Animals, Cruelty, and Eating

[Rebecca263]

...Don't talk to me about cruelty of consumption and eating until you've seen someone deep in the throes of what bacteria do to them.  Mother Nature is not gentle...

←

As a survivor of a bacterial invasion that became septic, I can vouch for this statement.

Also, to add to the inanity of the day, humans taste like pig. As cannibalism is illegal and taboo in most places, many people will not discuss this, but the rump and the thigh are the most desirable parts, and it tastes like pig. Fat, juicy pig. An obese person is too fatty, a muscular person is too tough, a couch potato is the best game. You know, someone who spends a lot of time on the internet, discussing their next meal, is really the ideal. An eGulleter will command a higher price, per pound, usually. Unless they're a runner. Runners are the lowest on the totem pole, so to speak, valuewise.

[srhcb]

Also, to add to the inanity of  the day, humans taste like pig. As cannibalism is illegal and taboo in most places, many people will not discuss this, but the rump and the thigh are the most desirable parts, and it tastes like pig. Fat, juicy pig. An obese person is too fatty, a muscular person is too tough, a couch potato is the best game. You know, someone who spends a lot of time on the internet, discussing their next meal, is really the ideal. An eGulleter will command a higher price, per pound, usually. Unless they're a runner. Runners are the lowest on the totem pole, so to speak, valuewise.

←

DISCLAIMER: Presented as an anthropological oddity, and in no way intened to defame or denigrate any people or culture:

In The Island of the Color-blind author Oliver Sacks quotes Paul Theroux's book, The Happy Isles of Oceana, which posits the unusual popularity of Spam in certain areas of the South Pacific Islands is due to it's "approximating the porky taste of human flesh".

In fact, in parts of Melanesia the word for cooked human flesh translates as "long pig".

SB

[srhcb]

As cannibalism is illegal and taboo in most places, many people will not discuss this, but the rump and the thigh are the most desirable parts

←

And, on a lighter note:

I've always been a kind of a "rump and thigh" man.

SB

[Mallet]

A few posters have talked about the guilt associated with eating meat. What is this guilt centered on? I used to feel guilty about buying meat that had likely come from suffering animals, and the solution was to stop buying this meat at home (gradually, this is expanding towards eating out as well). In fact, we haven't eaten pork since moving to Kingston because we couldn't find a source we trusted (this situation was recently, and very happily, resolved ). More importantly, buying our meat locally from sources we trust has done far more than simply alleviate guilt, it supports the sort of system we want to live in and makes the whole process thoroughly enjoyable. As we learn more, we find ourselves equally repulsed by the products of intensive vegetable farming as by factory meat. I think most people can better relate to animals than intensive corn production, (although see this).

Edited May 13, 2006 by Mallet (log)

[Dignan]

Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope offers a more practical and less interesting reason for the popularity of spam in the south pacific here: "The popularity of Spam among Pacific islanders can be readily explained by the scarcity and expense of other types of meat and the lack or unreliability of refrigeration. Fresh meat is stored primarily in a self-propelled biounit known as a pig, which is only slaughtered for major occasions."

[H. du Bois]

I think of these as being the politics of plenty. Until quite recently, famine has been a fact of life, and debating whether it is more ethical or more moral to avoid eating meat, or certain types of meat, or to support certain types of farming and not others is, in a sense, a luxury we could not afford until now. I think of the reminiscences of a southern soldier during the U.S. civil war who managed to steal a raw ear of corn from a field around which armed pickets were posted - he was starving, and never had anything tasted so good, nor meant so much to him. He risked his own death for those few calories (and he was risking death without them). Not so very long ago, in the general scheme of things.

I have friends who classify themselves as vegetarians who will eat fish and seafood (hell, I've met people who call themseves vegetarians but who eat poultry, which I believe to be utter bullshit). These are people who claim to be vegetarians for moral purposes. And yet I've stood ankle deep in blood in a fishery and watched red snapper die while looking me in the eye, and I don't understand why or how my "vegetarian" friends classify their death as meaning anything less than the death of another animal. I have another moral "vegetarian" friend who refuses to eat lobsters "because they mate for life," but who'll consume shrimp by the pound. A buddhist would say that a life is a life. So is she more morally reprehensible for causing the deaths of many creatures? Should she instead be responsible for fewer deaths, and eat turkey? Or should she, as I believe, stop eating all fish and seafood altogether, if she's going to take a moral stance about the consumption of flesh?

I spent a year as an ovo-lacto vegetarian when I was young, and it did not serve me well, health-wise. I now eat meat, without apology. I consume foie gras, veal and lamb with pleasure, though I do not eat them often - they are luxuries. I don't know, when I sit down to meals at restaurants, what the provenance of the flesh before me is - did my pork chop come to me after having lived a happy life, and did it die a painless death? They don't tend to mention that on the menu (and god forbid my waiter should add that fact to his recitation of the specials ...).

So what's a modern man or woman to do? I've been through the "I should be able to kill it myself" debate, by which measure I can eat fish and seafood. I haven't offed any other creatures (living in New York City renders that debate rather moot, unless I decide to consume free-range rat, squirrel or pigeon).

I do think that true awareness is, and should be, a part of everyone's approach to the food chain. Take responsibility for what it is that you are consuming. If you cannot eat any meat other than the boneless breast of chicken that comes on a styrofoam tray because skin or bone makes you realize that it was once an animal, then don't eat meat. Period.

And if others wish to eat meat, let them. I don't see eating veal as any less moral than eating beef (the same with lamb and mutton), but that's just me. As soon as you start applying the sliding scale of ethics to "which creatures it's all right to eat" as my so-called vegetarian friends do above, you enter a murky territory in which there are no absolute rights or wrongs.

I do think though, that we need to reintroduce respect into the food process (and that comes with the true awareness above). Everyone who eats meat should know how it came to their plate in the general sense of the word. And I would apply the same principal to eating anything from the plant kingdom, as well.

Edited May 13, 2006 by H. du Bois (log)

[Mallet]

I think of these as being the politics of plenty.  Until quite recently, famine has been a fact of life, and debating whether it is more ethical or more moral to avoid eating meat, or certain types of meat, or to support certain types of farming and not others is, (emphasis mine) in a sense, a luxury we could not afford until now. [...]

Factory farming was not invented to feed the poor, and is a modern invention. In the times which you seem to refer too, most farming was done relatively ethically, precisely because people could not afford to do otherwise. Even *if* this arguments was correct, it would not change the fact that we are able to make those choices now. The choice of how and what to eat is something we must grapple with in the present, regardless of the historical status of the issue.

I now eat meat, without apology.  I consume foie gras, veal and lamb with pleasure, though I do not eat them often - they are luxuries.  I don't know, when I sit down to meals at restaurants, what the provenance of the flesh before me is - did my pork chop come to me after having lived a happy life, and did it die a painless death?  They don't tend to mention that on the menu (and god forbid my waiter should add that fact to his recitation of the specials ...).

I wouldn't be too proud of this...

And if others wish to eat meat, let them.  I don't see eating veal as any less moral than eating beef (the same with lamb and mutton), but that's just me.  As soon as you start applying the sliding scale of ethics to "which creatures it's all right to eat" as my so-called vegetarian friends do above, you enter a murky territory in which there are no absolute rights or wrongs. 

While it may be true that there is no absolute rights or wrong (a truism if I ever heard one), it doesn't mean have a carte blanche to abuse other living beings. I would certainly regard eating veal which was separated from its mother at birth in order to be confined in a small dark box and fed crap less moral than eating veal which was allowed to pasture with the herd until a certain age and then killed. This may be a murky territory, but that only makes discussion of the issue more relevant.

I agree with most of your points about hypocrisy.

[Pan]

I think of these as being the politics of plenty.  Until quite recently, famine has been a fact of life, and debating whether it is more ethical or more moral to avoid eating meat, or certain types of meat, or to support certain types of farming and not others is, in a sense, a luxury we could not afford until now.[...]

←

I respect a lot of what you're posting, but you start by repeating a claim that has previously been made and thoroughly debunked on these forums before when you state that vegetarianism is a newfangled product of affluence. Don't you realize that vegetarianism based on religious beliefs goes back at least several thousand years, into times B.C.?

[H. du Bois]

I now eat meat, without apology.  I consume foie gras, veal and lamb with pleasure, though I do not eat them often - they are luxuries.  I don't know, when I sit down to meals at restaurants, what the provenance of the flesh before me is - did my pork chop come to me after having lived a happy life, and did it die a painless death?  They don't tend to mention that on the menu (and god forbid my waiter should add that fact to his recitation of the specials ...).

I wouldn't be too proud of this...

Of what? That I now eat meat without apology? That I occasionally enjoy foie gras, veal and lamb? Or that I bring up the point (a valid one, I do believe) that most people who eat in restaurants are not in command of all the variables of what is placed before them? Just as we don't know just how much butter ends up in the dish we've ordered (according to most New York chefs, a lot!), we do not know everything about how that meat arrived at our plate. We eat it as an act of faith. If you tell me the chicken I've ordered is organic or free-range, you've told me something of how it's lived. If you tell me it's Halal kosher, you've told me something of how it's died. If you tell me it's coq au vin, you've told me how it's been prepared. Most restaurants offer menu items by describing only the style in which they've been prepared.

As for the foie gras issue, I don't believe, from what I've read of gavage, that it's inhumane as practiced by reputable sources. You may disagree, fair enough.

I did not mean to imply, in any way shape or form, that we should not address humane techniques of bringing animals to market. There is a vast difference between purchasing "veal which was separated from its mother at birth in order to be confined in a small dark box and fed crap" and "veal which was allowed to pasture with the herd until a certain age and then killed." What I was trying to address (unclearly, evidently!) were the issues of "which," not "how." I don't see killing an animal for meat at 4 months as being less ethical than killing that same animal for meat at 8 months. Again, my personal opinion.

I hope I didn't come across as flippant in my post above, because this is an issue about which I think a lot (I wouldn't be upset by the inconsistencies in all the "moral vegetarians" in my life if I were). I've been in England during crises in their food supply (post BSE, during the foot and mouth crisis, and last year when a carcinogenic red dye ended up in the prepared food supply). Interestingly, a fair number of people I know became vegetarians during the foot and mouth crisis - not because of diseased meat ending up on the grocery shelves (it didn't), but because the discussions about the destruction of herds and the movements of the cattle around the country from farm to abattoir ended up illuminating the inner workings of the meat and dairy industry. Most people don't think about how that piece of steak ended up on their plate. And most of them wouldn't eat it if they did.

I've seen a sign proclaiming "Ohio's largest chicken farm," fronting several small, low, windowless buildings. I don't even want to imagine what goes on in there. I've also seen modern free-range pig farms, in which yes, the pigs do get to walk around. But trust me, it ain't the life of Babe. We cannot romanticize that the purpose for which these animals are being raised is death.

I'll reiterate what I said about bringing respect back into the food process - I had hoped that would imply my stance on the side of the ethical and humane treatment of animals bred for consumption, but perhaps I was unclear.

Edited May 13, 2006 by H. du Bois (log)

[H. du Bois]

I think of these as being the politics of plenty.  Until quite recently, famine has been a fact of life, and debating whether it is more ethical or more moral to avoid eating meat, or certain types of meat, or to support certain types of farming and not others is, in a sense, a luxury we could not afford until now.[...]

I respect a lot of what you're posting, but you start by repeating a claim that has previously been made and thoroughly debunked on these forums before when you state that vegetarianism is a newfangled product of affluence. Don't you realize that vegetarianism based on religious beliefs goes back at least several thousand years, into times B.C.?

I wasn't aware that I'd stated "that vegetarianism is a newfangled product of affluence." I certainly don't think it. I do think that the world has had periodic rises and falls of affluence which impact upon its cultures (and consequently, their eating habits). Even within the 20th century there've been hardships as well as periods of prosperity in the West - the privations of the second World War left serious scars among some people I know. (One older gent I've met still hoards food, despite his wealth).

I do believe that the human organism chooses its eating habits when it has the luxury of choice. I also believe that we are, when faced with starvation, a whole lot less particular about what we consume.

[Mallet]

Of what?  That I now eat meat without apology?  That I occasionally enjoy foie gras, veal and lamb?  Or that I bring up the point (a valid one, I do believe) that most people who eat in restaurants are not in command of all the variables of what is placed before them?  Just as we don't know just how much butter ends up in the dish we've ordered (according to most New York chefs, a lot!), we do not know everything about how that meat arrived at our plate.  We eat it as an act of faith.

[...]

I meant that being blissfully ignorant of where one's food comes from is nothing to be proud of. I have absolutely no problem with eating veal/lamb/foie gras, as long as it's from a farm/production system that I trust. There's no reason why we should eat anything served to us as an "act of faith". Indeed one would most likely be mistaken if he/she thought that buying meat at a restaurant was in any way an assurance of ethical sourcing. Also, I think trends are changing so that many restaurants are putting up this sort of information.

As for the foie gras issue, I don't believe, from what I've read of gavage, that it's inhumane as practiced by reputable sources.  You may disagree, fair enough.

Like you, I believe foie gras *can* be produced humanely.

I did not mean to imply, in any way shape or form, that we should not address humane techniques of bringing animals to market.  There is a vast difference between purchasing "veal which was separated from its mother at birth in order to be confined in a small dark box and fed crap" and "veal which was allowed to pasture with the herd until a certain age and then killed."  What I was trying to address (unclearly, evidently!)   were the issues of "which," not "how."  I don't see killing an animal for meat at 4 months as being less ethical than killing that same animal for meat at 8 months.  Again, my personal opinion.

I guess I read

as soon as you start applying the sliding scale of ethics to "which creatures it's all right to eat" as my so-called vegetarian friends do above, you enter a murky territory in which there are no absolute rights or wrongs

a bit too fast. Apologies for the confusion.

[Pan]

I think of these as being the politics of plenty.  Until quite recently, famine has been a fact of life, and debating whether it is more ethical or more moral to avoid eating meat, or certain types of meat, or to support certain types of farming and not others is, in a sense, a luxury we could not afford until now.[...]

I respect a lot of what you're posting, but you start by repeating a claim that has previously been made and thoroughly debunked on these forums before when you state that vegetarianism is a newfangled product of affluence. Don't you realize that vegetarianism based on religious beliefs goes back at least several thousand years, into times B.C.?

I wasn't aware that I'd stated "that vegetarianism is a newfangled product of affluence." I certainly don't think it. I do think that the world has had periodic rises and falls of affluence which impact upon its cultures (and consequently, their eating habits). Even within the 20th century there've been hardships as well as periods of prosperity in the West - the privations of the second World War left serious scars among some people I know. (One older gent I've met still hoards food, despite his wealth).

I do believe that the human organism chooses its eating habits when it has the luxury of choice. I also believe that we are, when faced with starvation, a whole lot less particular about what we consume.

←

OK, so you're not suggesting that vegetarianism is a product of newfangled affluence, only of affluence. In which case, I will ask you whether you are suggesting that the ancient Jain religion contains and has always contained only affluent adherents. You may think that a starving person would eat anything, but I seem to remember that very holy Jains (or folks Jains have considered very holy, in any case) have voluntarily starved themselves to death in order to practice the principles of ahimsa to the fullest.

[H. du Bois]

OK, so you're not suggesting that vegetarianism is a product of newfangled affluence, only of affluence. In which case, I will ask you whether you are suggesting that the ancient Jain religion contains and has always contained only affluent adherents. You may think that a starving person would eat anything, but I seem to remember that very holy Jains (or folks Jains have considered very holy, in any case) have voluntarily starved themselves to death in order to practice the principles of ahimsa to the fullest.

Dear Pan, you do misunderstand me! I don't speak in absolutes, beyond stating my own tastes and opinions, and even those are variable. I would no more say that vegetarianism has its roots in affluence than I would say that the Dalai Lama would eat a cheeseburger if only he were deprived of nutrition long enough.

I know a great many vegetarians (I was married to one), and they come to that stance for many different reasons. For moral reasons, either unyielding or slippery (as in those sliding scales mentioned above). For health reasons. For religious reasons. I was a vegetarian for a year for far shallower ones - I was living with my vegetarian partner-to-be, and I was damned if I was going to prepare two separate meals every night.

I'm unfamiliar with the Jains, thank you for providing that link. But despite that unfamiliarity, I'm not suprised that they exist, nor that there've been vegetarian-based religions or societies for ages.

All I was trying to say is that now, in a time of plenty, we have room for debate about the morality of meat issues. And I do feel strongly that this "room for debate" is tied to that plenty.

Would I, or could I, kill a cow, simply if I wanted meat? No. Would I, or could I, kill a cow if that act stood between my family's salvation or starvation? Quite probably, yes.

Would the Dalai Lama eat a cheeseburger if deprived of nutrition long enough? No. Would my niece the pain-in-the-ass vegan who is only doing it to to impress her pain-in-the-ass vegan boyfriend?

In a New York minute.

Edited May 14, 2006 by H. du Bois (log)

[Grub]

I think the squeamishness people feel (myself included) over killing what we eat is -- pardon me for being blunt -- somewhat pathetic. It's a sign. A sign that we're a bunch of pampered, spoiled, rich brats. If you can't handle the idea of Babe the Pig being slaughtered, the only ethical route is vegetarianism, really.

I once ran out of food during a week-long hike... I'd planned on relying mostly on fishing (which was a real stroke of genius, since I've never met a worse fisherman than myself) -- by the time I finally landed a trout, I can tell you I had NO problem killing the bastard. If Babe the Pig or Winnie the Pooh had come strolling by, they'd suffer the same fate.

[Mallet]

OK, so you're not suggesting that vegetarianism is a product of newfangled affluence, only of affluence. In which case, I will ask you whether you are suggesting that the ancient Jain religion contains and has always contained only affluent adherents. You may think that a starving person would eat anything, but I seem to remember that very holy Jains (or folks Jains have considered very holy, in any case) have voluntarily starved themselves to death in order to practice the principles of ahimsa to the fullest.

←

Although I don't necessarily believe it's a critical point, as a matter of fact Jains are and seem to have been affluent (Wiki, but you can also google "jain affluent").

[Mallet]

I've seen a sign proclaiming "Ohio's largest chicken farm," fronting several small, low, windowless buildings.  I don't even want to imagine what goes on in there.  I've also seen modern free-range pig farms, in which yes, the pigs do get to walk around.  But trust me, it ain't the life of Babe.  We cannot romanticize that the purpose for which these animals are being raised is death. (italics mine)

←

I'll apologize straight away for taking this sentence out of context, but I think it's an interesting sentiment on which I'd like to elaborate. Does anyone think that the ultimate purpose of a farm animal's existence is relevant? I'm curious, because I don't think it is. The animals certainly aren't conscious of their ultimate purpose in the sense that it could cause them the least amount of suffering, so to me the ethics of eating meat focus entirely on the methods of production.

[pennylane]

I've seen a sign proclaiming "Ohio's largest chicken farm," fronting several small, low, windowless buildings.  I don't even want to imagine what goes on in there.  I've also seen modern free-range pig farms, in which yes, the pigs do get to walk around.  But trust me, it ain't the life of Babe.  We cannot romanticize that the purpose for which these animals are being raised is death. (italics mine)

←

I'll apologize straight away for taking this sentence out of context, but I think it's an interesting sentiment on which I'd like to elaborate. Does anyone think that the ultimate purpose of a farm animal's existence is relevant? I'm curious, because I don't think it is. The animals certainly aren't conscious of their ultimate purpose in the sense that it could cause them the least amount of suffering, so to me the ethics of eating meat focus entirely on the methods of production.

←

I think the point is that even when farm animals are humanely treated, ultimately they are going to be killed for their meat. So while we can do our best to ensure that our meat comes from humane sources, we have to accept that there is some suffering involved, even if it's only at the end of the animal's life. And some people are going to be okay with that while others are not. I know this is an unpopular stance on this board, but personally I don't like to think that an animal died for my dining pleasure, even if that animal led a long and happy life. I suppose if I were lost in the wilderness, on the brink of starvation I would be willing to sacrifice an animal's life to save my own (but in that case my years of vegetarianism would probably catch up with me as I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to catch/kill/skin it!).

So to answer your question, no, I don't think anyone thinks that the ultimate purpose of a farm animal's life is relevant to that animal, but it's relevant to us in the sense that we may or may not be willing to accept that animals are slaughtered to feed us.

[markemorse]

If any of y'all are interested in another perspective on animals living their lives within the world of modern industrial food production, I highly highly recommend the Austrian film Our Daily Bread.

I've just been trying to elaborate on my recommendation, and it's tough to reduce to a capsule review, primarily because most of the film's impact is strictly (and gorgeously) visual: there's no dialogue and no music. No commentary, and no explicit judgment passed. But I found myself thinking over and over again, "that cannot be real." But apparently it is. Thought-provoking stuff.

ETA: Probably stating the obvious, but I should also mention that I wholeheartedly agree with Gul_Dekar's original inclination toward knowing where your food comes from.

Edited December 4, 2007 by markemorse (log)

[Pan]

OK, so you're not suggesting that vegetarianism is a product of newfangled affluence, only of affluence. In which case, I will ask you whether you are suggesting that the ancient Jain religion contains and has always contained only affluent adherents. You may think that a starving person would eat anything, but I seem to remember that very holy Jains (or folks Jains have considered very holy, in any case) have voluntarily starved themselves to death in order to practice the principles of ahimsa to the fullest.

←

Although I don't necessarily believe it's a critical point, as a matter of fact Jains are and seem to have been affluent (Wiki, but you can also google "jain affluent").

←

The community may be relatively affluent for India now, but I don't think that it could really be claimed that this was always the case.

[Mallet]

Pan, this article claims that as a community Jains were affluent at least as far back as the middle ages, and this ones claims considerable influence and power for Jains going back to 300 BC. Anything more detailed is far beyond my knowledge, but I think it's plausible to claim that Jains were for a great majority of their history a relatively prosperous people by virtue of their traditional roles as merchants and statespeople.

Markemorse, thanks for the movie recommendation. The trailers look intriguing, and I'm looking forward to tracking down a copy.

[markemorse]

Markemorse, thanks for the movie recommendation. The trailers look intriguing, and I'm looking forward to tracking down a copy.

←

I'm pretty sure I saw a copy somewhere when I was in America. I know this in itself is not the most helpful tip, but I'm just saying that it seems to have distribution in America.

[Mallet]

I think the point is that even when farm animals are humanely treated, ultimately they are going to be killed for their meat.  So while we can do our best to ensure that our meat comes from humane sources, we have to accept that there is some suffering involved, even if it's only at the end of the animal's life.  And some people are going to be okay with that while others are not.  I know this is an unpopular stance on this board, but personally I don't like to think that an animal died for my dining pleasure, even if that animal led a long and happy life.  I suppose if I were lost in the wilderness, on the brink of starvation I would be willing to sacrifice an animal's life to save my own (but in that case my years of vegetarianism would probably catch up with me as I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to catch/kill/skin it!).

So to answer your question, no, I don't think anyone thinks that the ultimate purpose of a farm animal's life is relevant to that animal, but it's relevant to us in the sense that we may or may not be willing to accept that animals are slaughtered to feed us.

←

So does your position have any ethical judgement attached to it, or is it strictly a matter of personal comfort with the idea?

[hummingbirdkiss]

has anyone seen this link? I eat and enjoy locally grown humanely butchered meat ..I was a veg for 19 years but really do believe we are meant to eat wide variety of healthy foods ... everything in moderation if possible (however cookies are the exception to that rule) ...it is easy to find and really more reasonable than the grocery store that is for sure ...

anyway one of my patients gave me this site and it was kind of ironic as I think it fits this topic well

Meatrix

see what you think?

[Jaymes]

I believe I owe it to the lions and tigers to eat meat. I think that I, like they, were put upon this planet to be a carnivore. I've got hunter's eyes in the front of my head, and dog teeth in my mouth. My digestive track is able to handle meat and the protein is good for me.

So I think I owe it to the other carnivores to take my appropriate place in the food chain.

If I eschew meat, and the lions and tigers do not, that would make me more noble than the lions and tigers, and I simply cannot do that to them.