teatpuller wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
Does a being have to be intelligent to suffer? That assertion is, all due respect, preposterous.

Do you think mushrooms suffer?

We were talking about fish, right? Sentient beings. Anything that feels pain is going to suffer. There is research that indicates that when fish are speared, harpooned, dragged on decks by hooks inserted into their eyes that, yes, they do feel pain and this pain can be measured. The suffering cannot be measured but I think it's a fair assumption that there is suffering taking place.

The real question is, Does this suffering matter to us and should it matter to us?

Well, personally I don't equate the nervous response to avoid dangerous/deadly stimuli as "suffering."

Eating animals is fine by me, and I admit they do go through a certain amount of pain/suffering. The animal would have never existed at all if not for my demand for it. I try to buy from small producers where I hope an animal leads a somewhat pleasant life, though I can't be assured of it.

From a recently published book whose author shall remain nameless:

If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?

Think about that one.

teatpuller wrote:Well, personally I don't equate the nervous response to avoid dangerous/deadly stimuli as "suffering."

Eating animals is fine by me, and I admit they do go through a certain amount of pain/suffering. The animal would have never existed at all if not for my demand for it. I try to buy from small producers where I hope an animal leads a somewhat pleasant life, though I can't be assured of it.

I'm not talking about "avoidance" but about the actual sensation of pain, which apparently can be mapped.

The argument that an animal wouldn't exist at all if not for us (not true of most fish, incidentally) is a tough argument to support. Can you really say it's better for the animal to have a short, miserable, pain-filled life than none at all?

Your approach is pretty much my own: I'm not planning to stop eating meat, but most of our meat comes from smaller producers, and I feel that way I get better quality food and some peace of mind.

teatpuller wrote: I try to buy from small producers where I hope an animal leads a somewhat pleasant life, though I can't be assured of it.

I try to do the same, however if it came down to a decision of eating no meat or eating evil factory meat, I'd be evil.

David Hammond wrote:
Can you really say it's better for the animal to have a short, miserable, pain-filled life than none at all?

I object: begging the question.

Cattle for the most part, do not lead a short, miserable, pain-filled life. Hogs, I would also say not (but sows, yes). Chicken probably do. Layers probably the worst of the lot. However, that isn't necessary. I have seen some quite happy looking chickens.

teatpuller wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
Can you really say it's better for the animal to have a short, miserable, pain-filled life than none at all?

Cattle for the most part, do not lead a short, miserable, pain-filled life.

My understanding, based on Omnivore's Dilemma (which is a qualifier; Pollan's position is clear), is that cows eat corn, for the most part, which causes severe acidosis (because it's not what cows were born to eat), and so are slaughtered in a relatively brief amount of time because if they were not, they'd sicken from the physiological maladies brought on by the unnatural foods they're given to eat.

I shot a video at the Montfort feedlot in Colorado in the 90s. It was a hellish scene. I cannot imagine any sentient being feeling anything but misery in that kind of environment, though I will admit that this is an anthropocentric perspective (but that's all I got to work with).

Chickens, yeah, they're way worse off than cows.

So, using Pollan's argument that food products entice us to do things....chickens, pigs, lambs and cattle have made themselves delicious so that we'll protect them from the elements, feed them, treat them when they get sick, so that their future survival is secured. And death, nice death or rough death, is accepted by the animals as a small payment to pay. So the whole eating animals is a really natural phenomena that animals are fully on board with.

I'm there.

Re acidosis....it's not the eating of corn (which is a grass) per se that causes the problems. It's the gorging on corn in quantities that can be digested that causes the problem. Cattle -- or any animal -- would never be able to get starch in such high quantities if man didn't provide it. So in that regard, it's unnatural.

Cattle are killed at an age that it makes economic sense. Why pay to feed them longer than is necessary? Feeding cattle corn is expensive and done prior to slaughter to fatten them up. They are not killed because they might develop acidosis.

Cattle are in feed lots for 5-6 months, about a quarter of their lives. The way to make money in the feed lot business is rate of gain, meaning how much weight you can put on them quickly and cheaply. Sick and uncomfortable cows do not eat and do not put on weight, so obviously that is not the desired situation.

Acute acidosis can occur very quickly and results in all kind of problems including death. I'm sure the goal is to feed as much corn as possible without pushing it too far. And if you never have acidosis problems you probably aren't pushing it far enough to make money.

This isn't a pretty picture but by in large these animals are not in misery. The whole system could be adjusted to make the animals' lives quite a bit more pleasant, but people aren't going to pay 5 cent/lb more for a slightlier happy cow.

Cattle finished on farm by small direct-market producers lead very pleasant lives from what I've seen. That being said, the most atrocious animal conditions I've ever seen were at small Amish farm. I sold them a cow once and felt terrible about it.

auxen1 wrote:So, using Pollan's argument that food products entice us to do things....chickens, pigs, lambs and cattle have made themselves delicious so that we'll protect them from the elements, feed them, treat them when they get sick, so that their future survival is secured. And death, nice death or rough death, is accepted by the animals as a small payment to pay. So the whole eating animals is a really natural phenomena that animals are fully on board with.

I'd been buying into this argument for a while, but now I'm rethinking it. I'm just not sure a chicken can enter into a relatively sophisticated contract like this, you know. As a meat eater, I certainly feel better thinking that the animal entered into the deal, and if on the final day it seems like a bad deal, too bad. A deal is a deal.

auxen1 wrote:Cattle are killed at an age that it makes economic sense. Why pay to feed them longer than is necessary? Feeding cattle corn is expensive and done prior to slaughter to fatten them up.

The economic argument does make perfect economic sense.

teatpuller wrote:That being said, the most atrocious animal conditions I've ever seen were at small Amish farm. I sold them a cow once and felt terrible about it.

Wow, that's interesting, and although anecdotal, chastening. The Wife and I were just talking last night about how we feel pretty good about getting Amish chickens because, you know, the Amish seem like they'd take good care of their animals. I'm guessing there are good and bad Amish farms, but your experience further challenges our assumptions.

David Hammond wrote:

teatpuller wrote:That being said, the most atrocious animal conditions I've ever seen were at small Amish farm. I sold them a cow once and felt terrible about it.

Wow, that's interesting, and although anecdotal, chastening. The Wife and I were just talking last night about how we feel pretty good about getting Amish chickens because, you know, the Amish seem like they'd take good care of their animals. I'm guessing there are good and bad Amish farms, but your experience further challenges our assumptions.

I certainly don't want to implicate any group based on such limited experience, but I doubt the Amish spend much time worrying about the suffering of animals. They lead incredibly difficult lives and basic survival is their primary concern.

teatpuller wrote:I certainly don't want to implicate any group based on such limited experience, but I doubt the Amish spend much time worrying about the suffering of animals. They lead incredibly difficult lives and basic survival is their primary concern.

I was not taking your comment as a sweeping generalization against any group, just that sometimes we make assumptions about the way animals will be raised. For instance, menus advertise "Amish chickens," I'd suppose, because there are assumptions made about the quality of meat based on how the chickens were supposedly raised.

I doubt anyone spends much time worrying about the suffering of animals, unless those animals are pets.

jesteinf wrote:From a recently published book whose author shall remain nameless:

If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?

Think about that one.

Ugh! I saw this on FB yesterday & swore it was from the Onion. Now I have confirmation that it wasn't a parody. <sigh>

David thanks for posting the Foer event. I went, it was packed & too brief.

I got home & downloaded a sample of the book. I've devoured that sample today & passed it to my husband. Foer has some interesting points for me. I'm the vegetarian who didn't become a vegetarian for any sort of animal rights or environmental rights reasons.

I can definitely feel folks become defensive when they hear I'm a vegetarian. In fact we are going to Mado on Saturday because our dining companion made a point of not wanting to eat anything vegan (FWIW I'm not vegan). I let him know I chose Mado because of his comments & I want him to take full advantage of the atypical restaurant offerings that should be available for his consumption.

On a different note that Foer raised in the book Gaffing fish does make me think differently & caused me to be greatly disturbed. I also appreciated the Thai recipe for Dog, wedding style ( after reading it I could just about hear someone saying it tastes like chicken , but you won't ever get your hands on my dog while she's alive!)

jesteinf wrote:

If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?

I think that quote is great & funny, but then again I am a member of PETA(People Eating Tasty Animals).

pairs4life wrote:I can definitely feel folks become defensive when they hear I'm a vegetarian.!

When people hear you're "vegetarian," I think they may automatically assume you're going to be self-righteous, holier-than-thou, and generally a PITA (if not PETA). Maybe it'd be best to say to people, "I'm just not eating meat anymore," or some general description rather than a self-affixed label which tends to become a lightening rod for the intolerant.

I prefer, "I'm an ovolactofermovegalegumian, but I eat non-bipedal meat if it comes from a farm meeting standards of humane raising, as long as there is no use of subtherapeutic antibiotics or genetic modifications, and if the closing of said farm would have a negative impact on environmental factors in the area due to its likely replacement by more heavily zoned commercial development which would increase runoff and erosion, and disrupt honeybee migratory patterns, thus necessitating the trucking-in of bees which contributes to increased carbon impact on global warming."

Nobody ever feels cornered by that.

smee wrote:Personally, I'm definitely negotiating this in a very loose fashion. I'm attempting to buy sustainable, non factory farmed meat for cooking at home (and I must say, motivated as much by taste as by concerns about animal welfare), but eating out is much more complicated. A world without Lao Sze Chuan's aforementioned lamb, or the shrimp in mayo that I had for lunch yesterday, makes no sense to me. For me, for now, it means choosing vegetarian at mediocre places, chains, fast-food, where taste does not make an overwhelming case; eating meat at those fabulous ethnic places on occasion; wholeheartedly eating meat at places where they buy local, organic and humane, and spending a little extra to eat better sourced meat at home. In the few weeks I've been doing this, I find that I eat meat about once or twice a week and vegetarian the rest of the time.

This is pretty much where I've ended up about eating meat. Someone somewhere coined the term "lessetarian" for this behavior.

It just occured to me I don't know how to pronounce Foer's last name, and I'd like to. Does it rhyme with "core" or does it rhyme with "mower"?

riddlemay wrote:It just occured to me I don't know how to pronounce Foer's last name, and I'd like to. Does it rhyme with "core" or does it rhyme with "mower"?

Looks like it's the former I just finished reading the sample on my Kindle. Will start reading the book over this holiday. It was surprisingly thought provoking because I became a vegetarian for health reasons.

Peace for all this season,

pairs4life wrote:

riddlemay wrote:It just occured to me I don't know how to pronounce Foer's last name, and I'd like to. Does it rhyme with "core" or does it rhyme with "mower"?

Looks like it's the former...

Thanks, pairs4life.

Peace back atcha.

smee wrote:Sorry to be so tardy with my response! For me, for now, it means choosing vegetarian at mediocre places, chains, fast-food, where taste does not make an overwhelming case.

You could also pick vegetarian or "mostly vegetable" options with cuisines that have a history of choices in this area. Depending on how strict a vegetarian you are, Indian, Italian, Greek, Thai, Vietnamese, Southern US, etc., restaurants have good options. Eating less meat doesn't necessarily mean you have to settle for mediocre if you match your order to the cuisine.

I'm guessing that you do this already and just didn't put it in your post though.

Great post. I have never been a vegetarian but I find myself leaning more and more towards vegetarian choices because I feel better and healthier. I wish I could say it was for concern for the animal but it is more a concern for a healthier lifestyle. I find myself questioning my choices and what goes into my food and my body more and more. I always say everything is all about finding the balance. Live and let live and each person is free to make their own choice without being judged.

gooseberry wrote:I always say everything is all about finding the balance. Live and let live and each person is free to make their own choice without being judged.

Balance is what we're looking for. I'm thinking I may limit my meat consumption to restaurant dining (which I do a lot of, so it's a small step, but still a step).

The whole "not judging" issue is one I've struggled with for years...actually since the publication of "I'm Okay, You're Okay," which I always interpreted as basically "Don't shoot!!" People don't want to be told they're doing something wrong and so they vow not to tell anyone else they're doing wrong, either, in hopes of escaping censure. But people do wrong, there's no way around that, and I believe it's wrong to eat as much meat as we do. I'd go on, but I have a 25 pound turkey to brine, 4 pounds of shrimp to boil, etc.

it's wrong to eat as much meat as we do

The fact that we all have definitions of what constitutes too much causes real conflict. Vegans and vegetarians might be on one extreme with my brother in law on the other. I'm somewhere in between but agree with David that we eat too much meat. I believe our craving for meat is in our dna and our relative affluence allows us to consume at the levels we do.

So what guides me and does this affect my (family's) consumption?

I try to think about how much meat we could sustainably eat if everyone on earth ate the same amount. I'm not kidding. I think about the additional land required to produce animal feed and the fact that a meat diet requires a multiple of the calories that we actually end up consuming. Additional energy consumed by animals, gases generated, etc., etc. And its a reality that if the world consumed meat like we do here in the U.S., our environment would collapse. It can't be sustained so we make small steps as a family towards consumption behavior that is in line with what can be sustained.

So it's pretty clear to me that what David writes isn't opinion. And any move towards "less" is a positive.

Cutting out meat a couple days. Working on portion size. Shifting from red meat to fowl. Shifting from meat to fish (different basket of sustainability issues, though). We do it all. And compared to other parts of the world, we still look like gluttons.

But my kids aren't as focused on meat as I am, which I think is a good thing.

David Hammond wrote:

gooseberry wrote:I always say everything is all about finding the balance. Live and let live and each person is free to make their own choice without being judged.

Balance is what we're looking for. I'm thinking I may limit my meat consumption to restaurant dining (which I do a lot of, so it's a small step, but still a step).

The whole "not judging" issue is one I've struggled with for years...actually since the publication of "I'm Okay, You're Okay," which I always interpreted as basically "Don't shoot!!" People don't want to be told they're doing something wrong and so they vow not to tell anyone else they're doing wrong, either, in hopes of escaping censure. But people do wrong, there's no way around that, and I believe it's wrong to eat as much meat as we do. I'd go on, but I have a 25 pound turkey to brine, 4 pounds of shrimp to boil, etc.

@David- Stop it you are funny.

On a serious note, those that enjoy meat should enjoy it. I can't really do your above suggested "I don't eat meat anymore" because in my experience, that's when folks seem to get sensitive. I'm a vegetarian usually causes folks to just ask questions between bites of animal & then move on to something else.

Everyone else in my house, including the 4-legged wonder who eats hers raw & w/ great relish & a soundtrack, eats animals & thinks nothing of it, except DH, he gets pangs of something, but they go away pretty quickly if we are at Moon Palace & the minced pork Ma Po Tofu is available.

David Hammond wrote:Balance is what we're looking for. I'm thinking I may limit my meat consumption to restaurant dining (which I do a lot of, so it's a small step, but still a step)

Hi David, this is the approach I am currently eschewing as well Judging is a two way street and from a Darwinist angle I have no philosophical qualms about meat eaters. Btw, your thanksgiving meal sounds like it was really yummy.

Foer on Chicago Amplified: http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Conte ... ioID=38376

jimswside wrote:

jesteinf wrote:

If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?

I think that quote is great & funny, but then again I am a member of PETA(People Eating Tasty Animals).

Jim,

Maybe Santa will bring you one of these this year. (I already have mine on order.)

http://www.zazzle.com/meat_is_murder_tasty_murder_apron-154565039261278363