When is something NOT food?

[Byrd]

As we learn more about animals, our behavior towards them changes.  A good example would be dogs --in the past, our treatment of them has been brutal.  We've used them in vivisections (stomach-churning stuff), medical experiments, as labor, as first line defenses (think police dogs, war dogs), chained them up outside, and often abandoned them to starve for many reasons.

They were just "things."  Terry Pratchett famously said "Evil is when you treat people as things." -- but this argument could also be applied to animals.  Evil is when you treat an animal as a disposable thing.  When you learn to "read" an animal, you get a much better outcome both for the animal and for you.

So... an article came up about how livestock are not "things that wander around and eat grass" but actually are capable of some self-awareness and complex behaviors.  https://www.science.org/content/article/...E78YRM_5f4

Which raises an interesting question:  we are omnivores.  We do better if we have some meat protein in our diet.  But what's the level of sentience at which we should say "don't eat that critter"/don't farm it for its body (I'm thinking about whales, dolphins, animals raised for their fur)?

I realize everyone has their own preferences (I have sworn off pork (but won't turn down the occasional piece of bacon... so I'm kind of a hypocrite there) and won't eat octopus/calamari.  I eat the occasional bit of beef but prefer chicken or fish or shrimp... or vegetarian.

So what's YOUR take on it?  At what point should we declare that an animal should be removed from our food chain?  Is "it's tasty" a good metric for determining what/who we should eat?





(By the way, on the topic of ethical treatment of animals, do you follow the saga of "Guard Dog", a character in the comic strip, Mutts?  It's heartwarming but a real tear-jerker... and the cartoonist actually raised awareness for folks about the difficulties dogs have when they're treated as things -- chained up and then abandoned when convenient.  (note: there's a very happy ending to the story, but if you're sentimental, grab a hanky first. https://mutts.com/pages/guard-dog)

[FlyersFan]

If an animal can become attached to you, then for goodness sake don't eat him.

[Byrd]

If an animal can become attached to you, then for goodness sake don't eat him.

So...leeches?  

[Blaine91555]

So what's YOUR take on it? 

Hi Byrd! It's great to see you here.

I kind of like the Inuit's take on this. When we take an animal's life it should be for food and no part of the animal should be wasted out of respect for the life taken. We should never take a life just for a trophy or to use only a part of it and discard the rest.

I tend to view we humans as animals, just like all other animals, and we have the right to eat our natural diet just as all animals do. I think we get carried away with the amount of meat we have in our diets and as I age I eat less and less meat, but I won't give it up.

If I hit a bird with my car I mourn it as a needless killing of an animal, but I have no regrets when I take a game animal for food. There have been times in my life when the fruits of hunting have been an important part of my income and the meat was needed.

The idea of how some livestock are treated sickens me, but I've never been around it. Growing up around farmers and ranchers I learned that livestock are pampered as mistreated livestock is of far less value and it's just wrong. I was taught to never kill an animal unless I intended to eat it and I needed it.

In answer to your core question, killing any animal not being used for food is wrong. Livestock should be pampered and wild game should be properly managed and culled when it's needed and all wild game taken should be for food and not as a trophy.

I'm truly bothered when people interfere by using lawsuits to stop Fish and Game from managing wild game. They always do more harm than good and almost none of them know what they talking about. They don't understand that if you do not cull herds all of them suffer. Not allowing hunters to take them for food is cruel.

When a herd is too large to make it through winter the winter kill can be as high as 90% and the remaining animals are unhealthy. By culling perhaps 30%, the remaining animals can survive and be healthy. I have personally seen most of a herd starve due to a crazy law suit by well-meaning people who simply do not have a clue what they are talking about.

[ANNEE]

I feel fortunate we're still in the position to make a choice in what we eat.

I wouldn't mind being a vegetarian, but my body and low blood sugar don't agree.

I could do chicken and fish, but beef seems to be the one thing that keeps my low blood sugar regulated.

I confess, I can't look into those beautiful big brown eyes of cows, I have to go with rump roast.

[argentus]

As we learn more about animals, our behavior towards them changes.  A good example would be dogs --in the past, our treatment of them has been brutal.  We've used them in vivisections (stomach-churning stuff), medical experiments, as labor, as first line defenses (think police dogs, war dogs), chained them up outside, and often abandoned them to starve for many reasons.

They were just "things."  Terry Pratchett famously said "Evil is when you treat people as things." -- but this argument could also be applied to animals.  Evil is when you treat an animal as a disposable thing.  When you learn to "read" an animal, you get a much better outcome both for the animal and for you.

So... an article came up about how livestock are not "things that wander around and eat grass" but actually are capable of some self-awareness and complex behaviors.  https://www.science.org/content/article/...E78YRM_5f4

Which raises an interesting question:  we are omnivores.  We do better if we have some meat protein in our diet.  But what's the level of sentience at which we should say "don't eat that critter"/don't farm it for its body (I'm thinking about whales, dolphins, animals raised for their fur)?

I realize everyone has their own preferences (I have sworn off pork (but won't turn down the occasional piece of bacon... so I'm kind of a hypocrite there) and won't eat octopus/calamari.  I eat the occasional bit of beef but prefer chicken or fish or shrimp... or vegetarian.

So what's YOUR take on it?  At what point should we declare that an animal should be removed from our food chain?  Is "it's tasty" a good metric for determining what/who we should eat?





(By the way, on the topic of ethical treatment of animals, do you follow the saga of "Guard Dog", a character in the comic strip, Mutts?  It's heartwarming but a real tear-jerker... and the cartoonist actually raised awareness for folks about the difficulties dogs have when they're treated as things -- chained up and then abandoned when convenient.  (note: there's a very happy ending to the story, but if you're sentimental, grab a hanky first. https://mutts.com/pages/guard-dog)

This is something I have struggled with for a while.    Like you, much as I LOVE calamari, I won't eat it, because I have had experiences which have demonstrated to me the intelligence of squid.   Likewise for octopus.   So, I draw an arbitrary line at higher intelligence. 

However, that's also a BS line, because it is difficult to draw a line of SENTIENCE between octopus and cows.   I don't think cows are very smart.   Cows will group together and allow another cow to crap on its head, and it will WEAR that crap until it dries out and falls off.   This is something I observed many times as a child, which convinced me that cows were dumb as rocks.   BUT......... should they die for that lack of computational awareness?   Not sure.   

I know that various cultures round up dolphins and kill them for meat.   This disgusts me.   I think dolphins are entirely too intelligent to be killed for their meat.   My current culture in the Cayman Islands reveres turtle stew as a traditional dish.   Much of the world is revulsed by the consumption of sea turtle.   

I don't know what the answer is, other than to speculate that should humanity survive it's own violence to the point where we evolve into higher order creatures, I think we will evolve to absorb nutrient directly from solar radiation, much as plants do.   I think that is the best of what evolution can do, but I seriously doubt Homo Sapiens will survive long enough to make those changes.   Not sure we deserve to.

[putnam6]

Completely agree with needing better and more humane farming methods as well as the overproduction and waste in the Western world but....eating soy protein doesn't exactly replace the human need for animal protein. 

We need to eat less processed foods, lean meats fish and chicken, smaller portions, and less times a day and we probably shouldn't have eating revolving around socializing since we are adjusting our diets and habits

If all humans stopped eating animal flesh, we would be overrun by cows, pigs, and chickens. 

Hell, parts of the world have a huge wild boar and or feral pig problem as it is

Completely understand individuals not wanting to eat this or that, for whatever reason. 

But with any herd animal, they will breed and eat, if society stopped they would have huge dieoffs from diseases. The deer population with hunting not being as popular and loss of natural predators now is racked with disease and sickness. 

We are all animals we are all in the circle of life, ask a police officer when the find owners of dogs dead, some dogs will practically starve before they eat their human counterparts but other dogs aren't so discriminatory. 

and cats LOL, cats will eat your soft parts, once their food bowl is empty

Not gonna mention sharks, big cats, bears, coyotes, and wolves who all will eat humans if the opportunity arises. 

in other words, I am not gonna feel guilty because I had grilled salmon the night I watched Finding Nemo.

https://icnr.com/enlightenment/vegetaria...t-healthy/

Reasons for not supporting vegetarianism:

Difficult to plan a diet that provides sufficient quantities of protein, calcium, riboflavin (B2), vitamin D3, iodine, iron, and B12. Requires considerable knowledge of food composition and nutrition.
Many vegetarians rely on soy for their protein source. Besides being low in the amino acid methionine, 90% of soy is genetically modified and it also suppresses thyroid function. Methionine is essential for chelating or pulling heavy metals out of the body plus converting homocysteine, which is linked to early development of heart disease. High levels of homocysteine are also associated with low levels of B6, B12, and folate.
All of the 20 amino acids must be in reasonable balance at each meal or the body will not be able to repair itself. Vegetable protein does not have all the essential amino acids. Animal protein has all the essential amino acids.
Vegetarians consume high quantities of carbohydrates, pasta and vegetables, which raises systemic insulin levels which increases inflammation and fibrosis. It will age you faster.
Also many of the vegetable sources like flax seed, soybeans, tofu, sesame seeds, black

beans, are high in phytoestrogens. 95% of all cancers are estrogen sensitive.

[Byrd]

Hi Byrd! It's great to see you here.

I kind of like the Inuit's take on this. When we take an animal's life it should be for food and no part of the animal should be wasted out of respect for the life taken. We should never take a life just for a trophy or to use only a part of it and discard the rest.

I tend to view we humans as animals, just like all other animals, and we have the right to eat our natural diet just as all animals do. I think we get carried away with the amount of meat we have in our diets and as I age I eat less and less meat, but I won't give it up.

If I hit a bird with my car I mourn it as a needless killing of an animal, but I have no regrets when I take a game animal for food. There have been times in my life when the fruits of hunting have been an important part of my income and the meat was needed.

The idea of how some livestock are treated sickens me, but I've never been around it. Growing up around farmers and ranchers I learned that livestock are pampered as mistreated livestock is of far less value and it's just wrong. I was taught to never kill an animal unless I intended to eat it and I needed it.

In answer to your core question, killing any animal not being used for food is wrong. Livestock should be pampered and wild game should be properly managed and culled when it's needed and all wild game taken should be for food and not as a trophy.

I'm truly bothered when people interfere by using lawsuits to stop Fish and Game from managing wild game. They always do more harm than good and almost none of them know what they talking about. They don't understand that if you do not cull herds all of them suffer. Not allowing hunters to take them for food is cruel.

When a herd is too large to make it through winter the winter kill can be as high as 90% and the remaining animals are unhealthy. By culling perhaps 30%, the remaining animals can survive and be healthy. I have personally seen most of a herd starve due to a crazy law suit by well-meaning people who simply do not have a clue what they are talking about.

I like your response, and I feel much the same way about it.

We can choose to do better by the living things around us...that's the kind of policy that benefits us and the world at large.

---

Completely agree with needing better and more humane farming methods as well as the overproduction and waste in the Western world but....eating soy protein doesn't exactly replace the human need for animal protein. 

We need to eat less processed foods, lean meats fish and chicken, smaller portions, and less times a day and we probably shouldn't have eating revolving around socializing since we are adjusting our diets and habits
(snip)
https://icnr.com/enlightenment/vegetaria...t-healthy/

That's an interesting web page you've linked.  I'm not sure I believe ALL the claims (I agree there's merit in some of them)... but haven't gone into it in any detail.  Will do some reading, though - appreciate the link.

---

This is something I have struggled with for a while.    Like you, much as I LOVE calamari, I won't eat it, because I have had experiences which have demonstrated to me the intelligence of squid.   Likewise for octopus.   So, I draw an arbitrary line at higher intelligence. 

However, that's also a BS line, because it is difficult to draw a line of SENTIENCE between octopus and cows.   I don't think cows are very smart.   Cows will group together and allow another cow to crap on its head, and it will WEAR that crap until it dries out and falls off.   This is something I observed many times as a child, which convinced me that cows were dumb as rocks.   BUT......... should they die for that lack of computational awareness?   Not sure.   

I know that various cultures round up dolphins and kill them for meat.   This disgusts me.   I think dolphins are entirely too intelligent to be killed for their meat.   My current culture in the Cayman Islands reveres turtle stew as a traditional dish.   Much of the world is revulsed by the consumption of sea turtle.   

I don't know what the answer is, other than to speculate that should humanity survive it's own violence to the point where we evolve into higher order creatures, I think we will evolve to absorb nutrient directly from solar radiation, much as plants do.   I think that is the best of what evolution can do, but I seriously doubt Homo Sapiens will survive long enough to make those changes.   Not sure we deserve to.

I'm kind of fond of the idea of lab grown meat (which would reduce a number of ethical problems) -- but I know folks here are not fond of test tube food.

I don't think we can naturally evolve to photosynthesize... it might be possible with genetic modification, but that's a heck of a lot of tinkering.  Plus, the sun isn't the only source of nutrients... plants need soil and minerals as well.

And then you have the problem of what to do with the digestive system.

But... we're clever apes (not necessarily wise.  We're the "hold my beer" species) and I suspect the future's answers might be something we haven't dreamed of yet.