. Then I had to go find a snack.
Yes, I am being a little flip. As a human being, I am most interested in the survival, health, and comfort of my family. From an evolutionary perspective, it matters not one iota to me what happens to the food on the table before it reaches my table, as long as it is safe and healthful once it gets there.
This does not mean that I am callous to the plight of livestock and that I don’t feel that there should be some standards maintained in the treatment of these animals. Ian references the flap last year about the workers abusing cows so they appear healthy when the inspector shows up, and that was certainly wrong. He also mentions burning pigs with acid, which sounds particularly heinous, but I can’t find any more information about it. Debeaking sounds pretty awful too, but I am not particularly concerned about it. Go here to find an abstract about the effects of debeaking in chickens: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a784231060~db=all. Provided it’s done early enough, I don’t think that debeaking is as bad as it sounds, particularly when you consider that chickens will kill and eat 10-15% of their comrades otherwise. A certain part of my anatomy was “debeaked” under minimal anesthesia when I was very young, and I seem untraumatized.
How they are housed and how they are treated will never change the fact that these animals will be killed so they can wind up on my table and yours. They have been bred and engineered for this purpose, and that is the lot of those lower on the food chain. Of greater concern to me is the miniscule percentage of our food that is inspected prior to its appearance on grocery shelves. According to this article (http://hsdailywire.com/single.php?id=5715), meat consumption in this country has doubled since 1981, but money spent on inspection has dropped 40% per thousand pounds. The upshot of this is the apparently increasing number of recalls of meat products. The same can be seen in production of vegetables and other foodstuffs. A more robust inspection regimen would lead to higher quality food and (likely) better treatment of our livestock.
How about we look at this issue with a mix of rationality and instinct. Let's say we were all camping and had to hunt to find a source of food. Let's say we came across two pigs. One was healthy, would probably provide a good fight, while the other possibility is a sickly, weak pig, clearly on its final days. Which one would you rationally choose? (I'm hoping here is where you say the healthier one that probably wouldn't infect you with god knows what.) While it might be a little harder to catch the thing, in the end, the pros would outweigh the cons. Likewise with farming these days. It might be more expensive and it might mean that we as a nation have less meat available, but I can't understand why the majority of citizens allow themselves to eat poor, sick meat. The reason cows are injected with antibiotics is because they're force fed corn (which is not something they would naturally eat). Not surprisingly, it makes them sick. Yet, it provides a lot of meat in a short amount of time. Quantity over quality (which is a problem in America on so many levels.)
Not only is animal welfare important to the animals, but hell, it's important to the people who consume it. They say you are what you eat. If that's true, most of America is sick.
Good points all. I think the natural extension of this dialogue (or multi-logue since it is more than two people? I'm no English major) is into the realm of 'are happier animals better to eat than distressed animals?'
From the evolutionary perspective introduced by Melissa, one has to lean towards an unqualified 'Yes' without much empirical evidence. This being an intellectual exercise, let us put some empirical evidence behind it, shall we? For my purpose, I will define 'happy' for an animal as being allowed to live, or at least eat, as the animal would in the most natural state it can attain. Cows, since it is a large part of our diet, will be the starting point. Cows are ruminants, meaning they have multi-chambered stomachs designed through evolution to process their diet, natural grasses, efficiently. Since their stomachs have as many chambers as our hearts, circulation and digestion are equally important - whereas humans obviously put an emphasis on circulation leading to salary inequality between dietitians and cardiologists. But I digress. Bison, buffalo, elk, deer, goats, and sheep fall into this delicious category. What do they have in common? They herd, they roam, they graze on grasses found on hillsides everywhere. That is their natural, 'happy,' state. What do cows most humans eat feed on? Certainly not grass. Anyone familiar with the over-hyped Mad Cow disease news stories will recall that factory 'beef' is fed a combination of corn, soy, antibiotics(so they do not die from eating the wrong thing and standing in crap), cow fat, chicken poop, cow blood. No longer are they allowed to be fed meat-and-bone meal because of the risk of Mad Cow transmission(http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2001/201_cow.html). Hardly a natural state. Corn et al. are used to increase fat and mass before slaughter. Makes for a bigger cow with more marbling. Unfortunately, it means less healthy beef when compared to grass fed cows(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/know.html). Happier seems to be healthier in that regard, at least.
There is also the well documented increase in deadly e. coli strains in corn fed beef. Not being able to digest properly means more bacteria that otherwise would not exist in a cow's stomach. More antibiotics, as is the general contention, means we kill the weaker germs in favor of the stronger, more virulent strains. Feedlot cows have more bacteria in their stomachs which is therefore released into groundwater and slaughterhouses, contaminating more than just the infected cow(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBK-49DFHDC-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6402486702b89d4b76759bb8f67644c5, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E3D91F3EF932A2575AC0A96E958260, http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2008/06/10/tomatoes_pulled_off_shelves_amid_salmonella_scare/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed3). Cows fed grass - no such e. coli (and for the record it is not ALL that prevalent in corn fed cows either, just much higher compared to their grass fed cousins. I would hate to be labeled an alarmist).
So how about this FDA screening of food raised by Ethan. Would tripling the FDA budget prevent this from happening. Certainly not the e. coli being present or making its way into various items that we consume and interact with. You would have to sample EVERY bit of food to prevent it from making it out of slaughterhouses, hardly practical. You would also have to have all cows poop in bags. Right now, the recent tomato scare(see above link) has sickened 167 people in a handful of states, killing one old fogey. Not horrible by any means if you look at everyone who probably ate tomatoes in the past 3 months. Being knowledgeable and proactive in your selection of food items is much more useful than relying on the FDA. I would not trust a government bureaucrat with a restaurant recommendation, let alone telling me my food is safe. Wash your hands, cook your food and you will most likely be okay. Feed cows a proper diet and you almost immediately eliminate the root cause of most of this tainted vegetable and meat mess. Does anyone else find it appalling that we fear e. coli on veggies? Spinach and tomatoes? Really?
So is it morally superior to look after the life of a cow a bit better when it will just end up on a plate? Give it a pillow; comb its hair each night; massage the rump? Is that our duty? Or should it be to put more importance on how our animal feed practices impact OUR health after the plate is clean (except for the pesky bacteria)? I agree with the latter. I could care less if a cow was hung upside down and suffocated with a plastic bag on slaughter day. If he ate healthily, according to his biology and not our industry, in a manner compatible with a healthy end product, it does not matter. Feed lots might not be so bad if cows were fed the right things. The combination of wrong food and wrong environment is proving deadly - both in minor e. coli outbreaks and overall affect on our health as meat eating humans. Heart disease, a problem closely linked to diet, killed 1 in 2.8 people in 2004 - more than Cancer and accidents combined.
And of course the major issue is if we do allow cows and pigs and chickens to roam around and let them eat and be their happy little selves, to do so sustainably (with regards to the amount of land, water, etc needed per animal) would entail Americans eating less meat on a daily basis. Do you think Americans would be able to do so, say eat meat only 2-3 times per week (as opposed to 2-3 times per day)?
It again, as I stated, is shocking to me, the amount of general disinterest, and ambivalence to the treatment of animals. To hear someone say they couldnt care less if a cow was "hung upside down and suffocated" shows a lack of humanity I find shocking. It is a living creature with a capacity for thought, pain and emotion....The amount of such traits in relative comparison to a human being does not give us domain to abuse it.
By this rationale, if a retarded kid needs to be euthanized, then a slow overdose of barbituates, on an IV, is the same as euthanizing him by hitting a with a sledgehammer..... No. No its not.
Exagerrated strawman arguments of "shoulder rubs" is in no way applicable. With the exception of extremist groups like ELF, no average animal rights supporter expects farms to be turned into 5 star hotels. Theyre just saying "hey, maybe they shouldnt stand in piles of their own shit, packed so tight they grow into their own cages, and are then put through a torturous death"...MAYBE we can find a middle ground between "shoulder rubs" and bathing with acid. Maybe.
I also dont mean to come off as aggressive or disrespectful, but it's a point I simply cannot grasp.
And if I have come off so, I apologize.
But arguments of absolute human domain are ones that truly in my opinion show a ironically glaring lack of humanity.
I do not maintain that animals should not be eaten. I do not maintain that they should have pedicures and aromatherapy centers. But I find such cartoonish depictions by some to be a convenient way of dismissing the very real, and very easily solvable issues of animal cruelty.
Basic accomadations for a living creature are not unrealistic. There is a huge difference between efficiency of slaughter and raising, and systematic barbarism.
I agree that humanity's interest, or as Eathan put it "the interest of his family" is placed over that of animals. However, those interests are not mutually exclusive. We CAN, if we remove such callousness, still give animals a relatively "happy" life and still provide cost effective meals for human beings.
We dont need wide open fields. But we dont need micropens either.
We dont need cows to be placed into an auditory symphony of soothing sounds while they are slowly drifted off to death. But we dont need callous and painful deaths of these animals either.
I have every sympathy for the farmer, and the entrepreneur. I wish for efficiency to rule the market, and for cost effectiveness to reign supreme. But such appeals must be made in a relative sense to the rights of the individual.
Without that rationale, we should reinstitute slavery as it is the most cost effective means of business for the cotton industry.
While some people will consider the following an extreme comparison, its not, and I will explain why.
At the time, it was considered that Africans were not human. At BEST they were 3/5ths of a human, as a result, callousness and cruelty reigned supreme, and cost effectiveness was considered over the rights of these "less than humans".
While we now seemed to have gained some rationality in regards to humanity, and its pretty obvious that an African and a cow are a bit different, the point being that at the time, a slaves status as "3/5ths of a man" was an excuse to turn a blind eye to excessive cruelty and a lack of respect of the individual.
We tortured abused and murdered entire peoples because our science of the day "proved" that they lacked the cranial capacity to understand, emote, and rationalize the world the way the civilized caucasian race could.
Just as our science of the day proves that animals lack the ability for abstract thought, emotion, and pain.
Perhaps we should stop assuming that "proof" of our superior mental capacity is 100% correct, and that even if it was, it is not a carte blanche justification to exploit another living being for the sake of everyone one of our comforts.
Arguments
I will only say that my statement about hanging an animal and suffocating was meant as hyperbole. As a tool of contrast. I figured everyone, since you know me well enough, would not take that literally. I had to let it fly a bit.
I totally agree with your slavery comparison. I would argue that it is our 'superiority' as a species over others (that is, we can dominate an ecosystem like no creature before us) places in our hands an extra level of responsibility in all things - including how we treat animals we eat. I find it morbidly amusing that animals, of such marked lower intelligence know when to stop grazing a field or hunting prey in an area and move on. Only humans have the conceit to think we need not obey natural laws.
What I find interesting about the 'interest of my family' argument is that better treatment of animals seems to be compatible if not symbiotic with that end. Unless 'interest of my family' means most for my dollar, in which case the opposite would hold true. I would think most in this group would agree that while a 2 dollar t-shirt provides the same skin covering a $30 t-shirt does, the same would not be said about bottom of the bin meat or veg.
Four comments in like 2 hours. Good show.
Im a little confused as to everyones position then.
The general opinion i seem to be gathering from my fellow posters is that concerns of savagery are a distant 2nd to efficiency and human comfort.
I agree that the prosperity of humanity comes first, but not at such a distance. Thats all Im sayin.
Since you raise that quandry...
My point is that primacy should be placed on how we raise the animals we intend to consume. A more natural approach to that will, I think, necessitate better killing methods. Though, I do think that the methods we use now to kill animals are by and large about as good as they could get for the mass meat production. It seems to be quick and as painless as possible in the overwhelming majority of cases. The slaughterhouse method after they die might be debatable.
On a deeper level, it should not be assumed that anything discussed is a personal opinion. Things should be viewed in an academic fashion. Promotes freer discussion, I think.
Sorry that I'm late to the party. I had a test on Monday and dealt w/ that first.
I'm going to approach this from a slightly different perspective. We recently joined a new church and in doing so visited the pastor's home several times to discuss the believes and administration of the church. On the last visit, the pastor told us that he and several other members of the church follow the dietary laws of the old testament.
I was surprised by this as I am sure they were surprised by the sausage that we had served the congregation a couple of times @ pot luck type events.
They don't obey just out of obedience, nor do they require anyone else to do so. In fact, the pastor said that if he went to someone's house & they served him steamed crabs, he would partake as it would be a greater offense to not accept the hospitality and therefor perhaps turn his host away from the Lord (plus everyone loves steamed crabs)
I've always taken God's presentation of "unclean" animals to Peter on the rooftop to mean that the ancient dietary laws are no longer necessary. (they could be prescribed for health reasons, but the Bible never really says "why") The pastor had a different interpretation. . .. but that is neither here nor there.
My point is that these animals are ceremonially killed. I'm not sure if kosher beef, etc. . . is killed in a more human way, but if so, is that more acceptable.
On the health front, I don't think there is a disagreement that we all want to eat the healthiest and least filled with crappy chemicals meat as possible. Still I find my self at Burger King or McDonald's depending of course on what the happy meal toy is that week.
Also, no one has yet brought up the hormones and effect on humans. There is no argument that girls today develop faster than generations ago. Secondary sexual characteristic have begun to appear much earlier and are linked to adult obesity and breast cancer as well as other societal ills. However, there is argument about whether rBGH causes such a thing. It would seem logical that it plays a role, but children drink less milk than they did 50 years ago and there is no real science that links the two as of yet.
So I think the way that we treat the animals could possibly had adverse affects on us.
As a side note, I have not bought store sold beef in quite some time. I'm on my second half of an organically grown cow. I did this out of economy and found that the meat tastes a hell of a lot better too. Am I healthier, I'm not sure as I still eat a hell of a lot of candy.
I would say that for health reasons we should be careful in the way that we store and process our animals.
I chose my words deliberately in that last paragraph. I like cute animals also, but I believe that man was given dominion over the beasts. This gift is possible to abuse as is any, but is our mass production of food abuse?
Animals are not humans. But should we still be nice to them?
Animal pain and human pain are distinct.
The above statement is up for debate. I'm going to play devils advocate and give some argument for the statement.
Animal pain is defined as "an aversive sensory experience that elicits protective motor actions, results in a learned avoidance and may modify species specific traits of behavior, including social behavior."
Human pain on the other hand is a psychological experience separate from behavioral reactions to injurious stimuli. Nocicpetion is the detection of injury by the nervous system that may or may not lead to pain. Therefore, just because you have a reflex does not mean that you've experienced pain.
In humans, the prefrontal cortex must be intact in order to experience the emotional sensation associated with pain. Mammals also have a prefrontal cortex, but it makes up a much smaller percentage of the entire brain. Humans 29%, chips 17%, cats 3%.
There have been some studies on the avoidance of pain producing activities in animals and also the response to analgesics and opiates and the seeking of these medications. Still inconclusive, but it seems that some animals exhibit this behavior.
An interesting note is chickens. It seems that in debeaking some chickens observed will peck less and exhibit pain guarding behavior. However, those with beak trimming and frontal area brain removal will be absent pain related behaviors.
Also, is seems that when disturbed or frightened, chickens can only attend to the fear and loose any semblance of pain. So, I suppose what we need is a new industry of chicken scarers. weak attempt at humor.
I've rambled on plenty and will conclude with this.
I believe that man is a higher life form than animals and that we are given dominion over animals. We use them for food clothing and labor. I also find the comparison of slaves to animals patently offensive and without merit. Just because people have deluded themselves (i typed "in the past" but then realized that there is plenty of slavery all over the world still today) does not allow the leap that animals = humans or will any time in the future. I'm curious how human slaves or former slaves would feel about that sentiment. I just think it is a poor argument and used to tap into white guilt and elicit an emotional response.
Let's not forget that plants are also living things and fire exhibits several characteristics of living things if we want to push the boundaries.
I am certainly not for the abuse of animals nor would I hurt an animal (I do run over already dead animals on the highway, but that is for the points, I'm sure you will all understand). But an animal is not a person. Let's also remember that nature is not human when a lion kills a zebra or some other such Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom type moment. (you are welcome for the plug Kevin)
I enjoyed reading all of your comments. This is a fun and interesting project. I can't say that the topic was one on the forefront of my mind, but it is nice to explore the intellectual musings of others and flesh out our own positions.
I'm off to pursue the almighty dollar. Peace to you all.
Namaste
Just for the record, on the slavery comparison, I made the explicit effort to maintain that the comparison is in regards to mans viewpoint and opinion of "dominion" over animals as a justification for neglect.
Not, as I said, a comparison of a human being to an animal. (although, I dont see why people get so bent about being compared to animals....you poop, you sleep, you act irrational. Just because you can watch TV doesnt make the comparison to a gopher so inherently insulting)
The point being, that as a result, many use this, and the "science" of the day (like it or not, it was widely accepted amongst scientists that blacks were 3/5ths of a human being.....Obviously, this was proven wrong later) Thusly, when I hear appeals of "chickens dont get hurt if theyre scared", while I would never reject data outright, id say, to be on the safe side, lets just not be dicks to them before we chow down.
Anywho, yes indeed. Spirited debate all around. I have another topic that is of great difficulty for me, and I will be posting thusly.
Post a Comment