Is Meat Murder?

NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM :pac:


































(and that's all I have to say about that).

liah wrote: »

a) being mauled to death by a carnivorous predator and having my internal organs ripped out for me to see as I lay dying,
b) dying in the wilderness of disease, old age or starvation and slowly being eaten alive by scavengers, or
c) being shot in the head before I even know what's going on,

I'd definitely go with c.

Not the point. Most animals are bred for human consumption. None of the options above apply if the animal isn't bred this way.

Sigh. Do we have to go through this AGAIN, OP?!?

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Not the point. Most animals are bred for human consumption. None of the options above apply if the animal isn't bred this way.

But if they weren't bred that way they would face either option a or option b. No other options are available to them (except, perhaps, being hit by a car).

Tbh if it comes from a well-regulated and humane source it's really not the worst thing in the world you could do to the animal. Releasing them to the wild would be far more dangerous, not even just for the animals themselves but for the damage it would do to the environment.

liah wrote: »

But if they weren't bred that way they would face either option a or option b. No other options are available to them (except, perhaps, being hit by a car).

Tbh if it comes from a well-regulated and humane source it's really not the worst thing in the world you could do to the animal. Releasing them to the wild would be far more dangerous, not even just for the animals themselves but for the damage it would do to the environment.

I haven't thought this out much and it might be unworkable but you would continue to consume all the living animals but bred no more. The animal would become extinct.

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I haven't thought this out much and it might be unworkable but you would continue to cosume all the living animal but bred no more. The animal would become extinct.

Yes, it would. It would not be able to be released into the wild because it's so domesticated it would be very easy prey for natural predators. It would destroy farmers' crops and any other herbivorous species in the area by taking all of their food. From there it's just a chain reaction.

Eating them actually gives these animals a decent life before the slaughter (again, assuming it's regulated and humane), keeps the species alive and keeps the environment relatively balanced.

Mass vegetarianism would actually be doom. Vegetarians tend not to understand the purposes of culling to keep nature's delicate balance. If you disrupt one thing, especially one as major and integral to society as meat, it has the potential to do irrevocable damage to pretty much everything from the economy to the environment. At least this particular way of culling (eating meat) serves a purpose (feeding us) and isn't just wasting the animal as would surely have to be done were we to live in a vegan world to keep numbers reasonable.

The only way to compromise would have to be a seriously long-term plan (too long for any of us to see the benefits of) to slowly phase out meat while simultaneously limiting breeding and introducing a wholly domesticated species into the wild.

Could take centuries to do it right.

No, but force feeding Morrissey fillet steaks until he dies, is.

Lets do that.

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

You are giving the animal a life for our own selfish needs. The animal doesn't need to exist. That's like saying 'at least we gave the slaves a life in the first place'.

I agree with the impact on the environment the lack of some animals would have but it would need to be carefull researched and planned. It's not impossible.

I'm not even sure quite how to respond to that particular angle. You're saying it's better for it to not exist at all than to live a potentially happy life alongside people?

And why is it so horrific when we kill and eat animals as per our instinct but don't flinch at all when animals kill each other much more violently? It's the same thing. Animals killing animals. It's just how the world works.

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Yes. Do you think a cows life is basically grazing in the meadow all day?

Hypotheticaly speaking, imagine all the animals in the world became extinct and there was growing calls for humans to be farmed for us to eat. Would you support it or go veggie? Breeding humans just so they can be killed when fat sounds ridiculous but it's not that far removed from doing the same with animals.

Yes, because, quite honestly, it is. Wild bison, buffalo, water buffalo, etc-- 80% of their time awake (or something quite near it) is spent with their face to the ground eating. If they're not eating, they're moving to somewhere they can eat more.

This is exactly how domesticated cows are kept. They're kept on one pasture til they run out then they're moved to the next. All they give a damn about is food.

And it is a bit far removed from doing the same with animals. It's rare that any species eats its own kind for food (excluding cases of mothers eating their children to ensure the strongest survive, that's a bit different). Only a select few species are true cannibals, most would eat anything before their own kind. I don't see it as a like comparison.

We are animals doing what animals do. If they were dominant they would eat us. It's the balance of life. I don't get why it's such a sin for us to eat them but not another predator to eat them. At least we care enough to try and make it humane (not all, but regulation is making this better a bit at a time). Other animals don't afford each other the right to a humane death.