If you had to slaughter and dress the animals you use for food, would you still eat meat?

No.

Certainly. Probably I'd eat less meat but that's just because I'm lazy; if I had to grow my own carrots I'd probably eat less of them too.

Probably not. When the kids sold their ducks at a 4-H auction I had to take the ducks to the slaughter house, it was horrible! The smell, the feathers flying around, I couldn't eat chicken for quite a while after that.

Well, I suppose if I were always of the belief that farm animals were created for food (without any other awareness), then yes...I could and would. But if I suddenly had to do it NOW, after living a life without exhibiting any form on cruelty to animals (farm or otherwise), then...no, I could kill them or hunt them. Not in a million years.

Sure.

I grew up watching my grandmother chase a chicken around her yard, catch it, and then chop its head off with an axe. I'm sure I could do it, too.

For a short period of time, my boyfriend and I were flirting with an idea of doing our own venison. Like get licences and riffles, shoot the deer, take it home, skin it and separate all the parts, freeze the stuff we don't want to use and then have the rest sit in the bathtub for 24 hours while marinating. Way too much work.

I don't eat meat. Don't fancy milking cows, though.

I'm a vegetarian, but if we all had to do this, I would actually be much more likely to eat meat.

It's hard to say without living that way first. I'd likely go through a phase where I didn't eat meat. But, then I'd start to crave it, perhaps. And, maybe that would motivate me to do it. It isn't an appealing thing to do, but I don't think I have an inherent block against doing it. Then, if I continued to do it (which seems likely). It would bother me less and less and I'd develop efficient ways to do it that minimized the unpleasant aspects. I'd build great mechanized machines that did it for me with speed, precision, and infinite compassion.

Yes, I would. In fact, I would prefer it to our current inhumane "food factory" setup for meat animals. This way, I would at least be assured the animals were not being mistreated.

> I'm a vegetarian, but if we all had to do this, I would actually be
> much more likely to eat meat.


Ahhh, keep track of the process from start to finish.

Not as often and smaller animals.

Yes

I would still eat fish and chicken, since I think I could manage dressing those myself. Larger animals would be more difficult, so I might not eat them. I didn't eat meat except for fish for a couple of years, because I felt that I didn't want to eat something I wouldn't kill myself. But eventually I got to a place where I felt that I would be willing to kill the meat myself, even if I might technically not be able to. It would be hard to kill a pig or a cow, and it's not just that they're big and that pigs squeal a lot; there's the fact that I like animals, too. But I also respect the fact that we're higher on the food chain than they are, and so this is how it goes. Meat is an important part of my diet, and I don't feel the need to be sentimental about it.

No

Exactly, and people in general would probably be eating less, as dab said.

Probably considerably less meat, the same way I'd get new clothes less often if I had to weave and tailor them myself.

If I had to...uh yeah. Something tells me buying a can of beans wouldn't really be an option at that point.
And besides, if I grew up with that I'd be okay with it. And I might be killed if I didn't eat the meat.

I would only ever kill an animal myself if I had no other way of getting food, so assuming that's case the case, then yes I would. I'd probably be a baby and get upset about it the first time, but I'd get over it.

I'd eat even more meat. Dress them? They would look sooo cute!

Yes, probably. At first I would feel uncomfortable and hesitate (like most people here), but in the end I would do it if it means I need to reasonable sustain myself.

Remember, thats how cavemen used to live. Not only that, they had no qualms killing other people, so I doubt they lost too much sleep over animals. Its certainly in our DNA to be capable of doing it. The fact that most of us would be uncomfortable doing it is learned behavior.

I'm too lazy. I prefer my chicken dead and cooked when we meet.

Back when I was perhaps 5 years old, sitting at supper, I asked my mother, "Mom, how do they make meat?" She explained to me that meat comes from animals and they have to be killed and we were eating the bodies of these animals. I asked her what kinds of animals, and she explained the beef in the meatloaf came from cows. If we were eating ham or pork chops, that comes from pigs, etc.

(this part, I don't remember myself. My mother told me this many times in later years)A couple days later, she was preparing a chicken for dinner and I was watching her. Apparently I was still processing the info about where meat came from, because I asked her, "That chicken is dead, huh Mom?" "Yes Curt, the chicken is dead." "He can't play in the yard with his friends anymore, huh Mom?" "No Curt, he can't play with his friends any more." "Does his mom and dad miss him?" "I don't know Curt." While I don't remember that particular line of questioning on my own, I do remember dinner that evening, because I inadvertently caused my mother a great deal of upset. At the table, I noticed the end of a vein protruding from a piece of thigh meat and asked what it was. My mother explained it was just a vein, nothing to worry about. I then asked what happened to the chicken's blood, at which point, my mother completely lost her appetite and left the table. I was upset, because I knew I had disturbed her, but didn't really understand how or why. It was not until years and years later that I grasped that my mother was a study in unintegrated values. She still eats meat, but she cannot really bear the thought of where it comes from. I once asked her if that's how she feels, why does she eat meat to begin with. She can only say she likes meat, but doesn't like thinking about where it came from.

Most people here seem quite willing to deal with the reality of meat, but I have noticed that there are also a lot of people like my mother who are perfectly content to eat meat so long as someone else "does the dirty work" and frankly, this is something I don't fully understand. But it troubles me a bit. It seems to me that we are creating a societal model that doesn't fit in the real world around us. A model that doesn't fit into reality, sooner or later must fall apart. As for myself, ever since I fully grasped exactly what meat is and it's source, I have understood that the person who eats meat is operating on exactly the same moral level as the butcher or the hunter.

I was wondering if anyone was going to make that pun!

Your mother sounds a lot like my sister. However, my sister is anemic so she doesn't have many alternatives although she's tried them all and found out in the end it's much easier for her to just eat meat.

My sister is extremely sensitive about animals. I made her cry inadvertently just by talking about the Lion King.

I'll tell you what, in general I have infinitely more respect for an in-your-face vegetarian-on-a-mission such as Wicksy than I do for someone like this loudmouthed bank teller or sales rep or whatever he was that I overheard a couple years ago in Pudsuckers, holding forth on what a depraved, despicable, disgusting, primitive and barbaric sport hunting is, as he's sitting there stuffing his face with a big ole greasy cheeseburger. It did not seem to occur to him for an instant that his vitriolic castigation of hunting and hunters might, juuuust might carry a bit more weight without that honking big slab of cow in his "lily-white" paws.

Everyone's a bit of a hypocrite...

I don't see an issue with hunting, as long all the food is eaten in the end, and it's not a rare or an endangered species.

Am I the only one here envisioning some grim S&M scene involving frilly lingerie?

Yes, that would have a huge impact, but I'm already vegetarian except when dining with others.

Great story. though vegetarian, I'm also in that camp of belief that if you are actually going to eat meat, you need to be willing to slaughter animals you saw play with their little animal friends. Since I actually put animal emotions on the par with our own, I go a step further and feel that if you are to eat animals, you need to be ok with eating your friends and family, and being eaten yourself.

If it were your care in question, the standards for humane raising of meat would be considerably different than they are now.

Here's an idea for settling the matter, hand to hand combat, along with appropriate handicapping to give an even chance. If you can knock out that chicken while nude with your wrists lashed to your ankles, that chicken is fair game.

"But I also respect the fact that we're higher on the food chain than they are" - This food chain you speak of, is this because we 'can' eat them?

By that token, I suppose one could be complacent when the Canadians come down the border like Morloch in their helicopters picking us off with rifles. "I have to respect that those Canadians are higher on the food chain than us, so that's just how it goes. "

If it's not might which makes right, but bioligical necessity, then I still say that the rights of tigers aren't being met, and we should be sending students who fail algebra into the jungles at night.

Ultimately there's no making a solid argument that our lives are worth more than those of others. Heck, from an ecological standpoint one could even argue that the rest of the earth's flora and fauna would prosper more without us. That said, 'might makes right' is really all we have going in this matter.

I suppose there once was an age, pre-biblical, with it's own religious philosophies to suit, in which tigers and crocodiles really were perceived as higher on the food chain than us. It's the way of nature. Someone has to feed the tigers.

> Great story. though vegetarian, I'm also in that camp of belief that
> if you are actually going to eat meat, you need to be willing to slaughter
> animals you saw play with their little animal friends. Since I actually
> put animal emotions on the par with our own, I go a step further and
> feel that if you are to eat animals, you need to be ok with eating
> your friends and family, and being eaten yourself.
>



Fair enough. However, at the risk of appearing a hypocrite to you, I will say that if I am to be eaten (and if you have read my preferences for when I am old and infirm you will realize this is a risk I am prepared to face), I prefer to not be eaten by another human being. And I also prefer to not eat human flesh myself. The issue of cannibalism I view as apart from the issue of meat eating. It may not in fact be completely rational, but there it is. I prefer to be eaten by a wolf or a cougar, or even to face the risk of commencing to be fed on by vultures or other scavengers while still living, than to be devoured by a fellow human being.

I don't think your analogy fits. If the Canadians came in with guns and helicopters, we'd fight back, and whoever was the better shot (or won the war, or whatever) would be at the top of the metaphorical food chain (since we don't actually eat others of our species). A pig or a cow or a chicken can also fight back, but they're not likely to win. We evolved the ability to outthink other animals for our survival. A tiger could in theory eat us, sure, but the human species has nevertheless managed to avoid extinction via predation for a long time. Our ability to thwart predators is why I say we're at the top of the food chain. I'm not saying the planet is better off with us here, either. It's not a question of "might makes right" because I'm not framing it as right and wrong. It just is. Animal meat and byproducts like dairy and eggs provide a really good way to get many of the nutrients that we need; it's not the only way for most of them, sure, but it's probably the best. If you were a vegan and gave all of these up, you would have to resort to supplements to make sure you were getting the necessary nutrients, which in my book shows that humans aren't meant to be vegans.

As a society, we have developed a desire to protect our communities by, say, not giving our less-intelligent children to tigers for food. We actually do a lot to protect endangered species globally (although not as much as we could, I'm sure), but as with all species, we're invested in protecting our own species first and foremost. A tiger wouldn't give its food to a starving human, either. We privilege our own species, and personally, I don't have a problem with that. That's where I fundamentally disagree with Wicksy on the issue.

The argument I find more persuasive is the effect that raising animals for food has on the environment. We mostly eat animals that we specifically breed to be food, so there's little concern over endangerment or extinction; seafood is the one exception, and yet many people who don't eat meat still eat fish. But raising things like cattle, or farming salmon, or fishing for tuna, has a serious environmental impact. If people are really interested in helping make a healthier planet, they should insist that food-animals be raised sustainably, and that only fish from safe, healthy fisheries be caught. If you're not willing to be a strict vegan, then this affects you.

> Most people here seem quite willing to deal with the reality of meat,
> but I have noticed that there are also a lot of people like my mother
> who are perfectly content to eat meat so long as someone else "does
> the dirty work" and frankly, this is something I don't fully understand.
> But it troubles me a bit. It seems to me that we are creating a
> societal model that doesn't fit in the real world around us. A model
> that doesn't fit into reality, sooner or later must fall apart. As
> for myself, ever since I fully grasped exactly what meat is and it's
> source, I have understood that the person who eats meat is operating
> on exactly the same moral level as the butcher or the hunter.

You just can't beat the human ability to compartmentalize. We're very, very good at not thinking about things that we don't want to think about. It seems to be a pretty deeply-rooted biological mechanism, rather than a creation of our society.

I was making the presumption in this fantasy of the Canadians being the victorious predators for which such food chain hierarchies became accepted.
Well then, it's "might makes 'just is'". Either way my point is that we can't make some moral claim for eating animals.

I am one of these fishy people.
Farming can improve by orders of magnatude. Fisheries in deep sea cages are one method. In general a more varied feed diet would improve products.
I never published it, but I wrote quite a legislative bill on global species replenishment, basically making even harvesting old growth redwood or cuban mahogany illegal to import on a seasonal inventory import basis, such that the old growth quantities wold not be diminished in generations or centuries to come. It's not a go/no-go endangered species list, but applies to quantities of everything from chickens to salmon.

I came up with this as an instrument manufacturer. I want access to rare woods, but not at the cost of endangerment. Rare legal markets are better than black markets. The key is a global interenet inventory system. If you walk through the airport with a bag of feathers, set of wood bowls, or lemur purse, customs needs to flip through online up-to-the-minute quotas or look up your purchase reservation. The system is of course more involved, involving farming, wholesale, lotteries, allotments, and such;Three independent agencies would have to confirm each resource; but for what it would accomplish, the man-hour and retail nuissance overhead is nearly on the par with sales taxes, and accomplishes not diminishing any natural resource in a practical usage manner.

As is, the guy selling you the rare green and black checkered teak on eBay may not mention that these are from the last 12 trees in Java. If someone clones and farms them though, great.

I wish something similar were possible for minerals (but they can't replenish). A century from now people will own jewelry slivers of what were once gorgeous opal boulder sculptures.

~

As to the fish, one of my backburner projects is robotic hunting lures. People have no idea how much of the wrong fish for boat packaging is tossed back dead. For wild shrimp, actual shrimp may be 1/15th of the catch. The rest should at least be saved as animal feed, although, as is so often the case, this concern may not take in the big picture. That dead catch return probably still feeds shrimp and other sea life. Very disturbing is that many fish at the grocery now are the result of destructive unsustainable deep-sea ocean-bottom scraping now that surface species can't keep up with demands. International protected replenishment zones are one of the best ideas we've come up with yet so far. Consumers just don't know that they are often buying into our planet's demise.

Hunting, especially without guns, along national migratory greenbelt stretches, would actually make more sense. There's no greater proof of sustainability than an eco sytem created by nature. When we feed cattle, we have to factor in the soy, the forests and fruits the soy displaces, the frogs and leopards who lived on those... If you harvest from a closed complete eco-system the environmental impact is more obvious, and the sustainability more calculable as well.

> You just can't beat the human ability to compartmentalize. We're very,
> very good at not thinking about things that we don't want to think
> about. It seems to be a pretty deeply-rooted biological mechanism,
> rather than a creation of our society.

You may be right, but I'm not really too sure about this. This kind of compartmentalization was probably not possible in tribal cultures such as the American Indians, Australian and African bushmen. In these cultures, the activities that provided meat for the tribe were very much on display and the whole tribe took part in the processing of the meat. I suspect the compartmentalization is a result of modern society's division of labor model. Have you ever read Upton Sinclair's 1906 novel The Jungle? The publication of this book led to a whole slew of new regulations concerning the purity of food and such. The irony of it was that Sinclair wrote the book to shine a light on the plight of immigrant labor in the US meat industry, but what shocked the American public was the revelation about such things as what was in the potted meat and sausages they were buying and eating. I mention this novel though, because I believe it was perhaps only a few decades prior to that time that a significant enough portion of the American public was sufficiently alienated from the process of food production for this compartmentalization to set in and take root.

I agree. Also, people would appreciate food more if they actually have to obtain it themselves. They would't be so wasteful either.

The whole fish issue is really frustrating. There's plenty of fish that's perfectly fine to eat from an environmental perspective, but in grocery stores it tends to be so poorly labeled that the only thing you can ever be sure is safe is trout. It's very annoying, especially when you're trying to up your fish intake in order to have a healthier diet!

Oh, I meant compartmentalization in general. Our ability to block information out and to focus on what we want to see is deeply embedded. What specific things we are focusing on or blocking out are certainly variable and depend on the current social setting, so in that sense our relationship to our food is a product of the current state of various food industries and our general cultural dissociation from the sources of our food. But the tendency to not think too hard about things that we find disturbing has deep, deep roots.

Please pass on your environmental fish recommendations.

I figure things from Alaska are better than others, but that's just a guess that they keep things to a replenishable rate their and aren't damming the rivers there. Anything farmed seems an obvious safe choice. I like campanies like Sun Chips which mention on their packaging things like solar powered factories.

Ah yes, I see. Perhaps I was compartmentalizing in my reply. You are right of course.

> Anything farmed seems an obvious safe choice.

But not necessarily either the most nutritious or tastiest though. I much prefer wild-caught catfish, for example, to the insipid and bland farm raised ones.

Woah, I know I haven't been around in a while but...where's the question? How did this pass?

> Woah, I know I haven't been around in a while but...where's the question?
> How did this pass?


Well, the question, as usual is right at the head of the survey, to wit: If you had to slaughter and dress the animals you use for food, would you still eat meat?

I don't understand the confusion...

Oh yeah. I can see the question on the 'Reply' page, but when I open up the survey itself it still isn't there. I just changed my color scheme and it's still not there. Weird.

I use the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch, which they update regularly. Fish from Alaska, and from the Pacific generally, is usually good since those fisheries are better maintained. Fish from the Atlantic and the Mediterranean is generally bad. The problem is that it's not always labeled and I can't assume that all fish in California comes from the Pacific. Also, farmed fish isn't always good. Farmed salmon is an environmental disaster and tends to be full of antibiotics and PCBs. Farmed shrimp in some places is bad too, I think. It's all really incredibly frustrating.

Ah. Yeah, I played around with the color scheme once myself, decided to stay with just the generic setup. Easier to read that way.

Thanks. I like catfish but haven't seen it around here in a decade.

I figure it's a short time before food is labelled 'sustainable' with a number of stars the way things are labelled 'organic' now. Having two independent ratings in such matters would be better. I saw an app on that MBA site a touch like I had envisioned years ago, in which one scans their potential groceries with their iPhone and gets independent environmental/labor/safety rating comparisons.

I would be too distracted to eat it. I'd be too busy making their outfits look just right.

> I'll tell you what, in general I have infinitely more respect for
> an in-your-face vegetarian-on-a-mission such as Wicksy than I do for
> someone like this loudmouthed bank teller or sales rep or whatever
> he was that I overheard a couple years ago in Pudsuckers, holding
> forth on what a depraved, despicable, disgusting, primitive and barbaric
> sport hunting is, as he's sitting there stuffing his face with a big
> ole greasy cheeseburger. It did not seem to occur to him for an instant
> that his vitriolic castigation of hunting and hunters might, juuuust
> might carry a bit more weight without that honking big slab of cow
> in his "lily-white" paws.

Respect man

> As a society, we have developed a desire to protect our communities
> by, say, not giving our less-intelligent children to tigers for food.
> We actually do a lot to protect endangered species globally (although
> not as much as we could, I'm sure), but as with all species, we're
> invested in protecting our own species first and foremost. A tiger
> wouldn't give its food to a starving human, either. We privilege our
> own species, and personally, I don't have a problem with that. That's
> where I fundamentally disagree with Wicksy on the issue.
>

Of course we have to put ourselves first. But do we put ourselves first at the expense of the cruetly inflicted to others animals?

Is there a line we cannot cross?

It appears not. What I see is that the human race is so determined to survive, that we inflict as much pain as possible to other species in order to maxamise our gains! For example. the food market. We cram ten thousand chickens into one shed to maximise profits. We castrate pigs without anathestic because it is cheaper. We trim the beaks of chicks so that they don't injure other chickens (not because we care for the other chickens, but because one injured chicken is less profit).

The list goes on and on.

The real problem here is over crowding of human beings. There are too many of them! That's why we need to adopt the old Chinese policy of one child per family. But that will never happen because of our liberties (when animals have NO liberties).

I keep going back to my favourite word: hypocrisy. It's okay to cruelly castrate a pig in a farm, but if you cruelly castrate a pet dog, you could end up in prison. Why? Because it does not favour the human. Does the castrated pig favour us? Yes!

This, my friends, is the problem. We are TOO selfish. As we are the most intelligent animals on earth, it's our responsibility to show the others how it's done. Except we don't do this, we do the complete opposite.

> I would be too distracted to eat it. I'd be too busy making their
> outfits look just right.



Dat's two now. Crayons beat ya to it, Linda.

> Respect man

> Does the castrated pig favour us? Yes!
>

Us who? Us the consumer? Perhaps, very slightly in a slightly lower price for pork at the store, but not very significantly. The consumer would probably get a better product if the pigs were not castrated at all. But, the modern consumer would not at first understand this. An uncastrated animal used for food does not have as much bulk, so we would get less meat per pig. But the meat we would get would have a higher nutritional value because there would be less fat and less water per kilogram of meat. (this part following is rather subjective)We would also get, in my opinion, a better tasting product. Most people nowadays would likely disagree here as they are so used to the bland meat now generally commercially available. But the meat from an uncastrated animal is more strongly flavored ( that 'wild' or 'game' taste that puts some off venison) which I happen to like very much.

> This, my friends, is the problem. We are TOO selfish. As we are the
> most intelligent animals on earth, it's our responsibility to show
> the others how it's done. Except we don't do this, we do the complete
> opposite.
>

Ah, showing the others how it's done? For what purpose? Most of the other animals we share this planet with are not in a position to learn much that would be useful to them. The ones that have learned, such as dogs and horses, have essentially become our slaves. And for the most part, they seem content with that lot. But I sincerely doubt any animal, with the possible exceptions of porpoises and whales, have any capacity to learn such subjects as ethics, courtesy or morality.

I have in the past raised free ranging chickens for eggs and meat because I knew the chickens would have a far better life until the deed. I gave it up, not only because it was more expensive, but because I just plain couldn't do the deed anymore. I have tried several times to go vegan or vegetarian (with help from vegan and veggie friends) but my body rebels. I eat free range chicken that has freedom until the deed. I will continue to search for the perfect non-meat diet until I am successful. If I lived the survival life and needed to eat I would harvest animals from the wild just like they do. Probably wouldn't do it with a gun which would then put me on the same level as them. It isn't about eating meat, it is about how we do it and with such disrespect. The whole meat market makes me sick and luckily I live in an alternative thinking town where people treat the animals with respect and we can buy local free-ranging. So I have enough vegan and veggie friends who are helping me with a healthy diet so someday my body won't rebel anymore. I think there might be something to the whole O Neg blood type thing, which I am.

That's how I grew up... Or as my ol' pappy used to say, "Rabbit or no meat". In other words you eat what you kill and don't let the Bambi ideology get in the way. We killed, butchered cows, pigs, sheep (still hate mutton because of the taste, not because it came from a animal), rabbits, fish, ducks, deer, elk, moose, and chickens. I used to love it when we butchered, meant there would be a gut pile and I could hunker down and sniper magpies when they came to feed on the pile.

We ate a lot of beef, I used to love Sundays because that was when we had fried chicken.

FOR THE VEGGIE TYPES HERE, MY ANCESTORS DID NOT CLAW THEIR WAY TO THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN TO EAT VEGGIES.

> I'll tell you what, in general I have infinitely more respect for
> an in-your-face vegetarian-on-a-mission such as Wicksy than I do for
> someone like this loudmouthed bank teller or sales rep or whatever
> he was that I overheard a couple years ago in Pudsuckers, holding
> forth on what a depraved, despicable, disgusting, primitive and barbaric
> sport hunting is, as he's sitting there stuffing his face with a big
> ole greasy cheeseburger. It did not seem to occur to him for an instant
> that his vitriolic castigation of hunting and hunters might, juuuust
> might carry a bit more weight without that honking big slab of cow
> in his "lily-white" paws.

Yeah, Cprasky, I hear about the hypocracy. I grew up in the mountains and came from a family who hunted but it was more of a "harvesting from the wild" thing. Yet, every October this whole frenzy of "Let's go put a bullet in something" with the full fledge camo and gear just screams it is about sport and not about survival. I'm not cutting down the sportsman as much as I would like them to look deep inside and really ask themselves why they do it. To actually have the guts to say just that, "I am going sporting because I like to shoot things" instead of lying to themselves and pretending they are the mighty hunter. My dad hunted and hates sport hunting. He had to put meat on the table for our large family. I choose to find alternatives.

> That's how I grew up... Or as my ol' pappy used to say, "Rabbit or
> no meat". In other words you eat what you kill and don't let the
> Bambi ideology get in the way. We killed, butchered cows, pigs, sheep
> (still hate mutton because of the taste, not because it came from
> a animal), rabbits, fish, ducks, deer, elk, moose, and chickens.
> I used to love it when we butchered, meant there would be a gut pile
> and I could hunker down and sniper magpies when they came to feed
> on the pile.

You shot birds while they were eating? Why? What goes on inside of a person who shoots things for fun. We grew up where my Dad hunted and he would have your hide if he saw you shooting things for fun. Maybe only a person in a concentration camp where they were treated as "trash" would understand the feeling of being sniped.

.......This, my friends, is the problem. We are TOO selfish. As we are the
> most intelligent animals on earth, it's our responsibility to show
> the others how it's done. Except we don't do this, we do the complete
> opposite.
>
RIGHT ON, WICKSY!!
>

Yeah, there are an increasing number of ways to try to make sure your food is sustainable, but I like your idea of a sustainability rating for packaging, too. It shouldn't be only the iPhone-enabled who have access to this information!

> we inflict as much pain as possible to other species
> in order to maxamise our gains!

Really? Not to make light of how many factory farms are run--and I agree that it's despicable--but I'm sure we could do much, much worse. And there are many more species out there that we leave alone or even help.

I don't think the answer is "Don't eat meat." I think it's "Treat the animals humanely." The practices you single out have to do with how the animals live, not with the fact that they're eventually being killed and eaten. As I've said before, I try to buy meat and dairy products that come from animals that have lived free-range, been fed healthy diets, haven't been given antibiotics, and have generally been raised in a sustainable manner. In California, where I live, there's a growing trend to legislate humane treatment of livestock animals. It doesn't reach far enough yet, in my opinion, but it's a move in the right direction and an indicator that not everyone thinks the way you accuse us of thinking. I think a lot of people who eat meat probably don't even know about the conditions the animals live in, and because sustainably, humanely raised meat is so much more expensive, they wouldn't buy it if they did. You just aren't going to convince people to give up eating meat, though, so why not focus on ethical treatment and sustainable farming and ranching practices? I think that's something a lot more people would actually get behind.

> I don't think the answer is "Don't eat meat." I think it's "Treat
> the animals humanely."

That's what I have said all along. I have NEVER said we shouldn't eat meat. I only ask that we treat them well.

And we don't...not by a long margin!

> And we don't...not by a long margin!
>

And that is beginning to change. It won't happen overnight though. Patience is required. One of the problems though is, as Enheduanna points out, the cost of humanely raised and slaughtered meat. You can understand that just by checking out the price of a chicken in a kosher butcher shop. However, if enough people choose to buy this kind of meat whenever possible this can raise the demand for it and eventually prices will begin to fall as the meat producers respond to increasing demand.

> Yet, every October this whole frenzy of "Let's
> go put a bullet in something" with the full fledge camo and gear just
> screams it is about sport and not about survival.
>

Well, virtually all the hunters I know are the sporting variety, in it not so much for survival as the sport aspect. Nevertheless, they all eat (or share..) what they kill. And all of them also see to it that their prey is dispatched as quickly as possible so as to minimize the animal's suffering. I don't quite see the "let's put a bullet in something" bit you mention. You can do that at any rifle or gun range. Which these hunters do frequent to hone their skills.

Yeah, I think we have had this conversation before where I live near a pretty neanderthalish (not to insult the neanderthals) area in one part of the valley and enlightened and spiritual in the other where I live. Yet those a lot of those same enlightened also believe that it is ok to "harvest" from the wilds or grow animals for food if one fully respects and sees that that animal gives its life for them. We have been taken out of the food chain because of might and technology not because we so much as deserve the exemption. I know... so many people say "Well, are you going to just sit there and let a cougar eat you!?" where I respond, "Don't be silly. Of course not! I would fight like hell just like all creatures fight like hell to survive. I no longer believe in keeping a confined pet either. That's my evolution and I know it isn't time yet to push that idea onto others. My preference. Ooooohhhhhhh.... a bunch of geese just flew over honking. I love that. I think that all I and Wicksy are saying is that let's even up the score and put everything on level ground. If people were hunted, abused, shot for fun (which some places and times they have been) I think they wouldn't have the stomach for it anymore. Technology has made monsters out of a lot of people from razing the forests to dirt patches to hunting at night with nightvision to high powered scopes., etc. That isn't a mighty hunter. That is a techy with a toy.

> I think that all I and Wicksy are saying is that let's even up the
> score and put everything on level ground. If people were hunted, abused,
> shot for fun (which some places and times they have been) I think
> they wouldn't have the stomach for it anymore.

What does evening up the score mean? Should hunters abandon firearms and hunt only with spears, bows and arrows? This would certainly maximize the "sporting" aspect of hunting. But I thought the point was to minimize the suffering of the animals being hunted. Evening the score in this manner accomplishes exactly the opposite, prolonging the suffering of prey animals.



> Technology has made
> monsters out of a lot of people from razing the forests to dirt patches
> to hunting at night with nightvision to high powered scopes., etc.
> That isn't a mighty hunter. That is a techy with a toy.

Well, I can't really speak to this. So far as I know, night hunting is pretty much illegal everywhere and is called "poaching". I might point out though that someone who does this may well be after the meat more than the sport. Not necessarily so, of course, it just seems more likely to me.

well said

Thank you.

Yes of course I would.
At this time I don't have to do this, I will not. I would find it dificult to bleieve that there would not be a butcher, hunter or a german haus frau nearby to do this task.

Around here it is a sport to hunt at night and it is so far out of the reaches of police to get there and stop it and people not wanting to get involved that it continues. As well as hunting down animals big and small with hounds, treeing them then shooting them. We are trying to put a stop to that and it has become illegal in Oregon but alas it continues.

I didn't mean we should even up the score by hunting with spears, etc. because most would just injure the animal out of lack of talent. My ex-husband bow hunted and I saw him do it with respect. He never shot when he couldn't make a clean shot or while drinking. A lot of drinking hunters here.

In every pros and con or two sides of opinion there is an "original sin" or "event" (sin not meaning bible sin) that started the whole thing and then they split and it built on each side. I would like to take each side and go way way back and find out why it evolved to this or that. Sport hunting evolved because there probably isn't a threshhold for our men (and women) to go over anymore to become a mature male or man so he has to find other ways. Then the technology craze just makes it worse.

Not to judge or anything. Just what is so. It isn't so much about food as it is about sport. I grew up around poor kids in Wilderville from several families (we weren't poor) and they missed school to go out hunting for deer out of season. I don't see that as poaching. I saw it as "good, now they'll get some decent food". That was back in the 60s and early 70s.

I grew up in the wilds. I think those of us who did and lived it with respect are going to pretty much disagree with those who didn't and don't see the real side of how many people see the wilds as a playground in a destructive way.

I do hear you. Maybe I believe differently.

Thanks for you email.
Candace
>

My freshman year in High School, school was shut down for three days shortly after the school year began because over a weekend, some group of thugs in the school had tortured a dog to death, skinned it and left the body in the school's heating ducts. The incident was investigated and the thugs responsible were promptly expelled. I have no idea what motivates such behavior. Such things are completely unconscionable should not be tolerated to any degree. I am not an advocate of gratuitous cruelty to animals at all.

But, I eat meat. I like meat, and my basic thesis remains the same. That is, the person who eats meat operates on the same moral level as the butcher or the hunter.

But the thugs who pulled that "prank" I mentioned are beyond the pale, and it is not to such as they that I refer when I mention the butcher or the hunter.

> My freshman year in High School, school was shut
> down for three days shortly after the school year
> began because over a weekend, some group of thugs
> in the school had tortured a dog to death, skinned
> it and left the body in the school's heating ducts.
> The incident was investigated and the thugs responsible
> were promptly expelled.

I hope their punishment didn't stop at just getting expelled.

>
> But, I eat meat. I like meat, and my basic thesis remains the same.
> That is, the person who eats meat operates on the same moral level
> as the butcher or the hunter.
>
> But the thugs who pulled that "prank" I mentioned are beyond the pale,
> and it is not to such as they that I refer when I mention the butcher
> or the hunter.

I eat meat, too. I am looking at a way not to eat it. Maybe an O- blood thing... maybe not.

Our society is so screwy. AND each and every one of us can choose how to further the screwy-ness or op out and go a different direction. I'm not anti-hunter because I think the moral ones see themselves as "harvesters". Just like I'm not anti-logging but very much anti-abuse, disrespect and just plain leaving a wasteland behind when I lived at a time in the 60s when they use to do a really great job and leave behind a forest. Hey, if Ireland, Scotland, France, etc. can build without wood (except as accents) as the main material why not we-uns. :o)

I was reading about sustainable forestry practices which were British law for centuries; Amazing stuff I wish we would learn again.
60's? Most of the cool giant trees were chopped down at least a century ago. At least they didn't clear-cut much then. 'Coppicing' is the art/science of knowing which trees to fell and which to nurture.

I've been looking into getting a vintage fox coat (something not killed for my sake). It's been a source for much contemplation. I'm not sure farmed fur is worse than farmed food, but then I think sustainable trapping would be more humane in either case. It is more sustainable than acrylics though.

It's not like a eco-cycle requires us harvesting though; More like we can fit into an eco-cycle which makes room for us if we are careful.

Very little is more ecological than wood (which we are vastly running short of) unfortunately. The best answer I've come up with is ceramic modular walls fired in giant solar kilns. Stuff that can last three millenium from a plentiful resource. It could be made with inches of insulating micro-bubbles, is strong, fireproof, durable, decorative (with cool ceramic glazes), and hardly requires a fraction of the energy which goes into far less durable metals or plastics.

It's easy to get screwier to be sure, but not contributing to the screwiness at all is tough if not impossible.

Yeah, The Killarny Forest was about the only place in Ireland where the trees still stand because all the lords given domain by the English cut them and exported them. Brother. They are now trying to restore all the forests. Scotland up in the highlands have these tracts of forests grown just for wood then cut down (clear cut in a good way) then are required by Prince Charles to restore the land to its natural bare braes (mountains). The mountains are huge there. You travel along with water gushing down between the draws then there is this sort of square forest out of nowhere. The problem with harvesting forests by clearcut in America is so many thousands if not millions of species are displaced and killed all for money for wood houses that hardly last longer than a generation or two.

I think you have a great idea about the ceramic houses. Wow. That is a great idea. Maybe make adobe type bricks then adhere them together. Have you looked into manufacturing that? I know Ashland, OR would love to have a factory like that. All natural materials and glazes. So cool. You could make any shape you want. Trippy styles. :o)

As far as fur, is it any different than wearing leather. It is all how the animals lives or suffers before hand. I made sure my chickens had a great life before I "harvested" them. Maybe rabbit fur if they are treated humanly before butchering for meat. I had a rabbit chubby once though I boycott fur now. And with the thought I wouldn't want to be the animal in the trap, had too many pets come home 4 days later with damaged feet because they were trapped in a trap, and we couldn't find them, to see what they do, and I hear you about it being second hand. And everything decision we make is an expression of who we are. I play the bagpipes (played) and had a sporran (purse in front of kilt) made of Appaloosa from Scotland where they said they wait until the horse died of natural causes then used all the parts (they boycott otter, ivory, and seal now in Scotland), and it is beautiful and I caught flack from some people before they heard the story of how the horse was processed. I really think like the Native Americans. I think long and hard before I take anything. And I have my faults with convenience, too. Like everyone.

I can't wait for Halloween. :o)

Candace

I actually have designed a sort of Lego block for such purposes. Included in that is the stained glass versions. I once had plans to make a home by making a Fuller dome of stained glass in a tree motif using green, clear, brown, and blue soda bottles smelted by solar parabola, then grown into a dome using three types of tree I found suitable for the purpose.

My plan this week is houseboat islands made from a bowl lagoon of floating coral with a ring of mangrove trees. It started out as the idea of lighthouse houseboats made from giant sewer pipes. From there I discovered all I need is to weave rope and other garbage full of wire strands into a bowl with a windmill or solar electricity to grow a metal hull by electrolysis. The ocean is full of particalized metal, so one just needs to apply a few volts over the years to grow metal ships. The coral farms use the same electrolysis to build up lime and control algae weeds.

Otter, ivory, and seal are all problems for the ruthless overharvesting practices if nothing else. Even exotic hardwoods are quite an issue these days. I have a bill written to protect such things in a sustainable inventory fashion. I hadn't thought of pets in traps. Those could certainly be updated today too. A camera could distinguish between a cat and a mature weasel, shoot a dart directly through the head, and notify the trapper by cell phone. I have a similar plan for robotic deep sea fishing lures to grab specific catches without waste.

What I'd really like to see are self-contained city-states, at simplest, like skyscrapers with residences, schools, shops, and factories all on different levels, no reason to leave the building. That, in conjunction with restoring migratory greenbelts latticed across the nation full again of bear, mountain lions, and bison. Our anti-immigration wall has got to be one of the lamest things ever. It's cut off the ability of plenty of anmals to migrate.

When we enter the nanotechnology age, it will be about plumbing streams of electrons, protons, and neutrons the way we do with water and power now, so any commodities you need can be knit at home the way we can print from the internet now. Have you heard they are making body organs with printers these days, stacking up cut-out sheets printed with cells and proteins instead of ink?

I made a rabbit sporran when I was in the Renn Faire as a teen.

My other concern is that no matter how humanely I'm thinking 7 generations ahead, a fox coat might still get me pummelled with florescent paint.

Kristal Rose said:
> What I'd really like to see are self-contained city-states, at simplest, like skyscrapers with residences,
> schools, shops, and factories all on different levels, no reason to leave the building.


Isaac Asimov would've loved you!

Holy cow! Do you have a degree in these sciences because your ideas are amazing! You're not left handed are you? I am.

Even though I live in a fielded and oaked part outside of Ashland (sort of s'urbs) I did live as a child in the mountains (and most of my adult life) and went to a 3-room school, graduating with only 10 kids in the 6th grade (then Jr hi, HS). So the wilds were where I played in conjunction with all the wild life when no other kids were available (and my siblings were mean to me :o) ) and what a world if people would just open their eyes and hearts. Amazing peace and osmosis and getting a long, even with the eating each other. It all fits so well. So I guess I am very protective because it is actually my first and real home: the forest and waters.

What if we didn't need rooms or houses and had a self-contained and retractable bubble around us at all times. Maybe made with those lazer jet cells (what a trip!!!) in transparency (please excuse my spelling) so we walked around in a sort of bio-shell and it's warm or cool and were totally free wheeling. Then when the cells sloughed off our bodies would absorb them for food. So there would be all this room for wild life and vegetation, like you said, and also sort of shrines for gatherings. Or little pod places for us to rest but maybe not an address.

And OF COURSE!!!! huge, great, reduction of the human population. Some people say "well, if we managed our resources well we could take care of a growing population" and I say this size of pop. isn't healthy or normal. People are starting to act like primates that are caged with too many numbers. Or gerbils who eat their young when caged because there isn't enough room.

Anyway, great ideas.

Of course I'm left handed.

None of the kids were around to play with Candace so she played with otters and bear.

I had an idea for an iPhone based car that created a holographic lattice of ultrasound to sit on and travel in. No reason one couldn't live in it as well, now that you mention it. If holographic solar cells could be made somehow the system would be complete. I already came up with virtual maser beams for the proton/neutron streams. People on the sunny side of the planet could pump spare energy to those living/sleeping on the night side. We're just a couple centuries away from living like the Olympus/Hindu-pantheon myths, flying down from who knows where to hunt and meddle with the lives of mortals.

If not a reduced population, reduced size. We could evolve to become hummingbirds or ant colonies (I draw the line at hummingbirds myself). Theoretically we could cover the whole planet in an insulated molecular-recycling 2000 level skyscraper and live long past the sun burns out, and possibly even use jupiter as fuel to get us to the next star system. We already have working solar powered interstellar rocket engines now which pick up space dust atoms and accelerate it to light speed as propellant.

Yeah, I just had one of those compressed society nightmares myself. It would make quite the slasher-movie blockbuster, I fear (far from my hummingbird leanings). Complex story stating at an innocent bridal-shower/stagg-party while flashing to a psychology lecture about the last 70's XXX director, spats and hunting ensue, but essentially ending with what turn out to be a bro and sis reincarnated to eat each others maimed bodies during lovemaking after their truth comes out, and scariest of all, in context this horrid graphic scene is a sweet happy ending.

I don't actually think society is in any way any more barbaric than it's ever been. More lethargic and complacent perhaps though (prepared for the ant-colony transmogrifier beam-gun).

Wow. What you said. :o)

Being a crow and wind totem myself (though hummingbirds are the symbol of the Ba'hai faith (my ex husband was one and so was Seals and Crofts so that's cool ) ) I wouldn't like any kind of "skin" or "bubble" over this planet unless we did reach a state of no sun. I am slowly excepting that we can never go back to the first and original state of this Earth but maybe we can go back to the gentler side of us. I agree that I don't think the deepest and natural part of humans are barbaric or war-like; I think it is love. It is just that what love really means has been warped. Love is now in many cases "need". Or "power". Thus I am going to answer the new question on this survey "What is the greatest gift I have ever given" so catch that one.

And trust me, I still have a long row to sow for my self improvement, too. That will never end. "A true master is never a master and always a student."

C. :o)

I have an album signed by Seals and Croft, found at the thrift store. I'm Eagle, Crow, and ancient Giant River Otter myself (maybe tree kangaroo)(and apparently Hummingbird). I can definitely see them as Ba'hai - social dancers. A new neighbor identified me as being part of the 'high vibe tribe' with my flock of hummers.

I heard a good buddhist lecture on the near and far enemies of virtues. Near enemies are the ones which can be confused for being the virtues, and the far are the opposites. I figure when I stop learning, I've stopped living (excepting those states of being one with the flow).

I just learned recently that the giant otters of my visions still exist in places like Belize.

Just in case anyone is interested in finding a source for more humanely raised meats you might want to check out http://www.blackwing.com/index.php I just placed a largish order with them for some buffalo meat, some pheasants and some elk. I then wrote an email inquiring about castration policies. I got the following reply:

>Hi Curt,
> We do not geld or castrate any animal. It is not part of the rules of humane raised but our policy. You >castrate animals to make them grow faster or prevent breeding and fighting.
>Please go to Humane raised & handled.org for details of their rules & procedures.
> Last, Beth & I are animal lovers , not hunters and will not tolerate any miss handling or abuse of any >animal. All of our animals are honest free ranged on massive acreage and not by the bogus USDA rules which >are smoke & mirrors and have no real meaning.
>Thank you for your interest & your patronage in Blackwing, We know you will be pleased with our quality, >service, and most importantly , our integrity.
>With Kind regards,
>Roger Gerber
>
>From: Curt Prasky [mailto:cxprasky@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:16 PM
>To: Roger Gerber; Roger Gerber
>Subject: new customer
>
>Dear Roger;
>
>I just placed my first order with your company for a variety of meats. I am just a little curious though >about the meaning of "humanely raised" and have a couple of specific questions. I wonder, do you castrate >your meat animals? And if so, is this done with or without anesthesia?
>

If not free range, perhaps we can make up for it with animal psychologists helping animals comfortably adapt to close quarters by learning new systems of communication, space perception, autonomical self-esteem, and meditation.

..or we can go Matrix style. Give the animals VR goggles and have them think they are free range critters.

{yes, of course I'm messing with you}.

'sokay, I've been on the 'net in one guise or another since 1993 or thereabouts. I've grown a thick skin. The main point with this post though was to address something Wicksy pointed out a while back, about castration practices. Apparently, if the president of the company is to be believed, there are some meat producers who don't castrate at all.

Seems believable enough. They didn't say the males don't become veal though (or cause lots of veal). If it's meat, clearly they do at least kill the guys at some point. I doubt they wait for them to die of old age, or graze them across freeways, crossing their fingers that accidents happen.

> Seems believable enough. They didn't say the males don't become veal
> though (or cause lots of veal). If it's meat, clearly they do at least
> kill the guys at some point. I doubt they wait for them to die of
> old age, or graze them across freeways, crossing their fingers that
> accidents happen.

Well, this is true. Meat is meat, I have been aware of what it is a for a long time. If I am going to eat meat though, I can at the very least try to find sources from which the animals have been treated better than is the case with the feedlot system.

You're too dang serious. Didn't you pause to consider a business herding cattle across freeways hoping for accidents?

> You're too dang serious. Didn't you pause to consider a business herding
> cattle across freeways hoping for accidents?


I would prefer a method in which the cattle didn't suffer as much as they would in an automobile accident. Perhaps the kosher method of shechita.

I sense psychic animal screams from the local kosher butcher. I'm not convinced about their methods. Except when the blade is blocking the artery, being upside down ensures that blood does continue to occupy the brain of the unstunned animal, and I suspect that is the ritual intent, to keep the animal's soul present. I'm reminded of komodo dragons which eat the less essential organs of their prey over hours while the prey watches in a paralytically drugged trance.

> I sense psychic animal screams from the local kosher butcher. I'm
> not convinced about their methods. Except when the blade is blocking
> the artery, being upside down ensures that blood does continue to
> occupy the brain of the unstunned animal, and I suspect that is the
> ritual intent, to keep the animal's soul present. I'm reminded of
> komodo dragons which eat the less essential organs of their prey over
> hours while the prey watches in a paralytically drugged trance.


Blood may be occupying the brain, but once the vagus nerves are severed, the animal at leats feels no pain. Under Hebrew theology, "The bllod is the life." Part of the ritual involves letting as much of the blood as possible to run into the Earth before proceeding with butchering.

I wonder if just whacking off their head with a sharp katana counts as kosher (it could be considered pushing the blade though). I'd love to see the cow call back in Python 'Jabberwocky' style "Bah, it's just a flesh wound", or in the cart "I'm not dead yet."

That could be another survey 'Would you still eat meat if the animals could speak English?', as Addam's in 'the Restaurant at the End of the Universe' in which the cow comes to the dinner table before butchering, recommending cuts.

> I wonder if just whacking off their head with a sharp katana counts
> as kosher (it could be considered pushing the blade though). I'd love
> to see the cow call back in Python 'Jabberwocky' style "Bah, it's
> just a flesh wound", or in the cart "I'm not dead yet."
>
> That could be another survey 'Would you still eat meat if the animals
> could speak English?', as Addam's in 'the Restaurant at the End of
> the Universe' in which the cow comes to the dinner table before butchering,
> recommending cuts.

Well, Arthur Dent couldn't bring himself to. It would be interesting though, wouldn't it?

Oh, and BTW, no, decapitation wouldn't count as kosher slaughtering. They even go to the trouble of the two strokes for slaughtering kosher chickens and turkeys.

I wonder if they have "double-kosher" meat (kind of like an organic rating) where any carnivore you eat must also have been raised on kosher meats.

That's one thing that strikes me metaphysically about carnivores. Herbivores spring forth straight from the sunshine, while carnivores, if they can be said to be soul eaters, can date their dietary inheritance back to the dawn of creation (where usually only us buried/cremated humans end the chain).

> That's one thing that strikes me metaphysically about carnivores.
> Herbivores spring forth straight from the sunshine, while carnivores,
> if they can be said to be soul eaters, can date their dietary inheritance
> back to the dawn of creation (where usually only us buried/cremated
> humans end the chain).

Thinking about this "ending the chain" bit. Usually cremation will sort of end the chain, though if the ashes are scattered in the ocean or in some field or other, some of our substance is returned to the food chain. Embalming and burying or encrypting does a better job of ending the chain. It is interesting to note though that Jewish burial customs do not. Traditional observant Jews do not embalm the dead. This is one reason that Jews are usually buried so quickly, within 24 hours of death, except if this happens to be during the Sabbath. Then they are buried the day after the Sabbath. Also, tradition calls for a plain, unvarnished pine box. I like this idea a lot, it ensures that humans are constantly being recycled through the biosphere. I wonder how much of Earth's life giving elements have been permanently removed from the bio-cycles through embalming?

Probably more like a few cases of B-vitamins worth and less like the Dark Crystal.

I had a wild dream the other night. I floated over a school dinner gala in a white robe, then piloted a building like a fighter starship through/under the earth against some other political-religious faction doing the same. In both circumstances I was annoyed that people acted afterwards like it had never happened.