MEAT

Fundamentally, eating meat is immoral as the lives we take are not ours, they are the innate property of our victims.
Humans do not require meat to sustain life or health, which means that there is no valid reason to slaughter another living thing. To allow meat eating, is to allow the perpetrator of an act to determine whether the act is moral or not, with no consideration of the victim needed. Eating meat, like allowing slavery, nullifies the concept of rights and relegates them to privilege at the discretion of the powerful.

I missed it.  What was the 'joke', if you don't mind repeating it here.

Anyway, thanks for speaking out for the animals.  Most people think animals are the last thing around they can abuse, because they can't complain.  At least in a way that most of these dorks understand.

It's always more painful to hear things you don't expect from 'your side.'  

I still don't see how one can claim to be a progressive, or a liberal, and still be benefiting from the products of a vile industry by eating meat bought from a supermarket.  I am not in the "never kill an animal for food" camp (humane practices on the family farm do exist), but, as long as the meat industry is as unhealthy for animals and the environment as it is, one should not try to rationalize one's non-conscious habit of eating meat.

Thanks for the topic.  It doesn't get enough attention. 

And the US way of growing veggies is good for the environment???????? Aren't plants living things too?????  When we till land how much life in the soil do we kill??? I do hate the way industry treats animals and all living things including us. We must support and encourage sustainable agriculture of all types. As a shepherd and a farmer I respect all life equally.

Goodness, Ed.  Did anybody say the US way of growing veggies is good for the environment? Aren't you assuming we vegetarians buy our veggies from supermarkets? Have you ever heard of local farmer's markets, buying organic or growing one's own veggies?

You are clearly a hero of the environment, with your farm and your conscious ethic. I APPLAUD you!  I wish there were more people like you! You are one of the good guys.

I do wish I could convince you that you are not the Progressive I am thinking of.  Your diet is clearly an ethical one. 

You should post some pics of your farm!  (or have you already?)

Zoe

Even our small farm organic veggie growers have a lot yet to be learned. Some use cover crops in the off season but their land is often too exposed during the growing season. This will demand too much organic matter and nutrients to be brought in from elsewhere. It also wastes water and provides no haven for beneficial plants, insects and organisms. in the future more of our foods will come from perennial plants. Annual crops will be sown with other none food plants to create a self maintaining and sustaining growth cycle.  The more life we can maintain in our soils the better chance we can become truly sustainable. Grass based multi-species livestock raising is presently the most sustainable practice going IMO. Combining it with tree fruit and nut crops is very good too. The plow can be a weapon of mass destruction when used improperly and the soils are left mostly naked with shallow rooted annual crops.

Organic weaned us from chemically controlling and killing. The next wave will rebuild a new truly sustainable food growing environment that will look very different from our gardens of today.

I retired from active farming of 43 years in 07 and now exclusively work to advance sustainable practices, systems and our youth.

Not necessarily.

But most plants don't have to be killed to feed us. Harvesting fruit doesn't kill the plant and even harvesting other plants such as lettuce or even potatos can be done without killing the plant.

Certainly there is some, but the difference is in the callous disregard for sentient beings and trying to cause as little harm as possible to those we don't value, as many farmers try to do.

I don't think killing animals for food is immoral. It's clearly the natural order of things. Humans in particular are adaptive and can live off of whatever is available, and sometimes animals are what is available.

However, the *way* in which we consume animals is immoral. That is, we raise them in captivity, and often treat them cruel in the process, and feed them inappropriately to maximize profit. That's just wrong, and we'll pay the price for it (Mad Cows' disease, anyone?).

I highly respect people who hunt in nature for their meat, that's the natural order of things. Even more than that, I highly respect those that understand the sacrifice that animal they're eating made so that they can be fed.

We spent so many years going in the wrong direction with our food and farming. If only we had put as much effort in working within nature the world would be a much better place. Nature is very complex yet offers the ultimate in enlightenments. No wonder industrial agricultural had to separate us from the teachings of nature. 

Jason:

I wouldn't say killing animals for food is immoral, necessarily, either.  However, I am uncomfortable with the notion of "the natural order of things."  Far too many disagreeable, unjust, bigoted, sexist, cruel and horrific things have been done in the name of the "natural order of things"—the oppression of women, blacks, gays, Jews... Palestinians... name your crime. A guy hits his wife—"Oh, that's just the natural order of things..."  And now we have most Americans traipsing off to the supermarket to buy the flesh of animals, animals whose suffering is justified, in some dull, unthinking part of the human brain, by the notion that all's well—"It's the natural order of things."

I'm sure the owners of huge agribusiness farms think they're entitled to torture animals and pollute the environment for the same reason."Humans are a 'higher' life form than animals; we're entitled—it's the 'natural order of things.'"

There ya go again. 

I highly respect people who understand that there is no "natural order," but that we do have brains and can adjust our eating habits according to what is humane, ethical and wise, given the current system of food production.

I don't know...there's something highly suspect about "natural order of things,"  something of the machismo (hierarchy). So much anti-vegetarian intensity seems to spring from the feeling that it's an assault on masculinity, not that I think Jason is coming from that place. 

And I think Ed's information is highly interesting and worth a second read.

This is how I considered being a shepherd made sense.

The healthy natural environments are mostly grass  covered. Grasses legumes, etc. are great cover to keep the soil alive and moist. These need ruminates with cloven hoofs to keep it healthy. Grasses goal in a year is to produce seed. If it is cut back by a grazer (or your lawn mower) before seed is accomplished it speeds up and the roots will spread and it gets stronger.Ruminate grazers stay in herds,flocks etc. They consist of many females and 1 or few males. The males are shunned from the group soon to meet some sort of not pretty peril. I am a steward of the grasses and soils and I keep the flock in harmony while being more humane than the wolves. Hopefully the food goes to help feed another steward.  

I continue to try to make sense of plowing soils and putting in row crops as good stewardship.

Didn't Jehovah find the burnt offering of Abel the herdsman more pleasing than the offering of Cain the farmer? And then Cain slew Abel.

(And this from an atheist...)

I don't think generalizing the term I used, then showing where it was misused is very useful. This *is* a case where animals eating animals is the natural order of things.

I'm not anti-vegetarian. In fact, I was a pure vegetarian for 11 years, and today the only meats I eat are chicken and fish. I reintroduced chicken and fish into my diet because the craving for them after 11 years suddenly came to me and was overwhelmingly strong. Clearly these meats had something my body needed and wasn't getting from a vegetarian diet.

I'm not saying these meats are the only place I could have gotten whatever it was I needed, but I like to listen to my body. My overall health has improved by doing so.

I have no cravings for red meat, and haven't had a bite in nearly 20 years.

Eating meat is immoral because we are moral beings, supposedly knowing right from wrong, with the prime obligation to minimize the harm we cause others, including those we do not value, and because we do not require meat to sustain life or health we it is incumbent upon us to not those we do not value just so we can enjoy ourselves.

We can make choices and so the "natural order of things" is not relevant to us as the same argument can be made for allowing the powerful to do what they will with those they consider weak. Morality is all about how we treat others, including those we don't value.

Flesh is edible, plants are edible. Animals (including humans) are nor more important than plants in terms of life and respect for it. In fact, the genetic difference between us and plants is way smaller than you might think. We all (plants and animals) have a common ancestor. If it's immoral to eat animals, than it's equally immoral to eat plants.

I think farming plants and animals are equally immoral and both have caused a riff in the natural order of things. But I can't go live as a hunter/gatherer, so I'm stuck with what I have before me to meet my needs.

I crave meat (well, poultry and fish anyway) and plants, it's part of who I am.

I have wondered who does better as a gatherer, us or the wild. Nature rarely has leftovers for guests. Are we guests?

I think farming plots have the potential to be able to be acceptable natural environments.

I live in a fairly rural area and there is a privately owned cow pasture directly behind my house. There's not a great deal of cows vs the land area (so there's no overcrouding) and I actually witnessed the owner of the cows actually petting a couple of the cows today (or perhaps checking their ears? Not really sure) and a couple would follow him when he walked away. Point is, they dont get abused. I don't know if they're milk cows or meat cows, btw.

I have been vegetarian for 13 years. It's a fact of life that not everyone is going to be one. I'd rather see "meat cows" living a natural life like those do than the ones who are abused from the moment they are born. Although, I don't know if these cows are milk or meat ones. Maybe either/or.

The difference is that plants don't need to die for us to eat plants. You can eat apples without killing the tree, you can harvest a few leaves from a plant, a few potatos, etc. The morality is in how we affect the "other". Because we can sustain ourselves without killing another sentient being, then that is our obligation. It is immoral to harm another simply because we exalt ourselves above them and make our desires a higher priority than their well being.

It is a good point that some plants can be consumed without killing them (not all though). However, I'm still not sold that there is an inherent moral duty to eat without killing. I do think there is an inherit moral duty to be respectful of the impact it has though. My gage on whether a moral duty exists is to understand the impact of behavior. There is nothing in nature or nature's history that indicates animals eating animals, in and of itself, causes any harm to the species or the environment, and thus given the urge to do so, I see no moral issues there. HOWEVER, there is plenty of evedence that the way in which humans consume animals, i.e. farming them, is harmful to the animals and to humans as well as the environment. And so, I do have moral issues with farming animals.

And so, Jason, considering the highly immoral system of industrial farming, have you chosen not to partake of industry-produced meat? 

So, the well being of the victim doesn't matter. What you use is a morality based on how the perpetrator of an act perceives the victim and if that victim isn't valued highly or at all, then the victim simply doesn't matter. Therefore the impact doesn't matter as the impact is effected on the victim. There is plenty of evidence that humans eating meat results in the pain, suffering, and death of victims we simply don't care about, except as objects for our satisfaction. The same goes for victims of rape, murder, etc. Either morality is universal or it's nonsense.

No, because that's where the food supply comes from. I think the farming of plants causes just as much harm. So, if I boycott farmed food, then it'll either be time/cost prohibitive for me to eat, or I'll starve.

Sounds a lot like the old, "either you're with us, or your against us" type of argument. Such rigid thinking is never helpful.

I think it's pretty outrageous to compare eating an animal or plant and raping a person.

You've drawn your own lines, and that's fine. You have no problem ripping appendages off of plants to eat (can I equate that with the ripping off an arm?), and so you've decided that plants don't deserve the same respect as animals. But somehow animals are the same as humans and deserve equal rights. Do you swat flies and/or mosquitoes biting you? Is that equivalent to murder? Do you get rid of spider webs in the corners of your rooms? is that equivalent to destroying a person's house?

I don't have all the answers. I know consuming animals is what happens in nature. I also know that consuming animals was an integral part of human evolution to this point (we wouldn't be what we are if we didn't consume animals).

I respect life, and I respect the circle of life. Animal consumption is part of that and always has been.

Sorry, but the fact is that we are purportedly moral beings, and so are supposed to know better, place the needs of others above our desires. Your position is all about the perpetrator of an act, with no concern for the victim. This is the very definition of immorality.

Very interesting discussion, but I am afraid this statement is hyperbolic.  I am a biologist and I was vegetarian for a while.  Initially, I was working on virus structure and biology.  However, when I started working on a very interesting question on muscle structure, I needed to use several model systems.  These included embryonic chicken muscle cells that I isolated from fertile eggs and adult skeletal muscle from euthanized chickens (and later mice and rabbits).  Perhaps you think this was immoral, but my research has led to several important advancements in the muscle field and will likely lead to better treatment of muscle injuries and diseases, including heart desease.

Universal morality is often used as a reason why abortion is imoral and should be illegal.  I am pro-choice because I DO value the life of the mother over that of a fetus.  However, what a lot of pro-lifers do not get is that this does not mean that I do not value, or disrespect the life of the fetus.  Similarly, I respect the life of humans over the life of animals, but that does not imply that I disrepect the life of animals.  To the contrary, I love animals, I love my pets, I love wild-life, I love diversity and conservation.  Common_Man_Jason is right, and denying that animals naturally eat other animals, is denying reality.  We can make moral choices about how we farm or how we impact the environment, but it is folly to try to live outside of the environment.  I suggest reading some Micheal Pollen and reading about Temple Grandin to get more eloquent arguments about this.

I am an unabashed humanist, I believe that well-educated, healthy children are our most precious and important resource.  Meat has many dietary benefits, and there would be a lot more malnutrition in the world if meat was not available.  Obviously, there are improvements that need to be made in farming and agriculture, and nutrition, but our children offer the potential to figure out these improvements.  We progress by moving forward, not by moving backward.

Now, I eat eggs and all kinds of meat.  I try to make good choices about what is sustainable and healthy.  My chief concern though is making sure that my son gets the best nutrition, which includes proteins, complex carbohydrates, fats, and vitamins.  Don't get me wrong though, I welcome your (and all) efforts to reform the food industry and improve the conditions of animals, but I disagree with this universal morality approach.

Jeff,

I didn't call you closed minded. I just said that the statement "Either morality is universal or it's nonsense." was rigid and unhelpful. If morality, for example, were universal then it would apply to plants, insects, bacteria. You kill bacteria when you fight off a cold, is that moral? This is why you statement can't possibly be true. Universal application of morals would imply that every scenario is the same, and life doesn't work that way. My point is that we all have the lines we draw, and therefore there isn't a pre-determined line that's right or wrong. No underlying moral code that transcends human decision. We get to make it up, unless it threatens our existence. And that's how nature works. That's how evolution works.

I don't think you understood what I meant when I said that animal consumption was a part of evolution. I don't mean "hey we did it before, so we should now." I mean that brain evolution was in response to a meat diet, and gave humans an advantage over plant eating primates (at least in terms of brain development).

Therefore, morality is relative, with Hitler being as correct as Ghandi. Nothing is wrong so long as the perpetrator doesn't consider it wrong. I agree that this is reality, however this means that right and wrong is determined solely by might, and the very concept of rights is nullified. Morality is essentially meaningless, unless of course the victim has enough power to defend him or herself.

Our main responsibility as stewards is to the soils and the life in them. We presently do a horrible job of that. What we eat/farm can have a huge impact. on soil health and usability. This will impact all life in the future. It baffles me why we tolerate present industrial farming and processed foods.

The killing concept of meat means many people who live in areas where they could not sustain with plant growth should move? There is also the displacement of animals that we cause Is that ok? I'm pretty much with Jason, All life has a role and until you understand how it All works one has to be careful with calling others killers etc. Most things strive for life but the system depends on death.

Your position sounds very much like that of my son. So here's a question I would ask him, if I wanted to annoy the hell out of him, which I don't, and so I zip my lip.  Here, perhaps it'll be safe to ask.  I hope so:

I have to assume you buy your meat from the supermarket? If not, if you buy from some local farm, this question is irrelevant.  If yes, I want to ask this:  Does your sense of entitlement, by virtue of your status as a human being, above animals, have any cracks in it—subject to doubt—where the knowledge of the lives of animals in factory farms is revealed to you?  That is, how much suffering becomes too much, or so much that you will decide not to provide a market for meat produced via industrial farming?  When does your conscience kick in, and you begin to say you don't want to be a partner in such cruelty? Or, is your belief in your entitlement rock solid?

Yes, always safe to ask me an earnest question...

Very good questions.  I was fortunate to live for a while on San Juan island, north of Seattle in the Puget Sound, so i was able to occasionally buy meat and eggs from local farmers (it was also where I could get fertile eggs and muscle samples from).  The additional benefit was that I was supporting the local economy, which being on a small island with ferry service, was a microcosm for the US economy.  But, my family certainly did buy meat and eggs from the supermarket.  We would choose organic when we could afford to.  Now that I live on the mainland, the prices are more affordable, so we buy almost exclusively organic meat and eggs.  We particularly like to get steaks and specialty sausages from a nearby butcher.  One thing that would help me is some type of rating system, for example the National Geographic Greendex score, so that i can make more rational decissions in the supermarket.  I do rather naively rely on the belief that the FDA is ensuring at least some level of humaneness, but I am sure that there are exceptions and improvement could be made.  I think that the suffering of animals need to be weighed against the suffering of people, and a sudden shift could lead to malnurishment.

I try to be a skeptic, especially of my own beliefs, and always like to consider each argument flipped on its head.  I certainly can become convinced of new things, when I have concrete evidence.  If I went to the supermarket and saw that each choice I had was a bad choice (say <30% Greendex score), than I would shop elsewhere (e.g. Metropolitan Market or Whole Foods).  But I am not going to stop buying meat because some producers are bad.  Knowledge is power!  I hope this doesn't hypocritical, but just my honest beliefs.

Should I assume you buy some veggies or grains etc. from large scale ag. or from stores that support it?

USDA/FDA don't

again, I say why do we tolerate this? They like to make us believe this is the only way we can have "affordable food" but they fail to mention the hidden costs of subsidies, environmental destruction, energy use, added health costs, respect of food, etc. etc.

I appreciate your honesty.  Unfortunately, I'm afraid naive is the operative word there, I say with respect.  The FDA is seriously NOT ensuring that animals are treated humanely.  I would say that the system itself is inherently inhumane. 

While I respect that you can do your own research—info is easy to come by—you might want to watch this episode of Democracy Now: David Kirby, Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Pig, Dairy and Poultry Farms on Humans and the Environment. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/24/david_kirby_on_the_looming_threat

David Kirby: "the FDA has been very lax and, I would say, asleep at the wheel..."

"Pig factories, for me, were the hardest to witness and take in and see and hear and smell. Pigs are incredibly intelligent animals, about the same IQ as a three-year-old child, smarter than dogs. The breeding facilities, in particular, are just horrendous, where these pigs, these female sows, are kept in crates, gestation crates. They’re kept pregnant virtually their whole lives. And then, when they give birth, they’re moved into another crate where the piglets go under the bars so that the sow won’t crush the piglets. Their life is horrendous. And quite honestly, the piglets have it good, because they’re only going to live about four or five months before they go to slaughter. When you go into these facilities, they put the piglets in when they’re young, and by the time they’re done, they’re 250 pounds each, but they’re in the same space. So they’re now so big they can’t turn around. And I spent the night right across the street from a hog farm in Illinois kept up all night long— "

Again, thanks.  This is an honest consideration on your part.  I appreciate that.

I certainly don't want to spread guilt, when you're just trying to live a conscious life and care for your family.  However, I should point out that the notion of the vegetarian diet as leading to "malnourishment" is a myth.  Plain and simple.  It's just a matter of education, and truly, it's not difficult to get all the nutrients you and your children need.  However, I'll leave it to you to search it out, or, maybe another of the contributors here can add some ideas, or sources. 

I must admit I understand the love of meat.  It's delicious.  And I miss it.  But I can do without, and have for over 20 years (my blood tests show plenty of protein and everything at normal levels, with no diabetes, no heart disease, etc.), as long as factory farms exist in the manner they do.  I simply won't be a party to it.

I was pretty sure that the FDA cannot officially do this (since it doesn't fall into food safety), at least to the satisfaction of some, because it is difficult to define what is humane for animals.  I know that there are lots of mice in research that are in small cages, but every scientist I know would lose sleep if they thought the mice (or any other animal) were not humanely treated and respected.  Part of this is because stressed out animals are useless for the scientist's studies.  Temple Grandin made that point for cattle farmers and slaughterhouses: that unstressed cattle are cheaper and frankly taste better.  We get safety inspections, and states should have some minimal standards set - but I am not sure who is going to set them - I mean how many people in the debate agree on what is "enough" or "too much". 

But speaking of inherently inhumane, it sounds like your arguing for not killing any animals for food.  Exterminators are also inherently inhumane, and maybe you'd say the same thing about scientists, or maybe loggers and flower fields (florists).  With all of these things, there are worse ways of doing things and better ways of doing things.  This is true even for vegetable farmers.  Also by analogy, it sounds like I should stop buying clothes, because there are sweatshops - but if some clothes are made using fair labor practices, then it would actually be best to support them so that they effectively compete against the one using sweatshops.  In the same way, instead of abstaining from eating meat, buy meat from a "good" farm. (I am in no way associated with any farm).  Some farms on San Juan island would sell a half-cow to a family that would eat it for months!

I will watch it, thanks for sending the link! I have actually long been waiting for something to happen with the FDA just like with the MMS.  As a biologist, it is clear to me that the FDA is in bed with corporations, and that appropriate safeguards are not in place.  This almost cerainly got worse with W. Bush (mostly an assumption, based on other areas).

I never said that the vegetarian diet leads to malnurishment, because I know it doesn't.  I was vegetarian for several years, and it (like just about everything else) is just a matter of education.  But I am talking about the practicalities of the matter in this case.  If every animal raised for food disappeared, there would be people who would become malnurished, some people can't figure out safe sex!

Some additional thoughts: I talked to my wife today, and she agreed that more information in the supermarket would help her make decisions about which products to buy. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that some scientists are trying to make meat grown from muscle cells in an incubator.  I know of several vegetarians that are split on whether they would eat this "meat".  Another idea that might make you think twice: I've heard that people in some asian country, perhaps Vietnam, eat fertile chicken and duck eggs, one with embryos inside, similar to eating oysters.  Is that inhumane?

I am sorry if I come off a little less serious this time, I am just in a mood, its not directed to you per se.

I really appreciate the thought in this discussion. The above quote tells much. Small farms thrive on transparency. Go to a farmers market or farm stand and farmers are eager to talk with you and offer the chance to visit their farm. I'm on our states board of http://www.aginclassroom.org/ where we work with teachers and local small farm farmers to bring education to children. What sorts of education is industrial ag. providing? Would the egg factories be willing to bring school kids through their facilities? Does "Hidden Valley Ranch" really exist?. Are the small farm pictures on the packages of factory foods deceiving? Do we want our kids thinking of foods as Tony the tiger, Ronald Mc., Jolly Green Giant, Dough Boy, etc? I find this very telling also "Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes® is proud to be the "Official Breakfast Food of Little League®". Many of the materials USDA/FDA offer for kids about farming and nutrition are also very deceiving.

Hello, sorry to point this out, but you are setting up straw men in your argument.  Not that I am an expert on logical fallacies, but I do believe you have presented several straw men, including those that follow in the rest of your text.

What we are talking about, the subject, is factory farming, industrial meat production, and it would be nice if we stick to the subject (yes, my mood is different too, though I am still hoping to be respectful, while directly honest.)  You cannot invalidate my position by bringing in all sorts of absurdities, by reduction.  That's just not fair; but just as bad, it doesn't work, logically.

When I say factory farming is inhumane, inherently, I am talking about the lives of the animals in the care of people whose only goal is making a profit.  I am talking about the fact that, for example, the first thing a female chick experiences is a hot blade searing off her beak, so the chickens don't peck each other from the stress of an unnatural imprisonment. I am talking about how chickens are crammed in tiny cages, with no movement, no fresh air, no sunlight.  I am talking about how pigs are immobilized in iron crates, forced to lie down in their own shit; young calves are taken from their mothers and tethered in tiny stalls, unable to move, kept weak and anemic, so that you can have your nice, lovely veal cutlet.

Those are among the realities that make for the inherent cruelty of this particular commercial enterprise.  As long as it is not traditional farming, where animals have natural lives out in the open, it is going to be inhumane.

If, as a scientist, you have decided that animals are lower on the scale of sentient beings and, thus, you imagine they do not experience pain as we do, or darkness, or being cramped, unable to move, being separated from mother; if you think animals do not suffer as we do, do not experience misery, then you and I are vastly different in our capacities for empathy.

How much of the scientific process is devoted to the denial of feeling?  I am not saying you are an unfeeling bastard. Not at all.  But, I notice that you avoid taking seriously my concerns, by coming up with as many irrelevant subjects as you can muster—so as not to look at the reality?  Just wondering—why?

As much as you want to put me in the hyper-sensitive, never-kill-a-living-thing camp, I am not. But I do care about this issue, the one we're talking about. 

Yes, I am setting up straw men, but not to distract you from the actual subject, but to help define what the actual moral objections are.  E.g. Why is it OK to kill rats and bugs using poisons instead of insisting more humane methods?  Part of this is to see what is humane, and a lot of it is determined by how we perceive animals - i.e. how human we make them in our mind.  While the details you give are horrible (and for which there is no real defensible position), there is one possible example: being separated from their mother.  Many animals do become naturally separated from their mother much earlier than we do, so it may seem crueller than it really is.  But really, I do not want to defend the meat industry.

BTW, I have used the same "straw man" reasoning on myself to find out why I support the right to have abortions, and for gay marriage.  So I am not trying to set up fallacies.

What I have been trying to do is raise the idea that not every animal you buy in a grocery store is bad.  Perhaps being in Seattle has helped.  I think more people are more aware of environmental issues here, so perhaps there is more demand for "free-range" and "organic" things.  There are farmer's markets around, but still kind of hard to get to.  I like going more for the social experience than for the food. But dropping out of eating meat is not the only choice.  You really did not address my more serious argument in my last message.  Wouldn't it be better to support the farms that do things right or do things better, than to not support any farms at all?

This whole thing reminds me of a lot people I talk to about voting.  They know they don't want the republicans, and they lump the democrats in with them, citing a few examples of disagreement.  But they wind up not voting at all!  Now, I suppose you can give money to groups that advocate sustainable farming, which finds its way down to these farms, but why not actually support the farms?

THIS is the root cause of most evils in this world and is one of the reasons why I like having a very high marginal tax rate!

When it comes to science, I am an unfeeling bastard. But I am still human, and have quite a bit of empathy.  I do not have a linear scale of sentient beings, I recognize that animals are different than human's though, they are not equal.  I believe there is a direct connection between they empathy you have for other animals and to other humans.  People who mistreat animals, mistreat humans.

I hope that we are seeing things more eye to eye than before.  I do not want there to be animal suffering.  But I also think that eating meat is natural and sustainable.  There is a lot to do.  Some of it is some basic science, to show people who focus on profit, that they are short-sighted, and there is a better way.

It has been a nice discussion with you.  It's funny, I listen mainly to Thom because I support his economic beliefs, and more skeptical on the environmental positions.  I expected to be having more discussions on those other message boards... oh well, like I said though, this has been a great discussion.

There ya go again...you are so good at those straw men!  When did I EVER say I did not support, nor did not want to support family farms?  You make assumptions, good sir, which is human—I'm good at that too—but, shoot, my head is exploding!  Please, try to get this!

It is not at all difficult to figure out that factory farming, industrial meat production is a cruel, inhumane business, whatever little nit-picky discussions you want to have about pulling wings off of flies, and whether or not that is inhumane.  Can't you just say Yes, factory farming is inhumane?  And from there, can you see that to buy your meat from the outlets—supermarkets— that stock and sell that meat "product" is to be a party to that cruelty?  Can you see that to ever buy that "product," when you have a choice, as you must in Seattle, of buying meat which is family-farm-raised, is to make an unethical choice?  Can you see it?

I'm saying eat all the meat you want.  Just don't buy it from the supermarket.  (and "free-range" does not mean it was not raised in inhumane conditions)  Go ahead and support family farms.  I am all for it!  (However, I could never bring myself to kill a pig, or a calf, or cow.  It just isn't in me anymore.)

I keep coming back at you, because I think it's a hugely important issue.  I've heard it said that among the various things one can do to improve our chances to save this planet would be to stop supporting factory farming.  According to many experts, industrial meat production is responsible for water pollution, and contributes significantly to global climate change, given the greenhouse gasses, methane, etc: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."   http://www.suite101.com/content/industrial-farming---a-look-at-factory-farming-a215391  

More of us need to take a stand against these bastards—and those are the REAL heartless bastards, believe me.  We vegetarians can't do it alone.  The rest of you need to make better choices too, and the first better choice would be to stop buying meat at the supermarket.  It is possible to order meat online from family farmers, though I don't have a link for you.  On second thought, buying meat online may not be the answer either—considering the transportation factor of having meat sent from a distance, you will be adding to your carbon footprint in a big way.  The answer?  Be brave.  Let go of pride in being a "heartless bastard."  Be whole, which means having a heart too.  Try being a vegetarian.  It's better for you.  It's better for the planet.  It's better for animals, the Other we always think of last.

It's been lovely, but I have to scream now.   Just kidding.  I appreciate the conversation, very much.

I'm sorry, but...

You are categorically stating that it is inhumane, but I am saying it doesn't have to be...  I think Temple Grandin would also say it can be humane.

You are categorically stating that all meat from the supermarket is from inhumane farms.  Can you REALLY be certain for the supermarket I shop in? Or from the butcher I go to?

I can tell its an important issue for you, and I am not trying to change your mind.  But I think that proselytizing being a vegetarian is extreme, and while it is a noble ideal, small steps towards the goal is more likely to convert people's behavior.  I think PETA has come to learn that with some of its positions too.  There is a great song, the Sojourn of Arjuna, that talks about this:

http://www.lyricsmania.com/the_sojourn_of_arjuna_lyrics_victor_wooten.html

I have been a vegetarian for several years, as I said before.  Is eating more vegetable better for you... yes. Is eating less meat better for the environment, I guess.  Vegetarians are definitely better for animals than meat eaters (although it can be argued that culling herds can be advantageous, and in that case why not eat).  Is becoming a vegetarian appropriate for everyone, no.  Is it necessary that everyone becomes vegetarian, no.  But like you said above, its fine if I eat as much meat that I want.  Why not try a less extreme position, and say: "one night a week, eat no meat, or only eat sustainable meat (from a family-farm).  You will like it, and it will make you feel better." At that point, you've set the wheels in motion...

I also like the idea of a brochure for each supermarket, or even a little searchable online guide, that grades the choices available.  It would point out the choices that fail, and let people choose between ones that get a C versus a D.  (I am giving you the benfit of the doubt that none in a generic supermarket would get A's or B's).  This would give more highlight to the issue, and let people complain to the store that they need to get better meat.  If entire stores advocate for improved meat production, changes may occur more quickly.

My research into muscle may help us design efficient machines that run off from sugar.  That is what I put my energy into figuring out.  Just because I don't put my energy into your big issue, that does not give you the right to suggest that I am heartless, or not awake, or not a good person.  I am all for you advocating your point and making a change, but the position "don't buy meat from the supermarkets" is extreme, and ultimately counterproductive at convincing people, IMO.

Rysl, I am talking about the reality, about what is real, right now; I am not talking about what could be in some fantasy world in the future. Temple Grandin was employed to design ways for reducing the stress of animals during the slaughter process.  And what she imagines might someday be humane factory farming is beside the point.

If you continue on this imaginary thread, wishing and hoping for what might be, how can I avoid the conclusion that you are in denial?

I don't know about your butcher, but, if you can trace the source of your supermarket's packaged meats, and you can categorically prove that the meat came from a family farm, and not a large agribusiness, industrial farm, then I will be surprised; I would also apologize.  Why don't you go ahead and do the research?  Not that I would ever tell you what to do...but how about being an activist shopper?  Get the facts?

You can call it "proselytizing;" you can call my position "extreme," if you like. Be my guest.  However, you should know that this sort of ad hominem attempt to manipulate against truth and change is simply yet another logical fallacy in the service of denial.  If I were inclined to use such tactics, I might say that you are, unwittingly, a tool of the system. But I am not.  It isn't necessary, because I have the facts on my side. 

And, by the way, I DID NOT say you were a "heartless bastard;" I had merely picked up your pride in being such, and, so, mentioned that pride.  Did I not refer to you as "dear sir?"  That's because I don't see you as a bad guy at all—a good guy who wants to find excuses for his choices.

See, normally I pretty much just eat according to my own ethics and do not bring up the subject of factory farms at the dinner table or anywhere else in polite company.  I NEVER shove these facts in the faces of those I love, or anybody else, for that matter.  (Actually, I have friends and family who are vegetarians too, so I am happy in that.)  But here, at the Thom Hartmann site? Hey, it's free speech, right?

Do you think you are proselytizing, or being extreme, when you discuss your anti-war (for the sake of discussion, I'll assume a few things here.) position?  How about when you discuss your anti-globalism position; your anti-"free" trade position?  Your pro-choice position?  C'mon, rysl, what and how we eat is political.  It's just another subject, where the larger subject is corporate dominance; corporate monopoly; corporate immorality; economic injustice; the wrongheaded farm bill; global warming....and on and on.  Just because it's the one issue that is closely tied to the choices of individual, ordinary Americans; the one issue that is within our power to affect, by our choices, well, that must be why it's so sensitive to bring up.  We are accountable, in the most intimate way there is!  There's not a lot I can do to stop the wars; but I can choose not to eat meat, a choice that—if more people made the choice—has the power to stop a crime happening continuously, every second, against helpless animals, and in the process clean up the environment and get started on our way toward a healthy planet.

I am sorry if I have made you uncomfortable, or for my disrespect in appearing to say what you should do.  I agree that small steps forward are valuable and worth taking. However, that doesn't much help the creatures that are suffering right now; whereas, if we were to boycott factory farm animal products, we might actually see an end to such misery in no time at all.  No market, no industry.

I hope you think about it some more.  I don't have the power to force you to change, and I wouldn't want that power.  It's up to you.  Your choice.

Zenzoe

Are you able to be a vegetarian and find enough product year round to be able to avoid buying from large scale producers or their subsidiaries? I've been to events in Washington DC with some of the large organic corporations and question many of their business practices and tolerances for the small farm movement. They now focus in on areas where small farms have nurtured markets.. Large scale agribusiness needs to make many fundamental changes and needs pressure across the board.

Good question, Ed.

I am reminded just how difficult it is these days to be sure one's purchasing power is not inadvertently misplaced and squandered, trying to "find love in all the wrong places," so to speak.  Certainly, it is nearly impossible to make ethical choices, given the global economy, given the facts you mentioned.

This is why, where my eating habits are concerned, I shop at our local farmer's market and a local alternative market; it's another reason to be a vegetarian.  I have to admit, however, that I cannot always be sure about the produce I buy, as to its source and the operations of those farms. But I try, and that's about all a person can do.

Also, I have a little vegetable garden.  I know for sure what I'm getting there!  And one does not have to have strawberries all year 'round, for example.  We've become so spoiled, behaving as though we are entitled to consume as global consumers, rather than living locally.

Wow, still with the rigid ideas. Yes, morality is arbitrary, and defined by cultural commonality. That doesn't mean the only option is determination by might. Morality often comes from the need to survive, and in any case always comes from a common cultural problem. And so, most rational people can see that dictatorial corporate rule, and extermination of people are not good for a society. We therefore see a moral duty to eliminate Nazis. However, we've not yet gone so far as to recognize a moral duty to eliminate fascism.

Farming is a common cultural problem, and at some point we'll develop moral solutions to solve it.

Eating animals is only wrong, in terms of moral development, when it causes a cultural problem that needs to be addressed. Hunting for and eating animals causes no such problem. In fact, it often solves problems of hunger and over population, etc.

Life is not black and white, it's not even shades of grey. It's a multicolored spectrum of complexity.

Yes, and? You want me to be flexible enough to accept that your brutalizing of another living thing is acceptable, because it's cultutally acceptable. To be flexible, one would also have to accept that certain cultures brutalize women or that murdering homosexuals is a benefit. This means explicitly that might makes right as the only way the intended victim can protect him or herself is to fight or run away. With regards to raising nonhumans to eat, this is unnecessary as humans do not require meat to survive or maintain health. Therefore, the common problem of raising enough food for everyone can be met humanely by raising plants.

It's wrong because it harms the victim, the nonhuman animal. Using your argument, antisemitism was a perceived solution to a problem and getting rid of Jews was seen as not causing any problems. Your argument supports moral relativity and uses the perpetrator as the judge of whether an act is moral or not, with no regard of the victim. Of course you slaughtering an animal causes no problem, for you!

Either morality is based on how one affects others, the other's well being, or it is meaningless.

Well, many things aren't that gray.

Well, we might have to agree to disagree soon. We just have different world views here.

You insist we don't need meat, but on what are you basing that assumption? As far as I know, there isn't scientific consensus on this issue. Also, whether or not a body needs meat, there's also the issue of what the environmental impact would be if all humans stop eating animals. It might put a strain on the way we farm (in order to meet the demand), which is already getting strained. It might cause over population of animals. These are unknowns because it has never happened, i.e. humans have always consumed animals as part of their diet (yes, exceptions exist here and there, I'm talking about humans as a whole).

Also, you haven't answered my questions about where you draw the line on valued life. Do flies count? So spiders count? Bacteria? Where do you stand on abortion? I ask not only to challenge you to question your position, but also out of curiosity. As far as I can tell, you don't consider plant life to be as sacred as animal life, for example. I.e., it can be held in captivity and robed of its fruit and/or appendages, and/or killed for human consumption.

Yay Jeff Bliss!!!

This comment, above, is important.  This is how the animal rights movement is stigmatized; it is how a mad culture always attacks its progressive movements—"extremists," "n***er lovers," "commie," and so forth.  I'm surprised Rysl didn't think to accuse me of being a "veggi terrorist." 

I am reminded of the extremes to which a corporate culture, including those who unwittingly support it, will go to protect profits, especially in this era of national paranoia.  This madness resulted in the "Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act" in 2006, and made my speech here, if it were to cause loss of profits for the "animal enterprise" industry, a Federal crime, and me, a "terrorist." Hello? http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/faqs/factsheet%3A-animal-enterprise-terrorism-act-(aeta) "Animal enterprise?"  What is this if not Orwellian madness?

Jason, please stop it already.  How about sticking to the subject?  (Shoot, straw men galore with this discussion.)  We are talking about sentient beings.  One definition of Sentient: "endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousnes." Feeling, Jason, feeling.  The pigs who scream all through the night, while squeezed into iron crates, FEEL.  Are you so distracted from your own feeling, while in the midst of intellectualizing away at your position, that you have lost the ability to empathize?

All mammals share the same portion of the brain that has emotional content. They experience torture, confinement, the same way human beings do.  And yep...pigs scream...just as a human being would under the same conditions. The psychopaths who raise them inhumanely don't give  a damn anymore than they give a damn if you get sick and die from eating them..How about a nice dose of salmonella along with their torture?

 I first gave up meat when I became aware of the cruelty involved in industrial farming,, ...and  the disease...., the spreading of botulism, etc from the torturous practices.. Probably grinding up tumors and putting them into hamburger isn't a good idea. Eating animals that are near death from illness probably isn't a good idea. A vet is a bad joke....jusk keep 'em alive long enough to slaughter.

The death of the Gulf was well under way before the oil spill...from industrial farming pollution. In some areas of the nation, water isn't safe to drink for 6 months of the year.  Industrial farming pollution.

However, it's illegal in Colordo to bring up those issues unless a direct liability can be made between human sickness or  death to a specific animal. Of course, that's pretty near impossible to trace.

It's a felony. It carries a prison sentence in this state to question or criticize agricultural practices within the state..Special liability laws for the food industry.

So, for the record for Cyber Snoops, I heartily recommend everyone in the nation to increase their use of Colo. meat products by at least 365 lbs. a year. While practices in other states may be abominable...Colorado is exempt from that. The legisature says so.

Colorado, unlike other states, isn't under corporate control. The legislature says so. In several states, it's illegal to photograph industrial farming. As far as I know, Colorado hasn't yet passed a law to prohibit it..

I probably shouldn't have watched a documentary on PBS last night on industrial farming. It was unsettling....and I saw very clearly why Univ. studies point to a collapse of U.S. agriculture.

Take up gardening...eating seems to be a requirement for human life..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

I agree. From my perspective, the problem of culturally acceptable brutalization can be sourced to a) the fact that humans have exalted themselves above all others, including those of another gender, and/or race, thus making those below them of no consequence, except as a resource for our use, and (b) that all perspectives are valid and of equal value.

The fact is that those that see nothing wrong with creating life to destroy it, as in meat production, are using the exact same rationalizations used by certain people to objectify others to promote themselves, as with the Taliban or white supremists. It is all about comfort derived from placement and being unaccountable for the effect one has on another. All perspectives are not valid or equal because the individual has no right to ignore the rights of those they affect. To allow one to be considered an extremist, whether in promoting vegetarianism in the interest of nonhumans or promoting the equality of the sexes or races, explicitly requires that one accept that the victim being supported by the "extremist" is truly of no value except as determined by the perpetrator. This is the absurd conclusion of liberal thought of individual freedom.

You'll notice that never is the interest or rights of the victim is considered, that it is always about how the powerful's world is affected by consideration of the powerless' well being or rights. Our morality is merely a mirror and is about "me" without any regard for those "I" affect, unless they have the power to protect themselves.

Not only the loss of profits is a threat but also loss of place, as in being forced to consider the well being of those not worthy of consideration. How can we be the apex of creation when we must consider those below us? This is as much a threat to those that eat meat as it is to those that are forced to consider females or people of other races as equals. This is the travesty in their eyes. Of course, many people are merely the result of their culture that promotes that idea and will change their behavior if they think about it.

Actually, no, I won't stop. It's important information to me. Ironically, you've answered while also asking not to have it asked. So beings with feeling and consciousness count as worthy of protection, if I'm interpreting you correctly (and somewhat assuming that would be Jeff's answer too). That's the sort of line I was asking about, and I thank you for saying so.

That's not where *I* draw the line, and thus this is the basis on the difference of opinion. I also don't know what beings are sentient or not. Are insects sentient? How do we know plants aren't? Because there are no known ways for a plant to communicate with humans (e.g. scream when cut), does that mean they have nothing to say?

My line is in a different place because I don't desire to play God. I know nature has always had a balance with animals (including humans) eating animals, and I know most humans have a natural craving for it. I also know that when done with a respect for nature, eating animals has environmental advantages. I also have my doubts on whether plant life alone can sustain human existence, in terms of supply. At least not without affecting animal life (i.e. because then we'd be competing more with animals for food, being that we'd be taking more from their supply).

I respect all life, and I respect it holistically. We have symbiotic relationships with *all* life, and for most of earth's history, following instinct has aided evolution and advancement. It is when humans mess with nature that things go wrong (e.g. farming, industrialization, etc.)

So my issues remain with the farming industry, not with eating animals in and of itself. I don't participate in boycotts because they are usually ineffective against large industry, unless a critical mass is reached. Call it selfish, but I'm not going to make a sacrifice unless I know it will cause more good than the harm to me. I went 11 years as a strict vegetarian and it didn't help improve the farming industry. And being a vegetarian doesn't address farming in general, just animal farming.

Jeff

I  believe that all forms of factory/industrial farming as presently done are horrible in many ways. But if we all went to a vegetarian diet, where are the nutrients to feed these plants (especially the annual veggies, fruits and grains) going to come from? At least grass grazing can be done sustainably without adding nutrients from elsewhere.

Good. I would love to hear about those issues.  When you say "farming industry," are you referring to farming in general, or the meat industry? I repeat my request that we stick to the subject—we're talking about highly evolved animals, creatures that can feel pain much in the same way that we do. 

That's what we're hoping for—"a critical mass," because one vegetarian will not make a difference. 

Still, you understood the issue and wanted the industry to change.  That much is clear; you apparently had some appreciation for the cruelty involved.  Why then, regardless of your power to change the industry, did you feel okay about returning to actively supporting the industry by buying its product and eating its meat?  Do you not see an ethical irony there? 

If my neighbor has a pig and houses it in a tiny iron crate, and the pig screams all night, and the neighbor is dumping the pig shit on my yard and into the local water supply, you can believe my neighbor will come to the attention of the local authorities and be sued by the SPCA.  However, if a corporation does the same thing, on a massive scale, its behavior is sanctioned by the state and by meat-eaters all over the U.S., because profit has greater value than ethical, humane behavior.  We know that treating animals in this way—the agribusiness way—is cruel and inhumane, but we can't take a stand against it, by not supporting its product, because we have a selfish need to indulge our tastes, and our excuses for doing so, regardless of the suffering caused by our behavior?  I think so.