Caring for livestock
Now, as far as calves are concerned, I’d agree that a baby cow is, indeed the dairy-farmer’s future, and such farmers would obviously not consider “tearing” a calf away from its mother. On the other hand, my dictionary says that “veal” is a calf “used for food"; in other words, that’s a baby cow that has its life taken away prematurely for the benefit of some human’s appetite. Well, they have to come from somewhere. And I’d say that the term “tearing” is just a semantic detail.
Pitting animals against each other to fight - and “drowning, strangling or beating them to death” - aren’t the only ways that animals can be tortured.
This letter has not been edited.
waaaaahhhhhh
As a former rancher, all I can say is WAAAHHHHHH.
You do realize that the beef cattle you are crying about would not even be alive ever if they were not being raised for beef?
Pass the Steak sauce.
dravur, are you saying any kind of life is better than not being alive at all?
I know I'd rather be dead than have the life of a factory farm animal.
...and I'm passing you an extra helping of veggies instead of steak sauce.:)
Posted by mytwosense on August 20, 2007 03:24 PMCattle are bred for slaughter. A simple fact of life in the animal kingdom. Just as natural predators in the wild pursue, kill and devour their prey for food, mankind does essentially the same thing. However, having a conscience, most slaughter of our intentionally bred prey is killed in what we determine to be the most humane way rather than stalking and riping it apart.
Can you provide a moral difference between what we as humans do than predators in nature? Do predators in nature check on the age of their prey before feasting? How is morally less appealing to kill a three month old calf than a two year old steer - isn't it the same result in the death of an animal that was bred for that specific fate?
Posted by on August 20, 2007 03:26 PMAn in-depth discussion of Mr. Rossi's letter can be found here, as it's currently in RMN August letter archives: http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/denver/letters/2007/08/farmers_ranchers_care_for_thei.html#comments
I addressed the issue of humans as predators in my last post on that thread, in response to another poster who referred to humans as predators.
I disagree. We're not. If we were, millions of people couldn't happily and healthily live on a vegan diet. What's more, we don't have sharp, canine teeth for tearing, as most predators in the animal kingdom have, nor do we salivate and have an uncontrollable urge to chase after and tear apart an animal when we see one.
As for comparing how humans versus animals kill animals, the thing is...we have the choice they don't have to NOT kill them. What's more, the issue is way beyond humane slaughter...what about the lives these animals lead in captivity before they are slaughtered? What about the pollution factory farming causes, and the incredible waste of allocating millions of acres of land to grow grains to feed these animals, instead of the world's hungry?
I definitely suggest reading the link I provided above where I expounded on all of the above points in more detail. Of course, I'd be happy to continue the conversation here, just thought the above link would give anyone who is interested some additional info.
Posted by mytwosense on August 20, 2007 03:36 PMMytwosense,
I know that you are a PETA member and all, but don't fall into fantasy here. People DO have canine teeth, as we are omnivores by design. I know that you don't want to believe me, but it is true. There is a middle ground between carnivores and herbivores, and those are the omnivores (meaning that the animal eats both meat and plants), of which humans are members. All you have to do is look at the teeth of a racoon, a prolific omnivore, to see what I am talking about. They have teeth that are eerily similar to our own. If we didn't have canine teeth then our molar structure would be completely different than it is, in addition to not having canine or canine molar teeth. In addition, our incisors would be much larger than they already are, especially on the jaw. It is possible to live on a vegan diet, but that does not ipso facto make all humans herbivores. If you want to live vegan, great! If you want to urge others to live vegan, go right on ahead! Just do not try to advance lies like "humans are not supposed to eat meat" to advance your position. Instead stick to more factual positions such as the energy output needed to raise livestock and other statements.
Posted by Paulie on August 20, 2007 03:48 PMMTS I guess it is the definition of predator that is used and the context of how it is used.
Using Black bears for example, how would the public in general describe them in the "predator" context.? Are the canine teeth of a black bear used to tear and dewour? Yes in some cases, but are they not used in much more regularity for scavenging the meat they eat (not to include bugs which is high content of their diet)
Early humans were also considered scavengers before the invent ot tools..ie weapons. Some of the first "tools" are thought to be stones that early man used to break up bones to extract bone marrow. The rest of the eating of animal was dominated by other predators and scavengers. With the progression of "learned" responses, humans devised tools that allowed for the better "parts" of a dead animal.
I prefer to use the fact that we are part of nature, are a part of the food chain(we win more than we lose)and the classification of Humans as Omnivores.
Also MTS would like to get a good definition of Factory Farms and the context of its meaning.
Thanks
Posted by bwr on August 20, 2007 03:55 PMPaulie, I don't advance lies. I also don't attribute statements to people that they never said...unlike you. For example, you are putting in quotation marks "humans aren't supposed to eat meat" as if I said that.
Where?
I believe my position is that there is a big discrepancy between humans and predators in the animal kingdom, and that to compare humans with these predators is not a fair comparison.
BWR, you have told me several times you have an extensive background working in the farming industry. Do you not have a good definition/understanding of what constitutes a factory farm?
Posted by mytwosense on August 20, 2007 04:13 PMAnd BWR, my question to you isn't meant to be snippy/rhetorical, just more along the lines of...you tell me what definition you want to use, since I believe you said you've worked in the farming industry for years.
Posted by mytwosense on August 20, 2007 04:15 PMMTS,
If I was referring to something you actually said, I would have put the time of the post it came from, and placed it in its own paragraph. Relax! Don't be so snippy.
Besides, did it occur to you that humans have indeed been predators since time immemorial? True, we are not as efficient as a big cat or wolf, but that's why humans fashioned hunting tools, to help us overcome our own hunting inefficiencies.
So then do you recogize that humans are omnivores after all? If this is truly the case, then a vegan diet would go against a human's own nutritional nature, and would end up being unhealthy after all.
Posted by Paulie on August 20, 2007 04:25 PMPaulie, we are capable of eating meat, certainly. Does this make us natural omnivores?
The truth is, most people just blindly accept the edict that humans are "omnivores." They use comparisons like bears and raccoons - who are really closer to carnivores - instead of comparisons with primates - our closest relatives, and who eat a very small percentage of meat in their diets. Some calculations say maybe 5%, in fact.
Now, from a behavioral standpoint, it really gets interesting to examine if humans are indeed omnivores, especially if comparing us with bears and raccoons.
For example, all three like the taste of meat, but do we humans have the urge to eat a live, whole animal when we see one? We may be able to bite into cooked flesh, but are our teeth really equipped to tear apart a whole, live animal?
Speaking of which, do we have claws such as true omnivores like bears have? Do we have the acidic stomach and saliva to better dissolve flesh as they do?
As for the health aspects...do you think there's a link between high rates of heart disease and meat-eating? Because we eat more meat today than ever before - and have the heart attacks and cancer to prove it. That is, if one believes there is a link...
Posted by mytwosense on August 20, 2007 04:46 PMNative Americans are largely romantizied as being "one with nature." Didn't they drive herds of buffallo off of cliffs to kill them in mass? Why didn't they just grow carrots?
Posted by on August 20, 2007 05:02 PMMTS,
I believe that I addressed the predatory shortcomings of humans (i.e. lack of claws, etc) by pointing out that humans developed tools (hunting implements, fire, etc.) to overcome our relative hunting shortcomings. It has worked incredibly well, too.
And have you noticed that people really like to eat sashimi? If you have ever eaten it, did you notice that it feels like no other meat while digesting?
Even primates have canine teeth and canine molars. That makes them omnivores, too. Look at human teeth and compare it to horse's or rabbit's teeth, and notice the inherent differences between the types of teeth present and their construction. Simply put, humans are not herbivores!
Finally, the links between heart disease and meat-heavy diets refers to diets rich in red and processed meats. Obviously, processed anything will not be as healthy for a person than fresh anything. Furthermore, red meat was never meant to be the mainstay of the human diet as it is today; rather, people are more accustomed (evolutionarily speaking) to eating small game, fowl, and fish, with occasional red meat thrown in to the mix. What is common about all the former? They are all white meats.
Nevertheless, even being a militant vegan will not keep someone from being sick, nor will it make someone immortal. So, if you truly enjoy a vegan lifestyle, great! But others do not, and it is not wrong for them to eat whatever they want to. We will all die in the end anyway.
Posted by Paulie on August 20, 2007 05:06 PMMTS
I have never heard the term of "Factory Farm" until PETA used this term. And yes I grew up on a Ranch and left a long time ago.
So I have zero reference to the term Factory Farm.
Omnivores such as Black bears are primarily eat vegetable matter NOT MEAT. Black bears are opportunists when it comes to this protien matter. That is not blindness, that is fact.
Also do you not subscribe to the theory of our beginning and being scavengers? Throughout our history we have had differing balances of meat and vegetation. Different groups and tribes within the US even.
MTS discusses "For example, all three like the taste of meat, but do we humans have the urge to eat a live, whole animal when we see one? We may be able to bite into cooked flesh, but are our teeth really equipped to tear apart a whole, live animal? "
Again I refer to the beginning of our existance and the beginning of tools for bone marrow extraction. No meat tearing teeth needed. As our tool inventory advanced, we progressed with the consumption of meats, whether they were killed by the hunter or the hunter found the dead animal "First"
Thanks
Posted by bwr on August 20, 2007 07:28 PMMytwosense. We have hydrochloric acid and enzymes to break down meat, bone in small amount, blood and animal fat.
Early human hearths show evidence of cooked meat, but no vegetables, and large quantities of raw veges give us problems. Cooking pots were not invented for centuries. We ate meat, eggs, insects, raw fruit and berries and honey.
Vegetables required cooking, grains needed to be processed in some way, grinding, fermenting.
Humans can not live on bowls of raw grain and legumes but they can live on raw meat, fat and blood.
Pit cooking of vegetables is the oldest known method of making this food available.
The advent of farming led to graves filled with now settled hunter, gatherers with all the diseases of heavy starch diets.
Animals eaten by our ancestors were lean, in some cases our people survived winter eating the fat behind the eyes of swans. That was in bad years when all the other animals were too hard to hunt.
Early butcher caves show we scavenged, maybe using fire to run the real predators off, then went to tools and hunted on our own. we also used the hides for clothing and even built shelter from mammoth tusks.
There is some evidence we were pastoral and raised animals before farming.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 20, 2007 07:33 PMSharon B. said: Humans can not live on bowls of raw grain and legumes but they can live on raw meat, fat and blood."
Really? I honestly wouldn't know. It seems to me a raw diet in general comes with some problems, and a raw flesh and blood diet certainly raises one's risk of getting a deadly virus or bacterial strain.
If both menu choices were cooked, I would think the former would be your best bet, because then you're at least getting both protein AND carbs, and some additional nutrients you wouldn't get from a cooked flesh menu alone. Also, you can get fats from grains and veggies, too.
From a broader standpoint, if I was given a choice of eating a meat and dairy only diet for the rest of my life, versus a vegan diet, I honestly think I'd have better odds at a longer, more energetic life if I chose the latter. In this day and age, a vegan diet can provide every nutrient needed. The only one I can think of that isn't found in veggies would be B-12. And we can get those in supplements today.
On the other hand, with a meat and dairy only diet, one's body would eventually start to go into advanced ketosis, which, although there are conflicting views on just how dangerous this condition is, is nevertheless one of the things that happens when your body goes into starvation. And of course, you're not getting much, if any, carbs - and we need carbs for energy. Finally, a meat and dairy only diet can eventually lead to conditions such as skurvy (because you're not getting any Vitamin C) and of course, heart disease and probably a few different types of cancer.
I would also like to address a point you seem to be making in your last post - it seems you're saying our ancestors who ate lean meat lived longer and healthier lives? I was always under the impression that life expectancy was around 20, 30 years of age in pre-historic times. However, I'm not an anthropologist, and not more informed than on a very general basis about what humans did millions of years ago. I'm addressing my points more along the lines of what we're capable of today.
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 11:36 AMMytwosense, No, our ancestors lived fairly short lives. I mean one ruptured appendix and no doctors?
Early diets had fruit and honey plus nuts and berries for carbs. Drinking water supplied iron, calcium and salts, potassium etc.
Not comparing diets, just talking about how we evolved.
Of course raw meat causes problems, but we can not eat raw grains, they must be processed some way, and that means some sort of food technology, i. e. civilization.
Humans, me included have sometimes suffered from Candidas (human yeast) on the skin. For this I go on "caveman diet"
meat, eggs, lots of yogurt, fish, although cave folks didn`t have yogurt, milk and nothing else.
Candidas feeds on mold, carbs and antibiotics.
No diet is perfect but we evolved as predator/scavenger/hunter and that is how our bodies developed.
Today, we should use wild rices, brown rice, lean meats and dairy with the fruits and veggies added. And fish without mercury.
We need at least 60 grams of protein and our livers like complete protein with all the 21 amino acids. Peanut butter and whole wheat make a complete protein, soy is the only non animal item with all 21 AA`s.
I have no dog in this hunt. No ideology in this for me. I pretty much love all food, even raw oysters.
Like your posts, you sound like a great person.
Paulie said: "Nevertheless, even being a militant vegan will not keep someone from being sick, nor will it make someone immortal. So, if you truly enjoy a vegan lifestyle, great! But others do not, and it is not wrong for them to eat whatever they want to. We will all die in the end anyway."
I definitely agree a vegan diet is no guarantee of a healthy, more energetic life. Let's face it, potato chips, straight sugar, countless processed foods are technically all "vegan." Anyone who is consuming a great deal of such junk food is gambling with their health, and will almost surely see the negative results at some point.
However, my position is that one can live a very healthy, active life on a vegan diet - of course, now I'll add the caveat if its a healthy, well rounded vegan diet. I strongly believe one cannot achieve this with a meat and dairy diet alone, which seems to conflict with many arguments about what humans are supposedly predisposed to eat.
As for your comment "it's not wrong" for people to eat whatever they want, I have an opposing position that, as well. I believe it's ethically wrong on a few different levels to eat meat and dairy, specifically from the animal rights and environmental standpoints. Obviously, I'm in the minority there, but I would hope that means my opinion is simply controversial - not "militant."
But you're right, we're all going to die anyway. Funny, that's what I used to say to defend my ex-smoking habit. :)
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 12:14 PMGood Morning MTS.
Have you given the thought of terminology that you are referring to for Factory Farms. Have looked around and there seems to be differences on the term Factory farm.
Are you also convinced that a black bear is a predator using your terms and diet?
Thanks
Posted by bwr on August 21, 2007 12:15 PMHi, BWR...can you please explain to me where this is going? Specifically, what is your position/what are you trying to defend, and how does an exact definition of "factory farms" correlate?
Same question applies to your black bear question.
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 12:23 PMTo the Factory Farm discussion. I am trying to find out what your terms are for this. As I stated earlier, I have not heard of it until reading the PETA site. You use the term and until I understand what you are referring to, then no logical discussion can really occur.
The black bear is a bit different. The black bear was brought into the discussion earlier discussin omnivores. You dismissed on multiple levels but your facts were wrong while using this data to make a point. Just trying to keep everything on a level field here. You are very good at making sure the points others put forth are questioned and corrected when needed
Thanks
Posted by bwr on August 21, 2007 12:34 PMBWR, factory farms are rarely, probably never referred to as such by Big Agribusiness. They prefer the term "Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." (CAFOs)
The briefest, most broad definition of CAFOs is "CAFOs are agricultural facilities that house and feed a large number of animals in a confined area for 45 days or more during any 12-month period."
If you Google the term, you'll get some very interesting information about their environmental impact. Happy reading!
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 12:34 PMBWR, I honestly don't follow you. I'm sorry. I don't know what I dismissed, what erroneous "facts" I brought into the discussion, and quite candidly, am confused as to what points you're trying to make. I feel you get very hung up on odd details, particularly in the realm of semantics. That tends to completely sidetrack whatever was originally being discussed.
For example, I originally proposed that humans aren't natural predators. It seems you now wish me to prove something completely different - that bears are (or aren't??) predators?
I am honestly scratching my head at where you are going with this.
And frankly, I do regard a lot of your demands for exact terms with a bit of hesitation ever since you told me in a previous thread you'd consulted seven people about what I was saying. That seemed a bit out of the realm of reality. No offense, I just want to make sure I'm conversing with someone who is playing with a full deck.
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 12:47 PMThanks MTS. Just wanted to make sure we are talking on the same terms and yes I will be doing research on this information
Right now my research is around the "living off of the land" crowd Much prefer that philosophy anyways.
Working to be able to grow and raise my own food. Organic and I know where most of it will come from and how it was cared for. Hunting and gathering practices included. Now that is fully being on the environmental bandwagon while sustaining for myself. Fun research actually seeing how people are working towards this lifestyle. Even vegetarians joining the group due to the environmental "living off the land" and use only what you need methodologies.
Secondary research will be to try to decipher what people are referring to Factory farms and the Family farms and ranches. So thanks for your definition. It will help
Posted by bwr on August 21, 2007 12:53 PMThanks MTS for the playing with a full deck......Really made me laugh. Really did. The reason that I Gave you the benifit of the doubt in your posts was to get different set of eyes on so as not to misconstrue what you have said. It was out of respect for you and your feelings that I went out of my way to do that. Repaid? Full Deck? No Offense? Non taken but you might want to take a look at yourself and question where your passive aggressive nature is coming from. Text book. No offense
You said bears are more carivore. In actuality in most regions black bears eat up to 90% plant matter for their diet. Is that the % of a true carnivore?
BWR, where did I say bears are more carnivore? I thought I said in comparison with "true omnivores" like bears and raccoons, there are some marked differences in humans.
Anyway, I can understand your interest in going back to basics/living off the land. I agree that we have become too soft. My goodness, if I can't get it at a store, chances are I just won't get it...because I don't know how to make it.
Pretty pathetic.
So, I personally am trying to start with baby steps, and learn slowly but surely how to make more things than to buy them. And if I can't make them, then to not use them.
It all comes down to a simpler, less complicated and less impactful to others way of living. One way to live more simply and off natural goods is to keep an eye on how much garbage you generate. If you find yourself ending up with a lot of garbage bags full of packaging, chances are, you're a pretty heavy consumer of processed goods.
That's another thing about eating veggies, fruits, legumes, etc. You can often purchase these things with no additional packaging needed.
If you want to incorporate hunted animals into such a regime, you still have to question if in this day and age, you are doing more damage than not to our natural resources, which are quickly dwindling.
And others may not agree, but I still think there is an ethical question involved here: who am I to take the life of another being? Who am I to decide that full grown elk with its glorious physique should have a bullet blasted between its eyes simply because I want a taste of meat? Especially if I can healthily subsist without it?
But then we're getting into the moral question, and some vehemently believe animals are solely here for our dominion, and that's that. I rarely know how to approach such discussions. They always end up very heated and deteriorate pretty quickly, to boot.
Posted by mytwosense on August 21, 2007 06:20 PMMTS Good Morning
You discuss "If you want to incorporate hunted animals into such a regime, you still have to question if in this day and age, you are doing more damage than not to our natural resources, which are quickly dwindling. "
The only thing I question is where in the hell are you getting that information? Using elk as you referenced in your post, elk populations are very stable in most areas.
Hunters do not or Very very rarely shoot an elk between the eyes. You attempt to paint a picture that is just not accurate.
You make your choices and decisions and that is great. What a country. I get to make mine. To imply that I am not ethical nor moral is applying your views onto me and while you have the freedoms to do so, I also have the freedoms to not accept your reasonings for multiple reason, accuracy being one of them. This and attitudes are the main reason these issues escalate quickly.
to all who ever think of donating a dollar to "PETA" as you are on a computer just google up petakills.com a couple of years ago in their home state they killed over 1400 dogs and cats -most of these animals were given them by folks that were assured that peta would adopt them out when in fact they would kill a lot them before they ever went to their "SHELTER"this is public record in sc. look it up-remember alf and elf the eco-terrorist gangs- check out how peta funds their defense .instead of a dollar being spent on animals less than 10% of their budget is actually spent on animals -rest goes to empty your pocket and intimadate politicians.
Posted by ldp on August 22, 2007 11:48 AMbwr, this is why its exasperating trying to have an exchange with you. You ascribe statements to me that I never made. You re-state my positions, and take things completely out of context.
I said hunters should "question" certain things, I didn't say they don't have morals, nor did I say that elk are dwindling, or that bears are more carnivores than humans, or any of the countless comments you've implied I said that I didn't.
Those tactics are cheap shortcuts, and I've reached the end of my patience accommodating them. If you want a thoughtful debate with me, this is going to have to come to a screeching halt; until then, I'm not responding to any more of your posts.
Posted by mytwosense on August 22, 2007 02:36 PMWords mean something MTS. You of all people should know that. You imply crap and then step back when people call you on your half assed BS. And you know it. You can call names twist peoples comments and words but when called on it you refuse to continue to dialogue. You step into you own crap and then claim it is not your crap.
You did not say hunters should question. You said "If you want to incorporate hunted animals into such a regime, you still have to question if in this day and age, you are doing more damage than not to our natural resources, which are quickly dwindling. " I used elk as that was the animal you used in your analogy. A wrong 1 at that.
You are the queen of passive aggressive behaviour at its worst. Yes it has come to a screeching halt as I do not respect anyone who puts forth information that is not true and then when questioned on it, resorts to attacks through implied means.
“I addressed the issue of humans as predators in my last post on that thread, in response to another poster who referred to humans as predators.”
I am the poster MTS is referring to here, and I have to point out (solely for the sake of accuracy) that I never said humans were predators in my previous posts I said they are omnivores. Technically, omnivores are not full time predators, and some are not predators at all (they are scavengers). I used the term omnivore because it is the most technically accurate. Omnivores eat both meat and vegetation (and sometimes fungus and alge), the proportions they eat of each varies from species to species. A species need not be designed to prey on animal to be meat eaters (either carnivores or omnivores).
Also, many species have what I will call “design flaws” so saying that our teeth and claws are underpowered does not mean we are not biologically omnivores. Big cats may have better teeth and claws (which gives them an advantage when competing with other animals) but we have better stereoscopic vision which gives us a different kind of advantage.
Additionally, a tiger (and most carnivores/omnivores) could survive on an entirely plant based diet (containing the right balance of fats, proteins and carbs for that species) as long it was enhanced by enough (appropriate) vitamins, minerals, enzymes and chew toys. But it would still be a carnivore (unless potentially, that diet was maintained for many hundred-thousands to millions of years, and it proved advantageous enough to shift the species genotypically and phenotypically to become an herbivore. A remote possibility.)
Biologically, a few structures that indicate we are omnivores are: 1) Teeth and jaws that can process both meat (canines/insisors) and plants (moderately broad flat molars). 2) The musculature in the teeth and jaws are also somewhere between what we see in exclusive herbivores and exclusive carnivores. 3) Our intestines are approximately midway between herbivores and carnivores. 4) We do not process raw meat well, but at one time we did (non-functioning appendix). But we also don’t process cellulose at all. 5) We have great stereoscopic vision (a trait in most carnivores). The list could go on and on. Essentially, on a biological basis we have the ability to eat a huge range of foods (and in a variety of proportions). Historically, there have been populations of humans that have survived on diets of entirely meat, and those who have survived on entirely non-meat diets (though I think most of those did use milk/eggs, but am not certain.) That goes back to the omnivore thing, omnivores have great flexibility in what we can process because we are designed for meat and vegetation among other foods.
Even if you think we SHOULD not eat meat. You cannot argue that we HAVE eaten meat for millions of years. We have evidence of meat eating at least as far back as Homo habilis (probably further back I am just not up on the most current research). Our closest relatives as you point out do eat meat. It would be highly unlikely that we would have thrived as a species if we spent the last few million years eating a biologically incompatible diet.
MTS,
I just got back into town. I hadn’t realized you responded to my post (I assumed it was a dead thread). I don’t have time to respond today. But I will try to get a response in (didn’t want you to think I was either avoiding or ignoring the questions you put to me). I can post a response either here or on the other thread, makes no difference to me.
Since I started this thread, I thought I'd jump back in for a minute and add a couple of points. First, the question isn't whether humans are designed to eat meat or not. It's what kind of treatment an animal receives prior to being slaughtered. The first response to my letter posted by "Dravur" said that cattle wouldn't be alive to begin with if they weren't going to be farmed and destroyed. Well, that's a pretty humane concept, isn't it? You know, I visited a killing floor at a meat-packing house in Omaha Nebraska once; I stood on a blood-soaked floor watching the process from start to finish - and I can tell you that those animals know what's going to happen to them when they come down the chute. I can also tell you that I've seen cows kept as pets play and respond with affection to kindness. They are sentient and social beings (so are pigs). - And if we, as a supposedly superior intellect, are going to intentionally give life to such a being, we should at least allow it to enjoy that life. Containing purposely reproduced animals in cramped and unsanitary conditions until they're "harvested" is just cruel. Second, natural predators (such as wolves) typically cull only the old and weak from whatever group of animals they rely on as prey. That encourages the continuation of the strongest and healthiest specimens of those animals for future generations. Humans, on the other hand, prefer to kill only the biggest and strongest for themselves - either by design through genetic "farming" (pass the steak sauce to Dravur), or in the wild as trophies for hunters. ...And that's NOT the way nature intended it to be. BTW - I've been a competitive athlete for the majority of my life, and I've done pretty well without eating beef or pork. Pass the salmon filet.
Posted by Hale Hilsabeck on August 27, 2007 02:38 AM